事實證明納吉不敢告華爾街日報，因為華爾街日報刊登的證據，令納吉羅斯瑪無從狡辯！

華爾街日報踢爆納吉的一馬公司420億債務醜聞和26億銀行私人戶口存款醜聞，迄今已過3個月，但是納吉卻始終提不起勇氣去告它誹謗！

納吉羅斯瑪不但沒有春袋沒有勇氣告華爾街日報誹謗，甚至連砂拉越報告的女總編輯對他毫不留情的貪污腐敗批判指責，也不敢提告。

這證明了華爾街日報和砂拉越報告所報導的全部是事實，他們在報導中所列出的所有證據和指控，都是有根據的，是納吉羅斯瑪無從狡辯的。

稍微有點常識的人都知道，如果華爾街日報和砂拉越報告的爆料文章是捏造的，納吉羅斯瑪肯定第一時間就提告了，那有可能拖了3個月還是靜雞雞不敢提告？

看看大馬國內，人家林良實只不過根據華爾街日報的報導指責納吉收取別人的錢，納吉馬上就跳起來喊告了。為什麼？因為就是看準了馬來西亞華人最好欺負嗎？柿子挑軟的吃，這個道理誰都知道，不是嗎？納吉只敢對著國內的華裔嗆聲、指揮紅衣山番製造極端主義騷亂針對華人打壓以轉移焦點，但是對著高調指控他是國際巨貪的華爾街日報，納吉卻連提告的膽量都沒有。這證明了什麼？這證明納吉跟那些巫統的馬來紅衣山番一樣，也是一個欺善怕惡的馬來孬種領袖罷了。

華爾街日報公開指責納吉貪污腐敗，報導已經通行全世界，現在五大洋七大洲、200多個國家與地區的60多億人口，超過一半都知道納吉河馬的醜聞。

也就是因為納吉的關係，令馬來西亞成功擊敗印尼，榮膺全球排名第一的貪污國家。而這項榮譽，相信也只有那些在機場迎接納吉回國、高喊納吉是馬來英雄的那500多個巫統馬來人會感到很光榮罷了，其他有羞恥心的三大民族人民估計都羞愧得很想鑽地洞。

納吉是國家英雄？納吉是馬來民族的英雄？真正貼切的說法應該是：納吉是國家最大的貪污腐敗狗熊，納吉是令馬來人喪失尊嚴的民族狗熊。

ACCUSED ALL OVER THE WORLD OF BEING A THIEF, YET 'SIGN OF GUILT' NAJIB REFUSES TO SUE WSJ

Why is Najib prevaricating and not suing his main detractors?』

Gerard Lourdesamy: This must be unprecedented in the annals of jurisprudence. Despite three months since The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published the allegedly defamatory article about PM Najib Razak, the plaintiff is reluctant to take any action either in the United States or Malaysia to vindicate his reputation unless the defendants disclose in advance what their defence is going to be and whether they are going to rely on a statutory provision that immunises them from enforcement proceedings in the US in the event a judgment is entered against them by a foreign court.

If the allegations are not true, why is Najib prevaricating and not suing his detractors? The excuses have become untenable and create a perception that the WSJ must be telling the truth. This entire episode has become a comedy of errors.

Odin Tajué: You asked whether WSJ would invoke the Speech Act (Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage) should it be found culpable. WSJ has replied that it would not waive any defences.

That reply is clear, except, perhaps, to idiots. It means WSJ would invoke anything and everything. Of course, it would. When you are in a battle, you use whatever and all resources you have.

If its invoking of the Speech Act is your fear, take the case to the US court. But you won't, will you? And we all know why, don't we?

Vijay47: Umno lawyer Mohd Hafarizam Harun, I can well imagine your predicament.

With limited or perhaps non-existent experience in transnational legal suits and surrounded as you are by advisers like Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, Tajuddin Abdul Rahman, and Salleh Said Keruak, you are not even sure whether you are coming or going regarding that miserable suit against WSJ.

Yes, I know, there are days we all wish we had stayed in bed. And the haze doesn't help either. So to give you a bit of help here, what "...advance concessions regarding which defences it may choose to rely on」 means is that WSJ is saying, in plain English, it is hardly going to reveal what hand it is going to play.

Mercifully, what it does not add is that it is amazed that a lawyer would actually ask the opposing team what its game plan is.

Telestai!: It must have been a very rare occasion for WSJ to be asked the question if they'll waive a defence option available to them. It is almost like the public prosecutor asking the defence team in a murder trial if they'll plead insanity before he frames a murder charge.

It is an absolute joke to have a senior Malaysian lawyer fumbling something as fundamental as this.

Anak JB: Indeed, I have never seen a lawyer asking another about their defence strategy. Which lawyer in the right frame of mind will show their cards? Stop wasting time, please go ahead and sue WSJ.

Evensteven: Hafarizam, stop all these posturing nonsense. Your client, the bugis warrior, is a one ringgit chicken man who hasn't got the scrotal fortitude to take on WSJ.

Collect your fees and close the file is what I would advise you to do.

Pahatian: If you have done no wrong or all the facts are true and in order, and you are slandered, the only course of action is to sue the other party.

Why bother about what course of action the party will take? I guess this is just a lame excuse.

Anonymous_1408265047: The WSJ board members would have to be complete idiots to contest the case in Malaysia.

One look at Mark Trowell’s book, 『The Prosecution of Anwar Ibrahim』, would convince them that they could never expect to get a fair trial in Malaysia.

Wira: There is no need to obfuscate the issue further. Have the suit heard in a third country, say Australia or Canada. Everyone waives whatever immunity he has.

Who in his right mind wants to make his defence in Malaysia against the PM?

Lim Chong Leong: What Hafarizam is basically saying is this: I need to know your moves in response to mine before I make mine.

That is, before I move my bishop, will you move your knight to check my king? Because if you are going to do that, then I won』t make that move.

So if an attorney-general knows his accused will eventually seek a royal pardon, he will not prosecute?

This whole idea is not whether the judgment in Malaysian courts will be enforceable in the US, it is about getting a judgment that says WSJ lied and Najib is innocent of all malicious libel. It is about exonerating the PM’s and our country's good name.

Ramesh Rajaratnam: These days, I'm quite used to seeing such idiotic statements by the supposedly intelligent.

In fact, if an Umno man said something intelligent, I would be honestly shocked. This lawyer should let his chambering student take charge of his firm while he goes back to study law.

D4f: When I was in Form 3, there was this temporary teacher who screamed at one our classmates 「eh, bastard shut up」 because we were quite noisy.

You know what the boy said? 「Say sorry now or see my mother in court.」 So what term of defence do you want?

Hmmmmmmmm: WSJ, do you mind telling us which defence you will use if we were to sue you? Our PM does not like to lose, you know.

Full article:

Follow us: @MsiaChronicle on Twitter

轉載請註明來源：今天頭條