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8r a y.G$_
我唔相信Michael Jackson 無狎童:mad: 疑點利益歸於被告﹐法律需要保障雙方面。 人地講左啦~
打得甩唔代表佢無做過,(打得甩係因為冇十足的證據),並唔代表佢無做過
係鬼都知佢有做啦,唔係邊有咁多人搵佢話佢狎童,
你去下<<空間靈幻異次元>>應該可以問到Michael Jackson死了後會有什麼審判 Y#L9gI4\
that"s all
[[i] Last edited by happylion99 on 2005-6-15 at 04:44 AM [/i]] 寧縱勿枉 有無做過真係無人知﹐你唔會知道D人係咪勒索不成後所以出黎屈距。 有人影到佢ja 住個BB 係露台 fing 下fing 下~
!T\4^s`5{#T'`
[url]http://www.killsometime.com/games/game.asp?Game=Michael-Jackson-Baby-Drop[/url])z0[ P O@ l Dc&?B!Mt
c+W"Q/y8_t i \j |[
[[i] Last edited by spector.R on 2005-6-15 at 04:56 AM [/i]] [quote]Originally posted by [i]spector.R[/i] at 2005-6-15 04:46 AM:
有人影到佢ja 住個BB 係露台 fing 下fing 下~ [/quote]
尼個的而且確係真﹐距真係癲癲地架。 我100%支持米高,但係有冇做過只有佢自己先知喇,XJ dT\8v\ n
但係證原告男童母親都唔係好可信,屈錢都未定
仲有個tom sneddon 好似同佢有仇咁,好似一定要釘死米高咁4b!CM&} p&_5H _{
事後mj前妻德比·羅維事後發表聲明稱，“我肯定不會與一個戀童癖結婚的，這次審判也證明了我的判斷。” [quote]Originally posted by [i]vivienna[/i] at 2005-6-15 04:42 AM:
有無做過真係無人知﹐你唔會知道D人係咪勒索不成後所以出黎屈距。 [/quote]
? |3f _i
除非個條友好有$,先咁得閑同佢打官司,咁得閑出黎屈佢,d律師費都唔少.Anfa5r Q E
用d假証據博勝訴?同自己的錢(律師費)鬥氣?/a*Zr_p/G
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
[[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:4[[!r o*l p8CH
wnX_$B
除非個條友好有$,先咁得閑同佢打... [/quote] s5d2q qA N
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。X(fd9|`*v7N
6a'p@ng)X6Uz.a
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:
;f\O L#Q ` H/W
除非個條友好有$,先咁得閑同佢打... [/quote]:W X0W0z9Q9Z9|3_
This is a crimial case, the goverment/tax payer pay for everything.
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:
先生﹐刑事罪係由政府出錢告架﹐如... [/quote] b@x(I3C/r%Q7n
照你咁講,咁樣告人個條友有咩錢要支付呢? ;)*I(Yv V{'nx0BT/\
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
j/\([&D| SHme
我讀得書少,唔好蝦我~u T8B#l/t-LC@
[[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:
hello vivi, you beat me to it [/quote]
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:
告人個條友= your goverment (not you)
民事訴訟:sO|3rs P Q e8Tp
告人個條友 =you [quote]Originally posted by [i]happylion99[/i] at 2005-6-15 05:06 AM:
3T{L;|^9f t.q
照你咁講,咁樣告人個條友有咩錢要支付呢? ;)"h c/R$LY5W @/R j#p
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]
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。X3Y l.w/C K,i7b
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] VB R0]+Q0V6zL%y H9?"f
s_'P A IP%\
Not always... like this case.. d&j+F3HH]Ay_ }6|4T4o n
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*I gIf a+B4h#S
如果你喜歡*],cgePq~5U }
您可以加入討論
但如果某人認為那"人地講左啦~"}(iN qF7{j
已經代表自己的觀點pFd ^ x ba T
您沒有需要繼續吠
THE END
頁:
[1]
2