عمرانیو -- دیکھو عمران خان نے اسحاق ڈار کو نوکری پر رکھ لیا ہے

[RajaRawal111]

Fuck you, you little bitch, now you are asking me to verify your lies! ?

Long discussion was as I said back then. It is a simple open and shut case, You admit to having these assets beyond your means and you cannot provide a money trail for them hence you are guilty of corruption. You dumb fuck still can't grasp the simple concept of burden on proof. Which is not on NAB but on Mian saanp to provide a legit money trail. Fuckin' idiot!

^^^^
Raja Chawal when mian saanp was thrown out of office and then later convicted of corruption till today.
Bus main nahi manta, main nahi manta, main nahi manta. Mujhe kuch nahi pata yeh sub jhoot hai


That's when I found out you are nothing but a dumb worthless patwari and even if mian saanp himself confessed to you ke haan main corrupt hou aur mainay dabba ke paisa loota hai you would go Nahiiiiii mian saanp yeh aap kissi ki dabao mein aa ke jhoot bol rahe hai.

Koi bho hi gundi nasal ka kutta he yaar too.
We had long discussion on this. I dont want to get going with you again.

 

[RajaRawal111]

Hi Raja Sahib
As per SBP the total Sukuk/Eurobonds on June 2017 were USD 4.8 billions and were increased to USD 7.3 billions till June 2018
State Bank Report on External Debt 2017-2018
As per Statebank Report the Sukuk/Eurobonds on June 2019 were USD 6.3 Billions
Statebank Report 2018-2019
As per Statebank the Bonds are USD 8.263 billions
Statebank Report 2020-2021

Great. I appreciate your work. Now i am requesting you to wait for couple of days i am tied up with some pressing assignments. I will provide you more info. We will start right from this point. In Sha Allah

 

[Citizen X]

Koi bho hi gundi nasal ka kutta he yaar too.
We had long discussion on this. I dont want to get going with you again.

Abhay O mian saanp ke bund dhonay ke specialist. I already told you what that "long discussion" was in a nutshell. Jis ka lubay lubab that "main nahi maanta, main nahi maana, main nahi maanta" ? ? ? ?

 

[Munawarkhan]

if mian saanp himself confessed to you ke haan main corrupt hou aur mainay dabba ke paisa loota hai you would go Nahiiiiii mian saanp yeh aap kissi ki dabao mein aa ke jhoot bol rahe hai.

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
This is so true

 

[Munawarkhan]

Forget about me my openions are already useless. You tell me if rebuttal does not come from SB. Would you start dancing or what.

They you should also forget about me and my opinions

 

[Citizen X]

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
This is so true

Unfortunately yes. You have seen your self what twisted justifications he has made up to give mian saanp a clean chit in his mind.
NAB wasn't able to prove anything, JIT did not find anything, Judge was taking dictation etc etc

It's like the matrix take the blue pill and stay in your delusional world.

 

[RajaRawal111]

You were right, he can’t or won’t provide the link

gonna file this one under BS

Okay, as promised, I am back and you are the first person I am responding to.
About the link to the statement from Judge Basheer that "no crime time was committed".

Nawaz Shareef was convicted on Nab Ordinance act clause No. 9(a)(v).

https://nab.gov.pk/Downloads/nao.asp#Corruption_12

Nab Ordinance clause 9(a)(iv) states
"if he by corrupt, dishonest, or illegal means, obtains or seeks to obtain for himself, or for his spouse or dependents or any other person, any property, valuable thing, or pecuniary advantage"
Avenfield Judgement page 171 (3rd para states)
"Prosecution (which is JIT and NAB) have not brought evidence in respect of 9(a)(iv) NAO 1999. So the accused (Which are Shareefs) are acquitted under that section of Law. The Accumulative facts of the evidence produced by the prosecution is that Accused Muhammad Nawaz Shareef was the holder of Public Office"
For proof Please download the Avenfield judgment and read it yourself.
https://www.quistlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/official-judgement-06.07.2018-2.pdf

 

[surfer]

Okay, as promised, I am back and you are the first person I am responding to.
About the link to the statement from Judge Basheer that "no crime time was committed".

