第一官妻羅斯瑪被大律師茜蒂卡欣狠狠打臉了！《羅斯瑪恫言起訴國內媒體誹謗？別被她空白的恐嚇嚇倒了！她拿什麼去告人家？》
茜蒂卡欣說：《在美國司法部宣布充公那麼多不義之財、公開那麼多有關她涉案的證據之下，她有本事就去告美國誹謗！不敢告就表示美國所有的指控都是真的，她拿什麼去提控網民？》
茜蒂卡欣說，在司法上，如果你指控某某人誹謗索償，那麼，起訴人就必須提供有力的證據證明被告所寫的東西是誤導、是錯誤的。但是如果被告引述的證據全是來自美國司法部公布的文件、或華爾街日報的報導、或砂拉越報告的資料；那麼，被告可以完全放心，羅斯瑪根本告不進的。
再說，如果案件上了高庭，開審的時候，原告必須被傳召出庭，拿出有力證據證明美國司法部、華爾街日報、砂拉越報告的各種文件報導都是假的。如果不能拿出反駁證據，怎樣贏？
茜蒂卡欣認為，羅斯瑪最應該做的就是立即起訴美國司法部、華爾街日報和砂拉越報告，而不是欺負國內弱小的媒體。
《你們掌握著國內媒體的生殺大權，許多媒體連美國司法部充公一馬公司贓款與贓物、指名道姓批評你們竊國濫權腐敗，你們為什麼卻不敢去告他們誹謗？為什麼不敢去向他們追討公道？》她說。
如果納吉羅斯瑪不敢反駁美國司法部的指控，不敢起訴華爾街日報及砂拉越報告誹謗，那就等於他們承認了所有的指控。那麼，社交網絡媒體引用美國司法部、華爾街日報及砂拉越報告公開的證據批評納吉羅斯瑪；就肯定沒有問題。
再說了，去年底首相署部長拉曼達藍接受英國廣播公司BBC專訪時，已經很肯定的說過美國司法部所指的《大馬第一號官員》就是首相納吉。相關的專訪視頻與文章發表之後，直到今天首相納吉都沒有否認也不曾反駁；這足以說明，大馬一號官員就是納吉。因此，一號官員之妻，理所當然就是羅斯瑪。
《羅斯瑪如果敢告媒體誹謗，那她也必須先證明自己不是一號官員的妻子！》茜蒂卡欣說：《她必須反駁拉曼達藍部長的談話，但是她又無法反駁，這難度太大了！》
茜蒂卡欣說，馬來西亞聯邦憲法第十條文清楚寫明，人民，尤其是媒體，有權針對涉及國家利益的課題發表意見。
"All citizens, in particular, the press, are entitled under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution to discuss matters of public interest.
美國司法部公開針對一馬公司的種種指控，涉及馬來西亞國家的利益，因此人民在憲法保護下，絕對有權發表個人的看法與意見。
羅斯瑪敢上法庭面對審訊嗎？羅斯瑪有辦法提出反證來對付評論者嗎？她絕對不敢！
《她如果有能力反駁，如果美國司法部公布的證據是虛假的，她早就去美國提告了！為什麼到現在還是不敢去？》西卡卡欣說：《不敢去，就證明美國司法部沒有誣賴她，所有針對她和劉特佐、納吉、利扎阿茲的指控都是真的！》
因此，羅斯瑪所謂《警告社交媒體若敢議論她涉及一馬公司醜聞就會被檢控》的說法，純粹只是恐嚇罷了。大家不必害怕，也別向恐嚇跪拜。
Rosmah’s threat to sue likely to remain just that, say lawyers
THE threat by Rosmah Mansor to sue those who produce "false, malicious publications or postings" is likely a blustering attempt to intimidate her critics and cow social media users without resulting in any real legal action, say lawyers.
Yesterday, Rosmah's solicitor Messrs Noorhajran Mohd Noor issued a statement saying those who make malicious attacks against her would face legal action without further notices or references.
