`


THERE IS NO GOD EXCEPT ALLAH
read:
MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku

LOVE MALAYSIA!!!


 


Thursday, July 9, 2015

Hafarizam's Amateurish Letter and Press Statement

I too got a shock when I read Hafarizam's statements. Its a Thursday morning, we dont open till later and I just want to hiris-hiris sikit on what he has written. Plus some poking in the ribs.  

Some quick history. When the Pakatan government in Perak fell circa 2010 (?) we (the BN) organised ceramahs, meetings etc to explian the process to the people. There was a 'town hall' meeting held at the Ipoh Town Hall.  Speakers from both sides the BN and the Pakatan were invited. I was the Chairman for the session and Hafarizam spoke on behalf of the BN.

Firstly Hafarizam, please change those huge ugly fonts you use for your letter headHafarizam Wan ...   It somehow triggers images of the fonts they use in ghost stories. Suey lah. 

** I dont wish to mention the partner's name because she is my younger cousin..I used to feed her when she was a baby...

Here is that Press Release :

    PRESS RELEASE

    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 & .., to scrutinize the said article. The article is tainted with numerous allegations against our client which involved several companies and transactions.

 
My comments :
1. 'the Wall Street Journal' bukan 'a WSJ' lah.
2. 'has instructed us' bukan 'had instructed us'. 
3. Structure bad - just say 'our client has instructed..'

    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.

4. 'has intentionally' bukan 'is intentionally'
5. 'made reference' bukan 'has made reference'
6. if they are vaguely described then you dont have a case bro.

 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.

7. hangpa pi sekolah bawah pokok cempedak ke? 'our client had been directly probed into 1MDB' ?? It should be 'has' bukan 'had'.
8. It sounds like your client was used as a probe. Was this done at a proctologist's clinic?(A proctologist is an ass doctor - haemorrhoids etc).  Perhaps 'our client has been probed with reference to 1MDB' is better.
9.  Isnt your "
our client has been implicated with 1MDB-linked companiesan admission of guilt?

    This article by WSJ was issued, published and circulated through WSJ web portal http://www.wsj.com . 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.

10. If you have not identified them, why did you address your letter to The WSJ? The reporters names are written at the top of the articles. The paper is the Wall Street Journal.

11.  'any potential action' ?? So you are not sure? What type of letter is this?

12. 'as the article does not reflect extensive details for service of any legal letter or court documents' - if the article 'does not reflect extensive details' then there is no case. Why send the letter of demand? Why not just wait for another article which may have those desired extensive details? 

    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.

13It should be "whereby the publication" bukan "of which the publication". Sekolah tang mana bro? It should be 'and is accessible worldwide'.

14. This sentence is too dumb :  "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.First of all avoid using two 'also' in the same sentence. How can you shoot off the letter without seeking these basic clarifications and details? Jurisdiction tak tahu, local presence tak tahu. Why not ask Maniam the newspaper vendor dulu.

(Err..guys some clarification : Do you all know what is The Wall Street Journal?)

 
    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.


15. Waalaaaau-ehhh !! Not only is your client a conspirator, but the conspirators also include  
"International Petroleum Investment Co, Tanore Finance Corp, SRC International Sdn. Bhd, and Ihsan Perdana Sdn. Bhd." You said it ok. Ini awak cakap. Bukan orang lain cakap. I think Hafarizam Wan & co may be getting a letter of demand from these 'conspirators' as well.
 
16. The first sentence is hanging. It is incomplete. 'an action against' who?


      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.

17. 'have only'  bukan 'had only'.  And what are you  trying to say here :  "
This in itself either intentionally or otherwise has caused further identification of facts been required."

If I repair the English :  "This in itself either intentionally or otherwise requires further identification of facts". Which still does not make sense. Further identification of facts by whom? You or The WSJ? Letter of Demand pun kelam kabut. WSJ gelak tergolek sampai jatuh dalam East River di New York !!

    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.

18. Then why send the letter of demand?  Do you know you have disrupted my shower? Why not do all the identification first, the correct jurisdiction, the involvement of conspirators etc before you proceed. This is like Premature Ejaculato (he is a singer in the Philippines).. 

And it is 'who have been innocently' bukan 'which also had been innocently'.

      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.  "upon which our client shall be advised for an action of

19. 'further tortuous actions' ?? Yo bro, watching too many jihaadi videos lately? What torture are you talking about?

    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.

20. Ya Allah. Ini pun nak sebut ke? So you are saying you dont have a case.  You are saying that at this point in time your client is NOT able to proceed with giving you 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.

21. In other words you have no case.

    Yours faithfully,

    FOR AND ON BEHALF OF MESSRS HAFARIZAM WAN & ...

My final comments have nothing to do with the contents of Hafarizam's letter of demand or their Press Release.

This whole 'letter of demand' thingy is a charade. A Red Herring to ostensibly pukau the Felda Padang Piol types (who are actually far more cleverer than what the Super Moron thinks of them).  

This 'legal action' threatened against the Wall Street Journal will not go beyond the horrible grammar and the terrible sentence structure used in both the Letter of Demand as well as the Press Release.

Yo bro, this is not like writing a 55 year concession  agreement for a toll highway to nowhere.  Still, I think Hafarizam will get handsomely rewarded for writing this amaterurish letter.  

The bottom line is the people in Felda Piol do not read English. For sure Utusan would have told them about it (in Malay, jeng jeng jeng).  Mission accomplished. 

The Bugis pirate sails on - to pillage yet another coast.

Conclusion : The presence of large numbers of ignorant and barefoot natives is an absolute must for things like this to prevail.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.