Nawaz Shareef was convicted on Nab Ordinance act clause No. 9(a)(v).

https://nab.gov.pk/Downloads/nao.asp#Corruption_12

Nab Ordinance clause 9(a)(iv) states
"if he by corrupt, dishonest, or illegal means, obtains or seeks to obtain for himself, or for his spouse or dependents or any other person, any property, valuable thing, or pecuniary advantage"
Avenfield Judgement page 171 (3rd para states)
"Prosecution (which is JIT and NAB) have not brought evidence in respect of 9(a)(iv) NAO 1999. So the accused (Which are Shareefs) are acquitted under that section of Law. The Accumulative facts of the evidence produced by the prosecution is that Accused Muhammad Nawaz Shareef was the holder of Public Office"
For proof Please download the Avenfield judgment and read it yourself.
https://www.quistlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/official-judgement-06.07.2018-2.pdf

Thanks for your response.

Nab clause 9 does not end at (a)(iv)

(a)(v) states: "if he or any of his dependents or benamidar owns, possesses, or has 4[acquired] right or title in any 5[“assets or holds irrevocable power of attorney in respect of any assets] or pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income, which he cannot 1[reasonably] account for 2[or maintains a standard of living beyond that which is commensurate with his sources of income]; or"

In simple words, burden of proof is on the accused. ( I feel this is the simple point that many like yourself refuse to understand or accept. Some people are looking for traditional evidence like "Person A stole money from Project B and here it is in thier bank account C" - but in reality corruption is much more complicated and this is hard to prove for any investigation agency, which is why the burder of proof on the accused element is becoming more prominent - like the UK last year also introduced the "Unexplained Wealth Order" law).

It is under (a)(v) that sharifs were convicted. From the same judgement, please read from top of page 172 down

But lets put aside the judgement for a min.....can you answer some simple questions

1) When were Avenfield apts purchased and...
2) ...by who, and
3)...what were their sources of income?

This is the crux of the case, and the sharifs have not provided a clear and consistent defence

PS - my memory is not that great, but I'm pretty sure me and you have had this discussion a few years back?

 

[RajaRawal111]

Thanks for your response.

Nab clause 9 does not end at (a)(iv)

(a)(v) states: "if he or any of his dependents or benamidar owns, possesses, or has 4[acquired] right or title in any 5[“assets or holds irrevocable power of attorney in respect of any assets] or pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income, which he cannot 1[reasonably] account for 2[or maintains a standard of living beyond that which is commensurate with his sources of income]; or"

In simple words, burden of proof is on the accused. ( I feel this is the simple point that many like yourself refuse to understand or accept. Some people are looking for traditional evidence like "Person A stole money from Project B and here it is in thier bank account C" - but in reality corruption is much more complicated and this is hard to prove for any investigation agency, which is why the burder of proof on the accused element is becoming more prominent - like the UK last year also introduced the "Unexplained Wealth Order" law).

It is under (a)(v) that sharifs were convicted. From the same judgement, please read from top of page 172 down

But lets put aside the judgement for a min.....can you answer some simple questions

1) When were Avenfield apts purchased and...
2) ...by who, and
3)...what were their sources of income?

This is the crux of the case, and the sharifs have not provided a clear and consistent defence

PS - my memory is not that great, but I'm pretty sure me and you have had this discussion a few years back?