The statement further added that Rosmah's lawyers are closely monitoring all postings on social media platforms and other publications in relation to the false and malicious attacks against her.
Lawyers say that the threat is unlikely to result in any real legal action, such as a defamation suit, due to the legal work entailed and the fact that the wife of the prime minister would likely be called to testify as well.
"It seems they're doing it to scare people from commenting on her. It's a practice to intimidate others," said Eric Paulsen, executive director of Lawyers for Liberty.
"At the end of the day, you end up in court and are subject to the legal process, even if you are the plaintiff. Once the suit is filed, the court process will go on and everyone will have to put in their documents. Rosmah will have to come and testify," he said.
Rosmah's statement came a day after the US Department of Justice (DoJ) filed a civil action to begin seizing assets worth US$540 million (RM2.3 billion), believed to have been purchased using money siphoned from state investor fund 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).
DoJ's latest suit, its third since last year, brings the total amount allegedly misappropriated from 1MDB to US$4.5 billion.
The latest DoJ suit also noted how Malaysian financier Low Taek Jho had purchased, using money from 1MDB, a 22-carat pink diamond necklace for the 「wife of Malaysian Official No. 1」 (MO1).
MO1 was previously identified as the prime minister by a minister in the Prime Minister’s Department.
Paulsen said blogs and social media users should not be targeted as they are not the originators of information regarding 1MDB.
"The information came from the DoJ. The other source is the Wall Street Journal or at the very least, Sarawak Report. So rather than target blogs, newspapers or Facebook users, who are merely repeating what these originators have said, they should be suing these entities instead.
"So it seems they are targeting people who are the weakest instead of taking on people who are challenging them head on," Paulsen said.
Litigation lawyer Siti Kasim said individuals or publications would only be liable if they made subjective claims that cannot be proven in court.
"If there are claims that she has spent money lavishly from 1MDB, it's a different story. But even then, if she sues over the fact that she's not the recipient of money linked to 1MDB, (her lawyers) will have come out with proof that she wasn't."
Siti, a vocal human rights activist, added there no longer appears to be any legal issues in naming Rosmah as the wife of MO1.
"A minister has publicly confirmed that MO1 is the prime minister and so by implication, she (Rosmah) is the wife of the prime minister.I'm not sure how's she going to disprove that," Siti said.
Last September Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Rahman Dahlan said in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) that MO1, as named by the US Department of Justice (DoJ), was Prime Minister Najib Razak.
"I've said it openly. Obviously, if you read the documents, it is the prime minister," the BBC quoted him as saying in an article titled "Who is Malaysian Official 1? Case closed."
"Her lawyer will have to come up with a very good argument...Unless they say Rahman Dahlan has lied or something," Siti said.
Surendra Ananth, an advocate and solicitor, said as long as social media users or publications do not come up with unproven allegations of their own, Rosmah's threat to take legal action is "shaky".
"As long as they state what the DoJ claim states, I don't see how they can be liable," he said.
Surendra said any suit would be deemed "baseless" if publications use the "truth of justification" defence.
"As far as the papers have repeated what the DoJ papers disclose, by reference to Rosmah being MO1's wife, the papers can rely on the defence of justification.
"A minister has publicly admitted that MO1 is Najib. This was not denied by Najib or anyone else. It is therefore beyond dispute that MO1's wife is Rosmah," he said.
Surendra also said there is the legal matter of qualified privilege, whereby the press has a duty to report on matters of public interest.
"I don't see any element of irresponsible journalism when the press had merely stated what the DoJ papers have disclosed.
"All citizens, in particular, the press, are entitled under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution to discuss matters of public interest.
"The allegations in the DoJ relates to public funds and the conduct of governmental officials. Everyone has the constitutional right to discuss these matters. The media statement is nothing but a hollow threat to stifle free expression," he said.
轉載請註明來源：今天頭條