Panama leak Case Proceedings - JIT Report, News, Updates And Discussion

[PakSword]

Yeh argument tu Talal Ch ne bhi kal geo ke ek prog main di hai ..jo aap keh rahay hain..

Infact Ch Ghulam Hussain ne yeh bhi abhi bataya hai ke Salman Akram Raja is trying to find legal clauses..ke Hasan aur Hussain Nawaz tu Pakistani citizens nahi hain..tu woh JIT ke samnay nahi pesh hosaktay... Aur phir advocate aur pakora judge ko tu aap jaantay hi hain.. Woh shohrat ke liye qanoon tu bech nahi saktay ......aur sharif family, jo unke hisab se waqayi bhtt sharif hai...unke huqooq par daaka nahi daal saktay.. Tu unka reaction tu Salman Akram Raja ki request par kiya hoga.....aap khud samajhdaar hain

PMLN ke different logon ke clips dekh kar hi tou keh raha hun yeh baat.. I don't know ke pehlay kyun nahi dia yeh argument. Main shuru se iss forum pe yehi baat kar raha hun.. kyun ke mujhay different legal requirement ke reference se kabhi kabhi audits karnay partay hain jin main yeh baat consider karni parti hai ke company ne kitna record rakha hua hai, aur kia woh law ke upar poora utarta hai.. Retention of record ke laws banay huay hain sab countries main.. A company or a bank can keep for more than the required number of years, but they are not required to do so..

But shareef family will face problem when they will have to justify their earlier statements in SC, that certain transactions were in cash.. How do Pakora and Advocate react to any change in stance, we will see that..

Even if we suppose for a moment that Pakora and Advocate allow NS and his family members to put all the blame of statement on their counsels, and their counsels also accept that it was their mistake, then the onus of proof is still on Mian Nawaz Shareef.

In any civilized country, the accused would have been asked to provide the registration documents to clear himself from any accusations. In Pakistan, if a person says that he can't provide because "he doesn't want to", our advocate says that it is perfectly alright because we can't ask an accused to bring proof against himself.

When I discussed this with a lawyer, he said that Advocate pagal hogaya hai.. There is a difference in asking evidence against accused from accused himself, and asking evidence in favor of accused from accused.

Koi dekhay na dekhay.. Hashmi tu dekhay ga

Koi bakay na bakay.. Hashmi tou bakay ga!

 

[Beethoven]

Guys pardon me for my ignorance but ye advocate aur pakora judge hain kaun????????

 

[Farah Sohail]

Guys pardon me for my ignorance but ye advocate aur pakora judge hain kaun????????

Advocate is Justice Ejaz Afzal and pakora judge is Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed

 

[Beethoven]

Advocate is Justice Ejaz Afzal and pakora judge is Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed

khayal karen madam aisa naa ho k tauheen e adalat lag jaye aap pe

 

[Farah Sohail]

PMLN ke different logon ke clips dekh kar hi tou keh raha hun yeh baat.. I don't know ke pehlay kyun nahi dia yeh argument. Main shuru se iss forum pe yehi baat kar raha hun.. kyun ke mujhay different legal requirement ke reference se kabhi kabhi audits karnay partay hain jin main yeh baat consider karni parti hai ke company ne kitna record rakha hua hai, aur kia woh law ke upar poora utarta hai.. Retention of record ke laws banay huay hain sab countries main.. A company or a bank can keep for more than the required number of years, but they are not required to do so..

But shareef family will face problem when they will have to justify their earlier statements in SC, that certain transactions were in cash.. How do Pakora and Advocate react to any change in stance, we will see that..

Even if we suppose for a moment that Pakora and Advocate allow NS and his family members to put all the blame of statement on their counsels, and their counsels also accept that it was their mistake, then the onus of proof is still on Mian Nawaz Shareef.

In any civilized country, the accused would have been asked to provide the registration documents to clear himself from any accusations. In Pakistan, if a person says that he can't provide because "he doesn't want to", our advocate says that it is perfectly alright because we can't ask an accused to bring proof against himself.

When I discussed this with a lawyer, he said that Advocate pagal hogaya hai.. There is a difference in asking evidence against accused from accused himself, and asking evidence in favor of accused from accused.

!

Min ne pehlay bhi bataya tha..tht Advocate and pakora judge will forget earlier statements of sharif family, as if they never gave them... They will pretend ke sharif family ne is se pehle kuch nahi kaha..aur ab jo bh keh rahay hain..woh ab keh rahay hain..

