Imrani Jahalut عمرانی جہالت Syndrome is at its peak today

RajaRawal111

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
Masha Allah you have done lots of research and all from the Tamasha that Shazad Akbar had used to do. It seems like
جناب کو بھی وھی جن چمڑ گیا ہے جو شہزاد اکبر کو چمڑ ہوا کرتا تھا
So let us see what you have written

NCA inquiry related to only two accounts.

How many accounts their should be. Which accounts the NCA missed scrutinizing. Can you tell please?

Naveed ikram former director of ERRA has pleaded guilty of stealing funds from ERRA accounts and transferring looted money to Ali Imran. Banking record of funds transfer from ERRA Accounts to Ali Imran accounts exist. Instead of answering about it, Ali Imran fled to UK. Daily Mail Publication also mentions about seeing this banking record, it has also presented that as evidence against Ali Imran. Shabaz, Ali Imran has failed to present a rebuttal against the evidence presented by Daily Mail and instead choose to settle the matter out of court on Daily Mail Terms.

Funds and grants came to ERRA from many sources including DFID. Publication was saying ERRA funds (which included DFID funds too) have been stolen and Ali Imran is amongst the beneficiary of that stolen money. David Rose being a UK citizen and Daily Mail being a British publication was questioning is DFID funding a project (ERRA) from British tax payers money that is being stolen by family of Pakistani Politician? DFID is just one donor, they are hundreds of them for earth quake relief. DFID is of importance to UK, in Pakistan its the body ERRA that is the main concern.

Now yeah loo patwari this is your own publication,

According to exclusive documents, available with The News, Ikram Naveed bought three floors worth Rs132 million in Ali Trade Centre, owned by Imran Ali. Ikram, his wife Samina and son Farjad, bought two complete commercial floors and a complete penthouse floor in Ali Trade Centre. Interestingly, the accused directly transferred more than Rs60 million from the accounts of ERRA to the accounts of Ali and Fatima Developers, owned by Imran Ali.

No wonder Naveed Ikram or whoever is in the police custody can say anything they want him to say. Or you can be fed with any chooran they want. This is Pakistan where
Even Rana Sanaullah admitted involvement in drug smuggling ? to meet extra expenses on politics and Lots of Imrani Monkeys danced on it
DFID kicked at the asses of Shahzad Akbar and David Rose within 4 hours after the publication in Daily Mail. Following rebuttal from DFID was literally a slipper lloadedwith Shit on the face of Imran Khan and his followers like you. Just read it your self please

“The UK’s financial support to ERRA over this period was for payment by results – which means we only gave money once the agreed work, which was primarily focused on building schools, was completed, and the work audited and verified.

“The UK taxpayer got exactly what it paid for and helped the vulnerable victims of a devastating earthquake. We are confident our robust systems protected UK taxpayers from fraud.”




Shahbaz filed a defamation lawsuit seeking damages, cost and apology from the newspaper from wrongful allegation of corruption, money laundering etc. That's what all claimant in defamation lawsuit seek and are entailed too either through court of law or even in out of court settlement (if wrongfully accused).

Shabaz sharif and family neither was able to;
1. Refute evidence presented by Daily Mail.
2. Wasn't awarded defamation lawsuit
3. Paid all their costs and partial cost of Daily Mail too.
4. Daily Mail didn't apologies to sharif for calling them thief, money launderer, etc etc

If sharif had nothing to hide they would have refuted daily mail evidence and won the defamation law suit from court, be awarded damages and costs from court and gotten Daily Mail to clarify that we accused sharifs of stealing, money laundering, fake tts, these claims are wrong and we apologies to them for the wrong claims and distress caused by them. Even on out of court settlement they would have gotten damages, costs and explicit apology for accusing them of corruption and money laundering. Instead they were in a hurry to the settle the matter out of court on publications terms.
This is the part where I am not able to comprehend if i am talking to a sensible human being or a Psycho. And I am getting tired of this Repeated BS. I will try to answer to all of your 4 nonsense Qs. But I have no hopes ☹️

1: How the hell do you know what evidence were presented by daily Mail. Can you show me those ???

2: I dont understand what you mean by "wasn't awarded Law Suit". The Case was listed for proceeding. Things were in progress. What other hell was required to be done here.
3: This is where I say you guys are ultimate Jahils. The cost that SS had to Pay to Daily Mail was to end the mutually agreed Stay. For hell sake take your head out of ass of Imran Riyaz and read the Page-2 and Para-2 of the court order. Pleeeas Read it. ?
4: All I can say is that it is a matter of your low IQ and. Coming down to your level of understanding --- once again, I will say if SS was still "thief, money launderer, etc etc" then whole article should have not been removed. It could have corrected the NAB case portion only. But everything has been taken off.