Sir you asked me the link where it is written that the "Shareefs are acquitted of the corrupt practices in the purchase of the Avenfield because NAB and JIT did not present a shred of evidence" and as promised I have presented you. And you have not denied it which makes you a bit different from 99% of the Imranis.
So far as next part is concerned. YOu guys say that I am defending the corruption of Shareefs. No I am not defending it I am waiting to hear the truth so that I should come and sit with you n your side.
When a Judgement says that "thou hath done no crime, therefore thou arth banished to the guillotine" then I will be looking at it with a Question mark. You don't have to but please let me look at it with Question mark.
So far as proofs are concerned. Sir, You must know that
1: Wajid Zia has presented docs in court that Elder Shareef invested 700 million Riyaals in Gulf steel miles in 1973-74. Were they in power at that time
2: Wajid Zia admitted that they assumed that 25% shares of Gulf steel sale were used to clear Tariq Shafis personal loans with BCCI. And admitted BCCI docs were not reviewed to prove this assumption.
3: According to Shareefs that 25% was invested with Qatri family in early 80s when they were not in power. There were no investigations in this regard Admitted by Wajid Zia. Instead, it was made a laughing stock.
Let these questions be answered and I give you my words I will be standing with you. And these questions will be answered in the Appeal hearing in the High court.

All of the above writing is just the reading for my standing point. I did not ask you at all to change your position.

 

[surfer]

Sir you asked me the link where it is written that the "Shareefs are acquitted of the corrupt practices in the purchase of the Avenfield because NAB and JIT did not present a shred of evidence" and as promised I have presented you. And you have not denied it which makes you a bit different from 99% of the Imranis.
So far as next part is concerned. YOu guys say that I am defending the corruption of Shareefs. No I am not defending it I am waiting to hear the truth so that I should come and sit with you n your side.
When a Judgement says that "thou hath done no crime, therefore thou arth banished to the guillotine" then I will be looking at it with a Question mark. You don't have to but please let me look at it with Question mark.
So far as proofs are concerned. Sir, You must know that
1: Wajid Zia has presented docs in court that Elder Shareef invested 700 million Riyaals in Gulf steel miles in 1973-74. Were they in power at that time
2: Wajid Zia admitted that they assumed that 25% shares of Gulf steel sale were used to clear Tariq Shafis personal loans with BCCI. And admitted BCCI docs were not reviewed to prove this assumption.
3: According to Shareefs that 25% was invested with Qatri family in early 80s when they were not in power. There were no investigations in this regard Admitted by Wajid Zia. Instead, it was made a laughing stock.
Let these questions be answered and I give you my words I will be standing with you. And these questions will be answered in the Appeal hearing in the High court.

All of the above writing is just the reading for my standing point. I did not ask you at all to change your position.

I have no issue with you questioning the judgement, which is why I am happily engaging

But judgement does not say this
“When a Judgement says that "thou hath done no crime, therefore thou arth banished to the guillotine"

I’ll explain why

sharifs were convicted under 9(a)(v),, and if you read the heading of 9(a) it states

“A holder of a public office, or any other person, is said to commit or to have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices-“

An offence means crime

you are only commenting on 9(a)(iv), whereas the conviction is on 9(a)(v)

for some reason you continue to not understand or engage on the actual point the sharifs were convicted of.

in the appeal (Maryum’s has already started and her lawyer has recused himself- so not a great start for her), the arguments will not be made against 9(a)(iv) - under which sharifs were not convicted (the questions you are saying will be answered are irrelevant to the clause they were convicted under) …but arguments do NEED to be made against 9(a)(v)…

In other words present the source of funds and explanation as per the 3 questions I asked above, in order to overturn the conviction

there is actually a very easy way for the sharifs to do this (if they are speaking the truth) which I’m amazed thier lawyers have not suggested. I will expand on this point in the next post….. if you want to continue…

in the past we’ve left this discussion at this point, but this time I’m prepared for the long haul ?