Kis civilised country main advocate jaisy judge honge..who say tht acc to ROPA.. Its not reqd by the law tht sharif family should declare their assets and also its not reqd tht they should explain their accusation?.. Kahan milein ge aisay judge? I liye main kehti hoon ke dont underestimate advocate and pakora judge.. Jo sharif familay kahay wohi sach hai..

From which lawyer..did u ask abt advocate's argument? If he is not a Pakistani..tu woh tu waqayi pagal hi samjhay ga

khayal karen madam aisa naa ho k tauheen e adalat lag jaye aap pe

Lein.. Hum kiya karein? Sheikh Azmat Saeed ne khud pehle din ye remark diya tha..ke akhbari khabron par tu pakoray khaaye jatay hain, aap yahan court main case le aaye.. Ab unhein pakora judge na kahien tu kia kahein? Un ke is remark se pehle hi din unki intentions aur seriousness clear hogayi theen..ke woh is case ke liye kitnay non serious hain.. Regd Advocate.. Justice Ejaz Afzal has been acting as advocate of sharif family, from day 1 on this bench... Is liye hum advocate kehtay hain.. Ab hum Justice Ijazul Ahsan ko tu kuch nahi kehtay.. Woh achay aadmi lagtay hain... Un se hi humein umeed hai ke woh Nawaz Sharif ke against vote de saktay hain, end main

 

[PakSword]

From which lawyer..did u ask abt advocate's argument? If he is not a Pakistani..tu woh tu waqayi pagal hi samjhay ga

British..

In his words "the judge is not in his senses"

 

[Farah Sohail]

British..

In his words "the judge is not in his senses"

Lein ....aap ne poocha bhi tu kis se?

Ab bechara british lawyer tu yehi kahay ga.....balke shayad woh doctor bhi recommend bhi kar dey...

Us british lawyer ko batayye ga ..ke waisy ittefaq se kuch achay judges bhi hain humaray pass... Sab hi aisy nahi hain...

 

[PakSword]

In money laundering investigations, if the accused doesn't provide evidence in his favor to clear himself, his status changes from accused to convicted. It is right that a killer can't be asked to provide the gun he used to commit the crime, but he can be asked to provide his passport arrival/ departure stamps to prove his stance that he was not in his country. But murder cases are still treated differently. In money laundering, the person is convicted if he can't prove his innocence.

Juctice Khosa was right when he said once that if you don't provide the docs, PTI's stance will be considered correct because they have provided some documents (whether they are photocopies challenged by PMLN). To prove their innocence, they must have provided the right documents then.. and then Advocate ne apni kamai halal kartay huay kaha tha ke we can't ask an accused to bring proof against himself.. Yani uss ko maloom tha ke jo bhi evidence aayega woh accused ke khillaf hi ayega..

What a joker sitting in the bench..

@Farah Sohail

Lein ....aap ne poocha bhi tu kis se?

Ab bechara british lawyer tu yehi kahay ga.....balke shayad woh doctor bhi recommend bhi kar dey...

Us british lawyer ko batayye ga ..ke waisy ittefaq se kuch achay judges bhi hain humaray pass... Sab hi aisy nahi hain...

Main ne parhwai hai judgment last week usay.. kuchh parts advocate ke.. the statement is red was from him.. ke the judge knew he was asking for a proof that will go against the accused..

 

[Farah Sohail]

In money laundering investigations, if the accused doesn't provide evidence in his favor to clear himself, his status changes from accused to convicted. It is right that a killer can't be asked to provide the gun he used to commit the crime, but he can be asked to provide his passport arrival/ departure stamps to prove his stance that he was not in his country. But murder cases are still treated differently. In money laundering, the person is convicted if he can't prove his innocence.

Juctice Khosa was right when he said once that if you don't provide the docs, PTI's stance will be considered correct because they have provided some documents (whether they are photocopies challenged by PMLN). To prove their innocence, they must have provided the right documents then.. and then Advocate ne apni kamai halal kartay huay kaha tha ke we can't ask an accused to bring proof against himself.. Yani uss ko maloom tha ke jo bhi evidence aayega woh accused ke khillaf hi ayega..

What a joker sitting in the bench..

@Farah Sohail

@bold.. It was not Justice Khosa who agve tht remark but pakora judge ke agar aap ne documents na diye t Naeem Bukhari ki baat manna paray gi.. Aur phir pakora judge ne jo verdict diya...woh sab ne dekha ke unhon ne kaha 62/63 deals with legal honesty and not moral honesty.. Sharam aani chahye...