And Please chunney Kaakey try to understand that out-of-court settlement was done by Daily mail also. SS only aim was to be exonerated from the Bakwas that Shahzad Akbar fed to David rose. That is what the paper has done. If you have any problem with that, then go to UK court and restart the case and keep me informed with all that you get. That is tha last humble request i can do man.
 

patwari_sab

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Masha Allah you have done lots of research and all from the Tamasha that Shazad Akbar had used to do. It seems like
جناب کو بھی وھی جن چمڑ گیا ہے جو شہزاد اکبر کو چمڑ ہوا کرتا تھا
So let us see what you have written


How many accounts their should be. Which accounts the NCA missed scrutinizing. Can you tell please?


No wonder Naveed Ikram or whoever is in the police custody can say anything they want him to say. Or you can be fed with any chooran they want. This is Pakistan where

Even Rana Sanaullah admitted involvement in drug smuggling ? to meet extra expenses on politics and Lots of Imrani Monkeys danced on it
DFID kicked at the asses of Shahzad Akbar and David Rose within 4 hours after the publication in Daily Mail. Following rebuttal from DFID was literally a slipper lloadedwith Shit on the face of Imran Khan and his followers like you. Just read it your self please

“The UK’s financial support to ERRA over this period was for payment by results – which means we only gave money once the agreed work, which was primarily focused on building schools, was completed, and the work audited and verified.

“The UK taxpayer got exactly what it paid for and helped the vulnerable victims of a devastating earthquake. We are confident our robust systems protected UK taxpayers from fraud.”





This is the part where I am not able to comprehend if i am talking to a sensible human being or a Psycho. And I am getting tired of this Repeated BS. I will try to answer to all of your 4 nonsense Qs. But I have no hopes ☹️

1: How the hell do you know what evidence were presented by daily Mail. Can you show me those ???

2: I dont understand what you mean by "wasn't awarded Law Suit". The Case was listed for proceeding. Things were in progress. What other hell was required to be done here.
3: This is where I say you guys are ultimate Jahils. The cost that SS had to Pay to Daily Mail was to end the mutually agreed Stay. For hell sake take your head out of ass of Imran Riyaz and read the Page-2 and Para-2 of the court order. Pleeeas Read it. ?
4: All I can say is that it is a matter of your low IQ and. Coming down to your level of understanding --- once again, I will say if SS was still "thief, money launderer, etc etc" then whole article should have not been removed. It could have corrected the NAB case portion only. But everything has been taken off.


And Please chunney Kaakey try to understand that out-of-court settlement was done by Daily mail also. SS only aim was to be exonerated from the Bakwas that Shahzad Akbar fed to David rose. That is what the paper has done. If you have any problem with that, then go to UK court and restart the case and keep me informed with all that you get. That is tha last humble request i can do man.
teek hai.. apne jo lika jo kaha sab sach hai. ab daffa ho ja maaf kr
 

RajaRawal111

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
teek hai.. apne jo lika jo kaha sab sach hai. ab daffa ho ja maaf kr

کر دیا معاف تجھے -- کیا یاد کرے گا کس سخی سے پالا پر تھا
لیکن یاد رکھو - جو میں نے لکھا ہے اس کو پڑھنے کی کوشش بلکل نہ کرنا -- کیوں کہ عمرانی باندروں کو جہالت سے باھر نکالنا مچھی کو پانی سے باھر نکلنے کے برابر ہے
مر جاؤ گے اگر اصل بات سمجھا آ گی تو
 

RajaRawal111

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
yes true, khota kha kha ker bilkul farig ho gaya hai.
teek hai.. apne jo lika jo kaha sab sach hai. ab daffa ho ja maaf kr

یار ویسے آپس کی بات ہے - تم دونوں ایک مرتبہ کھوتا بریانی چکھ کے تو دیکھو --- بہت مزیدار ہوتی ہے واہ واہ واہ
اب تو عمران خان بھی کھلاتا ہے کھوتا بریانی اپنے ٹایگروں کو --- یہ دیکھو


https://twitter.com/x/status/1586028168195940352
 

s.shahid

MPA (400+ posts)
Masha Allah you have done lots of research and all from the Tamasha that Shazad Akbar had used to do. It seems like
جناب کو بھی وھی جن چمڑ گیا ہے جو شہزاد اکبر کو چمڑ ہوا کرتا تھا
So let us see what you have written


How many accounts their should be. Which accounts the NCA missed scrutinizing. Can you tell please?