 

[RajaRawal111]

I have no issue with you questioning the judgement, which is why I am happily engaging

But judgement does not say this
“When a Judgement says that "thou hath done no crime, therefore thou arth banished to the guillotine"

I’ll explain why

sharifs were convicted under 9(a)(v),, and if you read the heading of 9(a) it states

“A holder of a public office, or any other person, is said to commit or to have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices-“

An offence means crime

you are only commenting on 9(a)(iv), whereas the conviction is on 9(a)(v)

for some reason you continue to not understand or engage on the actual point the sharifs were convicted of.

in the appeal (Maryum’s has already started and her lawyer has recused himself- so not a great start for her), the arguments will not be made against 9(a)(iv) - under which sharifs were not convicted (the questions you are saying will be answered are irrelevant to the clause they were convicted under) …but arguments do NEED to be made against 9(a)(v)…

In other words present the source of funds and explanation as per the 3 questions I asked above, in order to overturn the conviction

there is actually a very easy way for the sharifs to do this (if they are speaking the truth) which I’m amazed thier lawyers have not suggested. I will expand on this point in the next post….. if you want to continue…

in the past we’ve left this discussion at this point, but this time I’m prepared for the long haul ?

Jnaab i am not arguing that Nawaja was not convicted on 9a(v). Yes he is which basically means that he has to account for the apartments because he was public office holder. The three loopholes I pointed out in my last comment are for the 9a(v). Again it sounds like I am defending him but being What I am I am just Questioning it. The 25% shares of the Gulf steel mills are the defense they submitted against 9a(v), which has been blown off with laughs and giggles. Wajid Zia's admittance in court for not going after is in the court records.
I am not going to indulge in this discussion at this time, because I don't have any new information than what we may have discussed about in previous discussion (which you have mentioned). Reason is simple that court has convicted Nawaja and they made basis to convict him. ""I repeat MADE BASIS"" which have to be elaborated in the appeal. So please let us both hold of the discussion till that happens.

You asked me the link in which the same court acquitted him from wrongdoing or crime, which I have shown you. Which literally says "THOU HAS COMMITTED NO CRIME".
2nd part of my reply is following.

 

[Wake up Pak]

Abay bagherat baandar tayray bhaghooray baap nay kiya saboot diyay apni jaidad kay baray may? Abu Jahal tujh say bara jahil baandar kahin nahi milay ga.

 

[RajaRawal111]

I

I have no issue with you questioning the judgement, which is why I am happily engaging

But judgement does not say this
“When a Judgement says that "thou hath done no crime, therefore thou arth banished to the guillotine"

I’ll explain why

sharifs were convicted under 9(a)(v),, and if you read the heading of 9(a) it states

“A holder of a public office, or any other person, is said to commit or to have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices-“

An offence means crime

you are only commenting on 9(a)(iv), whereas the conviction is on 9(a)(v)

for some reason you continue to not understand or engage on the actual point the sharifs were convicted of.

in the appeal (Maryum’s has already started and her lawyer has recused himself- so not a great start for her), the arguments will not be made against 9(a)(iv) - under which sharifs were not convicted (the questions you are saying will be answered are irrelevant to the clause they were convicted under) …but arguments do NEED to be made against 9(a)(v)…

In other words present the source of funds and explanation as per the 3 questions I asked above, in order to overturn the conviction

there is actually a very easy way for the sharifs to do this (if they are speaking the truth) which I’m amazed thier lawyers have not suggested. I will expand on this point in the next post….. if you want to continue…

in the past we’ve left this discussion at this point, but this time I’m prepared for the long haul ?

I have separated this part only because it is all about me and my point of view on the corruption stance. You Sir, are not the only one who has started talking with me on a softer tone and on an informational level. This Gulfi Kunjar "Citizen X" was the first one. And I admit he is not an ordinary Imrani Monkey who gets info from facebook only. He knows the stuff. All he does now is just abuse me. Sorry to say I may expect same from you any time.
I am not defender of their corruption. Being what I am I need to know the truth. When The JIT Report came out I say Allah Ki Qasam that was the 2nd most sad day in my life. (1st was when my Mother died who is extremely abused here). I could not really understand the reason of that sadness. Maybe it was because I felt betrayed and extremely misinformed. Wllahi I felt the helplessness and Only doaa of Hazrat Moosa which he made being alone and desprate in Planes of Madiyan, came in my heart.