Justice Khosa ki judgment advocate aur pakora ke liye chapair se kam nahi hai.. Yeh dono ...disputed documents ka rona rotay rahay.. Jab ke Justice Khosa ne apni judgment main ek baar nahi...kafi dafa kaha hai ke sharif family ke jo apnay documents aur statements hain..woh disputed facts kaisy hosaktay hain? Justice Khosa didnt use..at all...documents provided by PTi.. Infact unhon ne kaha kr PTI ne jo email share ki thee..regd Maryam Nawaz being beneficial owner...we found it very relevant and useful..but since tht was challenged by Maryam Nawaz..so now i am not relying on it..since its a disputed fact... Lekin woh baar baar kehtay rahay ke how can sharif family's own documents and statements be considered disputed facts? Lekin advocate aur pakora judge ko koi nahi samjhaa sakta

 

[Boomin' Bomber I.J.]

In any civilized country, the accused would have been asked to provide the registration documents to clear himself from any accusations. In Pakistan, if a person says that he can't provide because "he doesn't want to", our advocate says that it is perfectly alright because we can't ask an accused to bring proof against himself.

I think we might have been criticizing Justice Ejaz Afzal too much. Analyzing his above statement, I find nothing wrong or legally incorrect in it. He still said NS is the accused. Justice Ejaz Afzal has nowhere declared NS innocent, and I think he knows NS does not have the documents that might clear him up. All his statement implies is, as per the law, one cannot be forced to incriminate oneself. The onus of proving himself innocent still remains with the prime minister. It nowhere implies that Justice Ejaz Afzal is trying to shield the defendant. In the 'civilized countries', (as if we are aboriginies,) people have the right to remain silent and this right is read out to them at the time of arrest.

Come on guys, let's not be prejudiced if the decision on April 20 did not come, as per our expectations. If the honourable judges were trying to shield the accused they would have accepted the JIT members proposed by the relevant departments. They did not! They selected members that we all agree are honest people. Insha'Allah, the days of high level corruption are numbered!

 

[Farah Sohail]

Main ne parhwai hai judgment last week usay.. kuchh parts advocate ke.. the statement is red was from him.. ke the judge knew he was asking for a proof that will go against the accused..

Bas.. Ab aali hazrat advocate ko kiya kahein? Inhein jamhoorayt ke khilaf sazish nakaam bananay par presidential award milna chahye...

Waisy aap ne british lawyer ko parhayi bhi tu advocate ki judgment? woh kiya soch raha hoga..ke humaray haan sab hi aisy hain... Usay Justice Khosa aur Gulzar ke judgment ke bhi parts parhaa dein ke kuch tu izzat banay Pakistan ki bhi, uski nazron main ke kuch achay log bhi hain yahan

Come on guys, let's not be prejudiced if the decision on April 20 did not come, as per our expectations. If the honourable judges were trying to shield the accused they would have accepted the JIT members proposed by the relevant departments. They did not! They selected members that we all agree are honest people. Insha'Allah, the days of high level corruption are numbered!

Yeh 20th April tu bhtt baad ki baat hai.l we have been noticing Justice Ejaz Afzal since first day of the hearinf.. Woh saara waqt Sharif famiky ke favor main arguments laa'tay thay, during hearing.. Iska 20th april ke verdict se koi talluq nahi.. Agar aisi baat hoti tu hum Justice Ijazul Ahsan ko bhi bura kehtay.. Jab ke aisa nahi hai.. Justice Ijazul Ahsan seems to be a decent man.. We still have hope from him.. But advocate and pakora judge are hopless cases..

 

[PakSword]

Bas.. Ab aali hazrat advocate ko kiya kahein? Inhein jamhoorayt ke khilaf sazish nakaam bananay par presidential award milna chahye...

Waisy aap ne british lawyer ko parhayi bhi tu advocate ki judgment? woh kiya soch raha hoga..ke humaray haan sab hi aisy hain... Usay Justice Khosa aur Gulzar ke judgment ke bhi parts parhaa dein ke kuch tu izzat banay Pakistan ki bhi, uski nazron main ke kuch achay log bhi hain yahan

Operative part parhwaraha tha ke samajh aajaey ke implementation bench faisla degi ya 5 ka bench qaim hai aur sirf aik judge required hai.. uss baat ka pakka jawab nahi diya uss ne.. woh bhi chakra gaya.. lekin uss ke "khayal" main implementation bench degi faisla.. but he is not sure..