No wonder Naveed Ikram or whoever is in the police custody can say anything they want him to say. Or you can be fed with any chooran they want. This is Pakistan where

Even Rana Sanaullah admitted involvement in drug smuggling ? to meet extra expenses on politics and Lots of Imrani Monkeys danced on it
DFID kicked at the asses of Shahzad Akbar and David Rose within 4 hours after the publication in Daily Mail. Following rebuttal from DFID was literally a slipper lloadedwith Shit on the face of Imran Khan and his followers like you. Just read it your self please

“The UK’s financial support to ERRA over this period was for payment by results – which means we only gave money once the agreed work, which was primarily focused on building schools, was completed, and the work audited and verified.

“The UK taxpayer got exactly what it paid for and helped the vulnerable victims of a devastating earthquake. We are confident our robust systems protected UK taxpayers from fraud.”





This is the part where I am not able to comprehend if i am talking to a sensible human being or a Psycho. And I am getting tired of this Repeated BS. I will try to answer to all of your 4 nonsense Qs. But I have no hopes ☹️

1: How the hell do you know what evidence were presented by daily Mail. Can you show me those ???

2: I dont understand what you mean by "wasn't awarded Law Suit". The Case was listed for proceeding. Things were in progress. What other hell was required to be done here.
3: This is where I say you guys are ultimate Jahils. The cost that SS had to Pay to Daily Mail was to end the mutually agreed Stay. For hell sake take your head out of ass of Imran Riyaz and read the Page-2 and Para-2 of the court order. Pleeeas Read it. ?
4: All I can say is that it is a matter of your low IQ and. Coming down to your level of understanding --- once again, I will say if SS was still "thief, money launderer, etc etc" then whole article should have not been removed. It could have corrected the NAB case portion only. But everything has been taken off.


And Please chunney Kaakey try to understand that out-of-court settlement was done by Daily mail also. SS only aim was to be exonerated from the Bakwas that Shahzad Akbar fed to David rose. That is what the paper has done. If you have any problem with that, then go to UK court and restart the case and keep me informed with all that you get. That is tha last humble request i can do man.
Nca wasn't investigation shabaz to begin with. Suleiman shabaz only 2 banking accounts were frozen and unfreeze later on, it doesn't mean they are not guilty of kickbacks, fake tts to pakistan, stealing of ERRA funds. BTW why was sharif resisted about making high court decision about nca proceedings public? They had made a particular narrative for brain dead patwaris for you that nca has declared them Sadiq and ameen which didn't existed in court proceedings

1. Now that the case has been settled out of court, those evidences will be made public too. Daily mail mentioned record of banking transaction exists and they have seen copy of cheque from erra to ali imran. Even patwaris fav jang has mentioned they have seen it.


Before you go on with your non-sense, sharifs are known liars. Sulemain in on record of saying they don't know of Fake TTs and they haven't received money in name of low wage employees accounts. Later hamzah admitted they received money in their employees account and they were business transaction. BTW under what law and why was sulemain disowning them in first place?