I disappeared from here, for long time. But I started going through some of the stuff. Things did not appear to be matching the realities I knew before. Even the JIT report preface and summaries looked a little overblown to me.

Then the case proceedings started. I followed both cases as closely as I could, through unbiased plane simple reporting. It all starting getting more fishy to me.
Now here we are. Your Imran khan himself has Shredeed this report In UKs arbitration court. Admitted that the JIT is showing 8 times higher figures than reality.

Where are you now ??? Why is it not raising any questions in your mind? Why the hell you were lied to for so long. Why is it not bothering you ???

 

[Citizen X]

Sir you asked me the link where it is written that the "Shareefs are acquitted of the corrupt practices in the purchase of the Avenfield because NAB and JIT did not present a shred of evidence" and as promised I have presented you. And you have not denied it which makes you a bit different from 99% of the Imranis.
So far as next part is concerned. YOu guys say that I am defending the corruption of Shareefs. No I am not defending it I am waiting to hear the truth so that I should come and sit with you n your side.
When a Judgement says that "thou hath done no crime, therefore thou arth banished to the guillotine" then I will be looking at it with a Question mark. You don't have to but please let me look at it with Question mark.
So far as proofs are concerned. Sir, You must know that
1: Wajid Zia has presented docs in court that Elder Shareef invested 700 million Riyaals in Gulf steel miles in 1973-74. Were they in power at that time
2: Wajid Zia admitted that they assumed that 25% shares of Gulf steel sale were used to clear Tariq Shafis personal loans with BCCI. And admitted BCCI docs were not reviewed to prove this assumption.
3: According to Shareefs that 25% was invested with Qatri family in early 80s when they were not in power. There were no investigations in this regard Admitted by Wajid Zia. Instead, it was made a laughing stock.
Let these questions be answered and I give you my words I will be standing with you. And these questions will be answered in the Appeal hearing in the High court.

All of the above writing is just the reading for my standing point. I did not ask you at all to change your position.

Jnaab i am not arguing that Nawaja was not convicted on 9a(v). Yes he is which basically means that he has to account for the apartments because he was public office holder. The three loopholes I pointed out in my last comment are for the 9a(v). Again it sounds like I am defending him but being What I am I am just Questioning it. The 25% shares of the Gulf steel mills are the defense they submitted against 9a(v), which has been blown off with laughs and giggles. Wajid Zia's admittance in court for not going after is in the court records.
I am not going to indulge in this discussion at this time, because I don't have any new information than what we may have discussed about in previous discussion (which you have mentioned). Reason is simple that court has convicted Nawaja and they made basis to convict him. ""I repeat MADE BASIS"" which have to be elaborated in the appeal. So please let us both hold of the discussion till that happens.

You asked me the link in which the same court acquitted him from wrongdoing or crime, which I have shown you. Which literally says "THOU HAS COMMITTED NO CRIME".
2nd part of my reply is following.

Waisay rajay afreen hai teri jahalat pe

 

[RajaRawal111]

Abay bagherat baandar tayray bhaghooray baap nay kiya saboot diyay apni jaidad kay baray may? Abu Jahal tujh say bara jahil baandar kahin nahi milay ga.

اوے سائکو تو کدھر سے اس گفتگو میں گھس گیا ہے ؟؟ --- ? تو نے مجھے فولو کرنے والا بٹن تو نہیں دبایا ہوا ذہنی مریض

 

[Citizen X]

I am not defender of their corruption.

Liar! You are the biggest defender of their corruption on this forum!