I think we might have been criticizing Justice Ejaz Afzal too much. Analyzing his above statement, I find nothing wrong or legally incorrect in it. He still said NS is the accused. Justice Ejaz Afzal has nowhere declared NS innocent, and I think he knows NS does not have the documents that might clear him up. All his statement implies is, as per the law, one cannot be forced to incriminate oneself. The onus of proving himself innocent still remains with the prime minister. It nowhere implies that Justice Ejaz Afzal is trying to shield the defendant. In the 'civilized countries', (as if we are aboriginies,) people have the right to remain silent and this right is read out to them at the time of arrest.

Come on guys, let's not be prejudiced if the decision on April 20 did not come, as per our expectations. If the honourable judges were trying to shield the accused they would have accepted the JIT members proposed by the relevant departments. They did not! They selected members that we all agree are honest people. Insha'Allah, the days of high level corruption are numbered!

Yaar I agree with you that we are criticizing Ejaz Afzal too much, but if you had gone through his remarks, you would have agreed with us.

Lekin yes, you are right, we must appreciate that the bench selected honest officers this time. They could have accepted Ishaq Dollar's proposed names, but they didn't. This one thing, plus terming it a "criminal investigation" means that JIT is moving in the right direction.

 

[Farah Sohail]

Operative part parhwaraha tha ke samajh aajaey ke implementation bench faisla degi ya 5 ka bench qaim hai aur sirf aik judge required hai.. uss baat ka pakka jawab nahi diya uss ne.. woh bhi chakra gaya.. lekin uss ke "khayal" main implementation bench degi faisla.. but he is not sure..

Main ne Rauf Klasra wala kal ka clip dobara dekha tha.. He emphasized ke ek "ehem adaalati shakhsiyat" ne yeh kaha hai.....jitna woh focus karrahay thay...main soch rahi thee ke woh kon hosaktay hain? Kahin in hi judges main se tu koi nahi? Ya phir SC ke registrar waghera hosaktay hain?

Waisy ek dafa Sabir shakir ne bhi kaha thabke unhon ne kisi retired judge se poocha tha tu unhon ne bhi yehi kaha tha ke one more judge is reqd to disqualify NS

 

[PakSword]

Main ne Rauf Klasra wala kal ka clip dobara dekha tha.. He emphasized ke ek "ehem adaalati shakhsiyat" ne yeh kaha hai.....jitna woh focus karrahay thay...main soch rahi thee ke woh kon hosaktay hain? Kahin in hi judges main se tu koi nahi? Ya phir SC ke registrar waghera hosaktay hain?

Waisy ek dafa Sabir shakir ne bhi kaha thabke unhon ne kisi retired judge se poocha tha tu unhon ne bhi yehi kaha tha ke one more judge is reqd to disqualify NS

Lekin wording waqai confusing hai.. uss din jo main aur Emmie behes kar rahay thay, woh wording pe hi kar rahay thay.. Allah karay ke 5 ki bench hi faisla karay..

 

[Farah Sohail]

Lekin yes, you are right, we must appreciate that the bench selected honest officers this time. They could have accepted Ishaq Dollar's proposed names, but they didn't. This one thing, plus terming it a "criminal investigation" means that JIT is moving in the right direction.

I dont think...ke bench could have accepted Ishaq Dar's chosen ppl in JIT.... Unki political affiliation tu fauran hi media par aajati..tu inke pass izzat bachany ko koi jagah nahi milti.. Pehle hi log keh rahay thay..ke JIT ...kaisy investigate karay gi..PM ko? Criticism aaraha tha, har taraf se.. I dont think bench could have gone for those ppl, atall..

Lekin aap bas advocate ki karaamat dekhtay jayein..jo waqt ke saath saath khulein gi

Lekin wording waqai confusing hai.. uss din jo main aur Emmie behes kar rahay thay, woh wording pe hi kar rahay thay.. Allah karay ke 5 ki bench hi faisla karay..

Agar Klasra keh rahay hain ke ek ehem adaalti shakhsiyat ne yeh bataya ...tu bataya hi hoga?

Mera khyal hai ke end main faisla tu yeh 3 hi dein ge.. Justice Khosa aur Gulzar dobara nahi dein ge, verdict shayad.. Kiun ke woh de chukay hainalready.. In 3 judges ka interim order tha.. Tu yehi faisla dein ge..lekin inki verdict un 2 judges ke saath add hojaye gi.. Maybe if one judge decides to disqualify NS, he starts by saying ke i agree with the conclusions reached by Justice Khosa and Gulzar, and i declare so and so.....