2. I know its hard for you to understand, Sharif approached London High court get Daily mail to get them pay damages, cost of proceedings and apologize for wrongfully acccusing them of kickbacks, money laundering, fake tts and earth relief funds. That's what ever defamation law suit claimant requires. Damages and Costs are secondary, the most important thing more than the damages and costs is to ensure publication categorically state we accused XYZ of corruption and corrupt practices, these claims were not true and we apolgize to XYZ for accusing them of corruption and any distress caused by it. You are right things were in process, the important process was Daily Mail had presented evidence to backup their claims. Sharif had only a week left for them to refute those claims else their case would have be strucked out (dismissed). Instead of refuting those claims in court, they settled their claim out of court with Daily Mail on terms of Daily Mail. If they had nothing to hide and Daily Mail had no basis for their claim, out of court settlement would have been of sharif's terms and not Daily Mail's terms and condition. I KNOW ITS HARD FOR YOU TO COMPREHEND BUT TRY TO, AKHAIR SHARIFS KI KYA MAJORI THI KAY WOH RIGHT PER BHI THAY (according to you) BUT THEY DIDNT GET ANY DAMAGES FROM DAILY MAIL, THEY DIDNT GET ANY COSTS OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS FROM MAIL, NEITHER DAILY MAIL IN THEIR CLARIFICATION STATED WE TAKE BACK OUR CLAIMS AND APOLOGISE TO SHARIFS (All those accused in article). YEAH BHI CHOR YEAH SOCH SAHRIFS WERE RIGHT, DAILY MAIL WAS ON THE WRONG, PER SETTLEMENT DAILY MAIL KAY TERMS PER KYUN HO RAHI THEEN, SHARIFS KAY TERMS PER KYUN NAHI. DAILY MAIL KO TU ISS WAQT THALAY LAGA HONA CHIAY THA, WOH TU JO SHARIFS KEHTAY WOH ISS WAQT MAAN LAITAY ELSE THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN FORCED TO PAY HIGH DAMAEGES AND COST. KYA WAJA THI KAY SETTLEMENT MAIN SHARIFS THALAY LAGAY HOAY THAY? SOCH RAJAY SOCH SHARIF NAY KUCH GHALAT NAHI KIA PER ALI IMRAN WAS UNDERPRESSUE TO HAVE THE MATTER SETTLED OUT OF COURT AT THE EARLIEST. SOCH RAJAY SOCH SHARIFS WERE RIGHT WHY DIDNT THEY REFUTE THE EVIDENCE OF MAIL AND GET LONDON HIGH COURT JUDGE TO DECLARE THEM SADIQ AND AMEEN.

3.
This is where I say you guys are ultimate Jahils. The cost that SS had to Pay to Daily Mail was to end the mutually agreed Stay. For hell sake take your head out of ass of Imran Riyaz and read the Page-2 and Para-2 of the court order. Pleeeas Read it.

RAJAY YEAH SUB SAY FUNNY HAI WAISAY, I WANT YOU TO REPLY TO ME ON THIS BUT I KNOW YOU WON'T AFTER THIS. BHIR BHI LET ME TRY.

Jahil say baat kernay ka yeahi nuksan hota hai, woh khud to jahil hota hai per dosron ko bhi jahil samjata hai. Difference between you and me is I verify the claim anyone makes and you blindly dance to the tune of Noon.

Rajay page 2 say pehlay page 1 ata hai, read that, and get some good translator to get it translated for you. 7 October 2022 ko first claimant (shabaz sharif) applied for a stay application. It wasn't a mutual agreed stay. On 6th November Sharifs withdrew the stay application (because on back end they were trying to get the matter settled out of court). Khotay biryani kay asar say bahir nikalo aur samjho, mutual application per cost is not charged to other party. It was shabaz who was initially seeking stay application and than had to Daily Mail cost they incurred for that stay application. Had it been a mutual application, each party would pay their own costs (lawyers), cost would not be charged to the other party. Thori si akal hi istamal ker laita tu baat samaj aa jati (i know its hard), agar mutual application thi tu why shabaz only is paying daily mail cost but daily mail is not paying cost to shabaz? Yeah na kahin ab judge daily mail kay sath milla hoa tha, lol

On a serious note intelligent rajay soch shabaz was the claimant, he had filed the case in court against Daily Mail. It was in shabaz utmost interest to have the matter settled at the earliest and have his name cleared. WHY WAS SHAHBAZ SEEKING STAY ORDER AND SUBSEQUENT DELAY IN HAVING HIS NAME CLEARED? RAJAY SOCH DEFENDANT TU STAY ORDER KA INTEREST RAKHTAY HOON GAAY, CLAIMIANT KAB SAY WOH BHI DEFAMATION KAY LAWSUIT MAIN?


https://twitter.com/x/status/1591046470383579141
4. OYE RAJAY KAAL TAAK TU CHEEK RAHA THA SHABAZ WAS NOT INDICATED, how can he be exonerated. Aaj tu nay ussay exonerate ker dia hai. Any publication anywhere in the world or any defendant anywhere in the world would settle for a claim out of court where they don't have to pay damages, cost to other party and done have to state what we accuse the other party of wasn't right and we apologize for that, Your chawal of point 4 stems from your lack of understanding of defamation lawsuits, reality of legal costs associated with filling and defending a case (that too involving leading law firms) in UK. Daily Mail had already filled evidence, they were not the aggrieved party, and not in their interest for pending uk case due to high legal costs.

I guess you it would be waste of time to argue with you, so i will leave at this point. I know you will reply to my post but will not talk about point # 3 (mutual stay order application) as its quiet embarrassing for you. lakin tu dheet bohat hai baizit mehsoos hi nahi kerta, damad tu nahi hai inka waisay?
 

Back
Top