Panama Case - Post Verdict Discussion and Updates

[Path-Finder]

got his old deary involved too!

 

[BHarwana]

Nawaz might be taken to attock jail or Mianwali jail.

 

[Path-Finder]

PML-N lawyers wing press conference

haad ho gai hai!! Khada mian da te tareefan Imran di

 

[PakSword]

PML-N lawyers wing press conference

haad ho gai hai!! Khada mian da te tareefan Imran di

Mujhay plan cancel hota hua nazar aaraha hai mian saab ka!

 

[Path-Finder]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1017006345432813581

LoLo ji

 

[Solomon2]

So you fell for it...Now Piss off...yo fell for it too -

Very rude. Posting a lawyer's arguments did not mean I "fell for it" but that I presented them for rebuttal.

You think the corrupt keep receipts of their corruption or leave a money trail for getting caught red handed doing corruption or are there subtle ways of making a commission on the side in stacks of offshore companies to hide their dirty wealth? Which is easier to hide or get rid off, proof of corruption or ownership of Assets?

Nevertheless, you've given a more substantial answer than @PakSword did. Yet you, too, did not answer the specific points the author raised in his op-ed.

Assets beyond means = crime

The standard applied here is, "guilty until proven innocent." I'm not sympathetic. That's not an acceptable legal standard, though of course it may be a legitimate political one. The solution is to vote the b--tard out, not a shaky conviction that could be overturned on appeal, thus creating a vindicated martyr ripe for winning the next election.

Forgery = crime

Yes. If you can't prove the crime it's 100% acceptable to prosecute the attempt at cover-up.

Dem feels = not a legit rebuttal

???

Hope that clears things for you

Thank you, but not quite.

 

[Path-Finder]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1017007855130562560

 

[BHarwana]

The standard applied here is, "guilty until proven innocent." I'm not sympathetic. That's not an acceptable legal standard, though of course it may be a legitimate political one. The solution is to vote the b--tard out, not a shaky conviction that could be overturned on appeal, thus creating a vindicated martyr ripe for winning the next election.

How is this guilty until proven? If you have assets beyond your income then you have to provide the source of those assets being a Govt employ.

 

[Solomon2]

How is this guilty until proven? If you have assets beyond your income then you have to provide the source of those assets being a Govt employ.

"...Section 9 (a) (v) flips the presumption of innocence — a hallmark of the right to a fair trial — and presumes you are guilty. You, the accused, must show you are innocent. It is an absurd provision that violates the very concept of a fair trial. But even with this easy route towards conviction, the judgment falls on its face numerous times. You see, in order to trigger section 9 (a) (v) the prosecution has to prove that a public office holder owned an asset or property which was disproportionate to his means of income. Therefore, the prosecution still had to prove that Nawaz Sharif owned the Avenfield apartments. They couldn’t. The judgment itself admits this. How the judgment still manages to get to this conclusion is a tale of presumptions and gems of logic -"​

 

[BHarwana]

"...Section 9 (a) (v) flips the presumption of innocence — a hallmark of the right to a fair trial — and presumes you are guilty. You, the accused, must show you are innocent. It is an absurd provision that violates the very concept of a fair trial. But even with this easy route towards conviction, the judgment falls on its face numerous times. You see, in order to trigger section 9 (a) (v) the prosecution has to prove that a public office holder owned an asset or property which was disproportionate to his means of income. Therefore, the prosecution still had to prove that Nawaz Sharif owned the Avenfield apartments. They couldn’t. The judgment itself admits this. How the judgment still manages to get to this conclusion is a tale of presumptions and gems of logic -"​

Also read the other part where it says that Nawaz also failed to provide evidence of his transaction. and It was also proven that he owns the property.

Don't only post the judgement parts you like.

 

[Shane]

Very rude.

Rude is actually presuming posters here to be inept instead of doing your own research first about the basics of the case rather than posting an article about the demerits of the verdict while ignoring the merits of what the case was actually about from the start. Bottom line, the article is lame and only amounts to throwing sand in the eyes of the un-awares. Just posting it, amounts to doing the same...

The law of living beyond the means is straight forward; if Nawaz Sharif couldn't provide money trail, what stopped Maryam Nawaz or her brothers from providing the same? gaping loop hole in the article, isn't it? Why Maryam submitted forged Documents etc etc etc...

You can see that its a lame article written by a lawyer who has suddenly become an "ANTI-ARTICLE 9a(v)-Activist" now that Nawaz himself is under the hammer...He himself enacted the very law in 1999 with scores punished under it, without so much as an eye brow raised by anyone arguing on behalf of Nawaz Shairf now.

The question is WHY THE HUE AND CRY BY THOSE OPPOSING NAWAZ's PUNISHMENT NOW? The answer is obvious to everyone but the suddenly ideological and those who they have managed to fool.

 

[AHMED85]

زندگی وچ ماں پیو تے لبھ جاندے نیں

پر مریم جئی زنانی نئیں لبھدی

(کیپٹن صفدر جیل سے روتے ھوئے)

 

[Solomon2]

Also read the other part where it says that Nawaz also failed to provide evidence of his transaction. and It was also proven that he owns the property.

Defense objected that the "proof" consisted of inferences and documentary evidence inadmissable by Pakistani legal standards and precedents. If these objections are sustained on appeal I don't see why the judgment won't be reversed.

Don't only post the judgement parts you like.

Well, I can hardly post 173 pages, can I?

 

[AHMED85]

https://www.facebook.com/

 

[BHarwana]

Defense objected that the "proof" consisted of inferences and documentary evidence inadmissable by Pakistani legal standards and precedents. If these objections are sustained on appeal I don't see why the judgment won't be reversed.

Well, I can hardly post 200 pages, can I?

Judgement will not be reversed. What you are saying is a fan boy dream. The only way to reverse the judgement is to provide a valid money earning trail which they don't have. Even if they come up with the trail by some marical then there are 2 more cases awaiting.