 

[RajaRawal111]

Waisay rajay afreen hai teri jahalat pe

مہربانی جناب

 

[Citizen X]

I

I have separated this part only because it is all about me and my point of view on the corruption stance. You Sir, are not the only one who has started talking with me on a softer tone and on an informational level. This Gulfi Kunjar "Citizen X" was the first one. And I admit he is not an ordinary Imrani Monkey who gets info from facebook only. He knows the stuff. All he does now is just abuse me. Sorry to say I may expect same from you any time.
I am not defender of their corruption. Being what I am I need to know the truth. When The JIT Report came out I say Allah Ki Qasam that was the 2nd most sad day in my life. (1st was when my Mother died who is extremely abused here). I could not really understand the reason of that sadness. Maybe it was because I felt betrayed and extremely misinformed. Wllahi I felt the helplessness and Only doaa of Hazrat Moosa which he made being alone and desprate in Planes of Madiyan, came in my heart.

I disappeared from here, for long time. But I started going through some of the stuff. Things did not appear to be matching the realities I knew before. Even the JIT report preface and summaries looked a little overblown to me.

Then the case proceedings started. I followed both cases as closely as I could, through unbiased plane simple reporting. It all starting getting more fishy to me.
Now here we are. Your Imran khan himself has Shredeed this report In UKs arbitration court. Admitted that the JIT is showing 8 times higher figures than reality.

Where are you now ??? Why is it not raising any questions in your mind? Why the hell you were lied to for so long. Why is it not bothering you ???

Thu aure teray jaise kai patwari jo cha rahay hai na woh nahi milnay wala, 1000 bar phele bhi thuj se kaha hai and now surfer has repeated in his last post. In financial crimes there is almost never a smoking gun, no video evidence only loose paper trails hence the law of assets beyond means puts the burden across the accused's shoulders.

Batao yeh jhumkay kahan se layi rather than acha mein pata kerta houn yeh jhumkay tum kaha se lai

Like I said rajay afreen hai teri jahalat pe. From the prosecutors side you want smoking gun evidence and from ganj side you think a comedic Qatari khat (which ganju himself was later ashamed to present in the NAB trials ) and Ahli steel mills contract are enough for you. Not a single banking transaction shown, not a single bank account shown, no legal paper work on how they were bought and paid for.

Bravo on your hypocrisy and double standards

 

[RajaRawal111]

Thu aure teray jaise kai patwari jo cha rahay hai na woh nahi milnay wala, 1000 bar phele bhi thuj se kaha hai and now surfer has repeated in his last post. In financial crimes there is almost never a smoking gun, no video evidence only loose paper trails hence the law of assets beyond means puts the burden across the accused's shoulders.

Batao yeh jhumkay kahan se layi rather than acha mein pata kerta houn yeh jhumkay tum kaha se lai

Like I said rajay afreen hai teri jahalat pe. From the prosecutors side you want smoking gun evidence and from ganj side you think a comedic Qatari khat (which ganju himself was later ashamed to present in the NAB trials ) and Ahli steel mills contract are enough for you. Not a single banking transaction shown, not a single bank account shown, no legal paper work on how they were bought and paid for.

Bravo on your hypocrisy and double standards

کنجرا تو میرے اوپر اپنے کچھے بنیان چوری کرنے کا الزام لگا دے اور یہ کیہ دے کہ سارے سفید رنگ کے تھے -- تو اس میں بھی کوئی سموکنگ گن نہیں ملے گی
پھر اوپر سے چوکیدار نے بندوق جج بشیر کے سر پر رکھی ہوئی ہو تو سفید رنگ کی نشانی ہی میرے چور ثابت ہونے کے لئے کافی ہے
?

 

[Wake up Pak]

اوے سائکو تو کدھر سے اس گفتگو میں گھس گیا ہے ؟؟ --- ? تو نے مجھے فولو کرنے والا بٹن تو نہیں دبایا ہوا ذہنی مریض

Oye baygherat bandar tujh jaysa jahil ibne jahil koi payda nahi hua.
Ass hole I did not tag you so if you tag me then I will open your ass as well.