Matters of opinion that enables me to understand or make some sense of my country- Malaysia

PRESS RELEASE

WSJ1 

WSJ2

The  letter to WSJ from Najib’s Law Firm ,that’s got many ”  Stumped  in a Bewildered or Downright Amused  way .

For the “Multi-Speak”  causing readers to do a “Double Take “Effect –

A type of “Scratch Head – “Huh…? What Does That  really MEAN??”  situation –

They are  Highlighted in Bold Letters.

And You thought that only Politicians do this sort of thing. !

Spewing statements that no one knows for sure what it means!

——————————————————————————————–

A Wall street Journal had published an article dated 3rd July 2015, implicating our client Datuk Seri Najib.

Immediately, our client had instructed us, Messrs Hafarizam Wan & Aisha Mubarak to scrutinize the said article.

.The article is tainted with numerous allegations against our client

.which involved several companies and transactions.

.Combing through the said article, we have concluded that the language is intentionally or otherwise has made reference to  several facts and companies which are vaguely described.

.Reference is made to the said article wherein it has been stated that our client had been directly probed into 1MDB,

.However contents of the article  refers to indirect transactions

where our client has been implicated with 1MDB-linked companies.

.A clear contradiction which requires further clarification.

.This article by  WSJ   was issued, published and circulated through WSJ web portal .

.Firstly, we have been instructed to identify the parties involved in the authorship, distribution and publishing,

.for the purpose of naming the appropriate parties in any

.potential actions which requires deliberation and research

as the article

” does not reflect extensive details for service of any legal letter or court documents.”

Secondly, another issue of concern is, jurisdictional issues of which the publication originates from United States of

.America and accessible worldwide. We have been also instructed that.

a local presence of WSJ is also available and we are pursuing further clarification and details on this matter.

.Since the article involves several parties, we have also been instructed to consider a joint action

.or an action against, in the event evidence shows a conspiracy against our client.

.Kindly note that the companies named as conspirators with our client, in the article are; International Petroleum Investment Co, Tanore Finance Corp, SRC International Sdn. Bhd, and Ihsan Perdana Sdn. Bhd.

.Several names of companies or organizations had only been referred to as the related companies or companies

.belonging to certain organizations or companies, and also the sources or destinations or the alleged transactions has not been disclosed.

This in itself -either intentionally or otherwise- has caused further identification of facts been required.

Once we have identified the parties, the jurisdiction, and the involvement of conspirators or are they merely parties which also had been innocently imputed in the article, we can then proceed to address the third issue.

.

.The third issue is to tackle all possible or plausible legal remedies of which our client shall be given advise on an

.action of defamation, further tortuous actions and remedies including any statutory violations by WSJ and related companies and (if any) conspirers.

.This is not a straightforward legal action due to the national and international imputations. 

.We have been instructed to identify facts and lay full facts, before our client, is able to proceed with further instructions.

.The purpose of clear explanation is to avoid unnecessary objections by WSJ

.on the imputations that are made.

.Once our client has obtained all necessary facts and the position of WSJ is ascertained,

.we have strict instructions to immediately exhaust legal avenues and remedies.

.Yours faithfully,

FOR AND ON BEHALF OF MESSRS HAFARIZAM WAN & AISHA MUBARAK

WAN AZMIR BIN WAN MAJID

***************************************************

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC

ARTICLES WRITTEN BY SIMON CLARK AND TOM WRIGHT IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL CONCERNING YAB DATO’ SRI MOHD NAJIB BIN TUN HAJI ABDUL RAZAK ENTITLED “MALAYSIA LEADER’S ACCOUNTS PROBED” PUBLISHED ON 2ND JULY 2015 AND “SCANDAL IN MALAYSIA” PUBLISHED ON 6TH JULY 2015  (“ THE ARTICLES”)

We act for the Right Honourable Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, in his personal capacity.

We refer to the Articles dated 2nd July 2015 and 6th July 2015 in your Wall Street Journal which, we state, contains a

.plethora of convoluted, scurrilous and vague allegations against our client.

.In the circumstances, we are instructed by our Client

to seek confirmation as to whether it is your position as taken in the Articles that our Client misappropriated

nearly USD 700 million from 1Malaysia Development Berhad?

We are instructed to procure your position because the Articles collectively suggest that you are unsure of “the original

.source of the money and what happened to the money” whilst on the other hand, the general gist of the Articles create

.a clear impression that our Client has misappropriated about USD 700 million belonging to 1Malaysia Development Berhad.

