Michael Jackson 咁都打得甩!!! 回應啦~
Michael Jackson 咁都打得甩???金錢可以買到公義
我唔相信Michael Jackson 無狎童:mad: 疑點利益歸於被告﹐法律需要保障雙方面。 人地講左啦~&o ^-l9zm8Y N*C
打得甩唔代表佢無做過,(打得甩係因為冇十足的證據),並唔代表佢無做過 S#{pU0m+A
係鬼都知佢有做啦,唔係邊有咁多人搵佢話佢狎童,
你去下<<空間靈幻異次元>>應該可以問到Michael Jackson死了後會有什麼審判p},r"X#K6IED
that"s all
;]UwG&rA
[[i] Last edited by happylion99 on 2005-6-15 at 04:44 AM [/i]] 寧縱勿枉 有無做過真係無人知﹐你唔會知道D人係咪勒索不成後所以出黎屈距。 有人影到佢ja 住個BB 係露台 fing 下fing 下~:I/o4}7AP
[url]http://www.killsometime.com/games/game.asp?Game=Michael-Jackson-Baby-Drop[/url]
[[i] Last edited by spector.R on 2005-6-15 at 04:56 AM [/i]] [quote]Originally posted by [i]spector.R[/i] at 2005-6-15 04:46 AM:'G:Y Y.Q)M,w
有人影到佢ja 住個BB 係露台 fing 下fing 下~ [/quote] P?po#n8i,ab
尼個的而且確係真﹐距真係癲癲地架。 我100%支持米高,但係有冇做過只有佢自己先知喇,"|S4gM2Kr
但係證原告男童母親都唔係好可信,屈錢都未定&B%v9Zl I4w-m0@"`"v:W
仲有個tom sneddon 好似同佢有仇咁,好似一定要釘死米高咁2c A ? d lel$\L h
事後mj前妻德比·羅維事後發表聲明稱，“我肯定不會與一個戀童癖結婚的，這次審判也證明了我的判斷。” [quote]Originally posted by [i]vivienna[/i] at 2005-6-15 04:42 AM:(d"yS N,x2Q Qr
有無做過真係無人知﹐你唔會知道D人係咪勒索不成後所以出黎屈距。 [/quote]J.`~9lh
Y3A3[6K8`5]
除非個條友好有$,先咁得閑同佢打官司,咁得閑出黎屈佢,d律師費都唔少.
用d假証據博勝訴?同自己的錢(律師費)鬥氣?2QQ S ` ]n l
'B2z@ Nmg
你地會唔會俾大筆律師費老屈一條友 博一件冇發生過的事的勝訴[{2{Qc8uZ;b x_
-`9XiS:y(Q%q+d
[[i] Last edited by happylion99 on 2005-6-15 at 04:52 AM [/i]] [quote]Originally posted by [i]happylion99[/i] at 2005-6-15 04:49 AM: ` E9\&YX5v ^os
|t$pL L*Q
除非個條友好有$,先咁得閑同佢打... [/quote]
先生﹐刑事罪係由政府出錢告架﹐如果你被人打﹐如果你有足夠證據既話﹐你靜係需要報警﹐然後律政處會起訴果位人兄。法例係保障市民﹐如果要市民出錢告人既話﹐甘D法例咪等如無法例。而果位人兄就要位辯護律師幫距打官司喇﹐尼個就要比錢。
Civil Law 既民事訴訟就係如果你想告人﹐甘你就要自己出錢喇。 [quote]Originally posted by [i]happylion99[/i] at 2005-6-15 04:49 AM:
e4f7Wp+ypE d.V
O]9v6f"C,[ l&D#I_o
除非個條友好有$,先咁得閑同佢打... [/quote]
3i+o z?*p;IR
This is a crimial case, the goverment/tax payer pay for everything. @"P:aF S-bi$m
Find out the fact before you speak lar.... hello vivi, you beat me to it [quote]Originally posted by [i]vivienna[/i] at 2005-6-15 05:00 AM:1FV4A8WBS*P
ZEJi)a B[
先生﹐刑事罪係由政府出錢告架﹐如... [/quote]
照你咁講,咁樣告人個條友有咩錢要支付呢? ;)
如果無錢要支付的話,咁個個都會走去博一博,告一告,屈一屈3H[ iN'j)I)q nm({
我讀得書少,唔好蝦我~V6VZK`*aw
[[i] Last edited by happylion99 on 2005-6-15 at 05:07 AM [/i]] [quote]Originally posted by [i]johnwu[/i] at 2005-6-15 05:02 AM:&D2P&{1l0j-e9~ A
hello vivi, you beat me to it [/quote]:z'g$RjZZO,O X
haha Mr Wu, beating you is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity ar ma, i will grab hold of it for sure.:D:D:D 刑事罪:9Ba;jrv ?u$rI/w
告人個條友= your goverment (not you)?d_ ]7V
A$^"`7b)K0Y)X
民事訴訟:
告人個條友 =you [quote]Originally posted by [i]happylion99[/i] at 2005-6-15 05:06 AM:
照你咁講,咁樣告人個條友有咩錢要支付呢? ;)
如果無錢要支付的話,咁個個都會走去博一博,告一告,屈一屈 [/quote]*C L+g6O8Aa T
大錯特錯﹐你如果告人唔成功既話﹐將會被人反告毀謗(defamatory)﹐到時你就真係要出錢喇﹐或可以用法律緩助處既。B"RQ5mK!C \`9lb`
答番你個問題﹐[color=LimeGreen]告人個條友[/color]唔係一個人﹐而係成個律政處告﹐受害者靜係需要做證人。 thank you for your teaching 仲有再補充既就係律政處靜係會o係有足夠證據既情況下先會落CHARGE﹐唔係話告就告。 [quote]Originally posted by [i]vivienna[/i] at 2005-6-15 05:14 AM:
仲有再補充既就係律政處靜係會o係有足夠證據既情況下先會落CHARGE﹐唔係話告就告。 [/quote]
Not always... like this case..
or SingTao newspaper case is 有足夠證據既情況下 but no charge 我想聽大家自己的觀點
如果你喜歡,|w v!rM
您可以加入討論
但如果某人認為那"人地講左啦~"
已經代表自己的觀點
您沒有需要繼續吠
THE END
頁:
[1]
2