In the circumstance and in the interests of our Client, we would expect a Newspaper of your international standing and

.reputation to

state unequivocally and with clarity as to whether it is your contention that our Client

misappropriated about USD 700 million belonging to 1Malaysia Development Berhad.

You will no doubt appreciate the seriousness of the allegations made against our Client in the said Articles and this

confirmation is sought to enable us to advise our Client on the appropriate legal recourse he can take to seek

redress in relation to the publication of these Articles.

We demand a reply within fourteen (14) days of the date hereof and please let us know whether you have

appointed solicitors in Malaysia to accept service of legal proceedings on your behalf and on behalf of the

reporters who wrote the Articles- in the event –  that legal proceeding become necessary.

We hereby reserve all our Client’s rights in this matter.

FOR AND ON BEHALF OF MESSRS HAFARIZAM WAN & AISHA MUBARAK

 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
By The Way ,some High Lights of the Jargon (in Bold) and My Interpretation..

 .potential actions which requires deliberation and research as the article

” does not reflect extensive details for service of any legal letter or court documents.”

We want to Sue but We do not have enough Grounds and a Weak Case that may get thrown out of any Court room.

—————————————————————————————————————————
jurisdictional issues:  
We are not even sure Where and under whose  Laws and Which Court to Sue You At ,
since WSJ is a US based Media Organisation.!
—————————————————————————————————————————
exhaust legal avenues and remedies.: 
But Still , It is Hoped that WSJ Consider the Best Interests of ALL Parties and Adopt a Less Antagonistic Position Towards Our Client in Future. No more Bad Press !
—————————————————————————————————————————
. and (if any) conspirers:
Well ,this speaks for itself.! Although it suggest that “We know who put you up to this.!
.————————————————————————————————————————–
state unequivocally and with clarity as to whether it is your contention that our Client

misappropriated about USD 700 million.:

Are you accusing our Client of Corruption or not ?  Be Clear and Specific!  So that We can Sue for Defamation if you are.!

—————————————————————————————————————————

We demand a reply :

We are Demanding  but whether you Comply or Nor is Another Matter thats up to You!!

—————————————————————————————————————————

appointed solicitors in Malaysia –  to accept service of legal proceedings : 

We want to Sue You and Get the Lawsuit proceedings on our Home Turf!

And I say Good Luck to Them!

—————————————————————————————————————————

in the event  that legal proceeding become necessary:

We may not Sue after-all , If we think we cannot put a case together.It will be highly embarassing!

No Guarantees in a Court of Law.Horrors ! What if We Lose ? Our Client may get incriminated with Criminal behaviour and answer to the Law.

—————————————————————————————————————————

In a Nutshell , The Letter Above Reads like …….
        “We want to Sue You-But You Need to Tell Us How and What Grounds We Can Sue You On !
        ” Because We are Not Sure What You Mean in The Article “
        ” Please Clarify Whether You Defamed our Client or Not .You See.!
         ” We want to be Sure , That if We Sue You, We Have a Solid Excuse.That You Need to Provide us With .”
        ” Maybe You at WSJ  can Help Our Case  by Claiming Openly  –
            That Our Client Embezzled Goverment Funds and Accuse our Client Openly of Corruption.”
   So, Please State Whether it was WSJ’s Intent or Not To Defame Our Client ,PM Najib Razak
   It’s a headache for Our  Law-Firm ,
     Since in the Article  WSJ just reported Facts with Evidence That Only Verify Up to a Point but Could Not Go Further
Because There wasn’t Any More Verifiable Facts.!   But That’s Why We Are Asking WSJ to Respond to This letter
Affirming or  Concluding that our Client is Practicing Corruption And Or Accuse Openly that our Client Mis-Used Goverment  Funds.!
    Even a Hypothetical Analysis will be Appreciated- That Insinuates Our Client Commited Financial Mis-Conduct
Or it be Better If WSJ Makes an Outright Accusation.! Our Law Firm Need Stronger Grounds for Our Lawsuit against WSJ!
  So ,Would You Guys at WSJ Mind Terribly If You Openly  and Publicly Claim our Client is Engage in Corruption?
 Then ,It Will Make It So Much Easier to Make a Case for Defamation..And Of Course to Sue WSJ !
—————————————————————————————————————————
 I am by No Means a Lawyer ,and usually the “Mumbo-Jumbo” Legal Jargon used by Legal Profession can get many minds reeling in a spin  for at times it seem to be Some Alien  Language.
   Spoken on Planet Vulcan.?
 .Although it may seem that to  – Whoever drafted the letter  – Spock will Say “Live Long and Prosper “.
And they most certainly Can-  yet maybe not of the .Legal profession.!
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: