Michael Jackson 咁都打得甩!!! 回應啦~
Michael Jackson 咁都打得甩???&iB x/z)FW%aL金錢可以買到公義bI l~ RxUME B
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j2sXceuiS F
係鬼都知佢有做啦,唔係邊有咁多人搵佢話佢狎童, X;tL ~bA
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
that"s all ZkPC;Qb
[[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~
[url]http://www.killsometime.com/games/game.asp?Game=Michael-Jackson-Baby-Drop[/url]
X:a2x ~F,i!Lx;p
[[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:@Wo)Nj_t4Ag
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,'q4vq F)C a
但係證原告男童母親都唔係好可信,屈錢都未定fE5qh)`}0rH
仲有個tom sneddon 好似同佢有仇咁,好似一定要釘死米高咁R"R_Oy#G1z hkZ
E:{ U(h+u2H {p J6M
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:8Q Kp+IK
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]
g&^ @0JI
除非個條友好有$,先咁得閑同佢打官司,咁得閑出黎屈佢,d律師費都唔少.
用d假証據博勝訴?同自己的錢(律師費)鬥氣?)Z n.H&t f%} r
你地會唔會俾大筆律師費老屈一條友 博一件冇發生過的事的勝訴8EI-~yL b V
BK J)UgOU W}~
[[i] Last edited by happylion99 on 2005-6-15 at 04:52 AM [/i]] [quote]Originally posted by [i]happylion99[/i] at 2005-6-15 04:49 AM:
4p_mR^g0a_
除非個條友好有$,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。4t-x iE'o6{/]
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:3Ix R*Jw)k Y8x5N
B)E,zRNPk&[ s+`
除非個條友好有$,先咁得閑同佢打... [/quote])JD*H&D*R](V]4n
This is a crimial case, the goverment/tax payer pay for everything. G9e#F2BM
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:1m/JDBw6RnY"b n
&@9D1H\2J [)r5]9{
先生﹐刑事罪係由政府出錢告架﹐如... [/quote]o odH}NH J*w
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
r1i0hGZ
我讀得書少,唔好蝦我~J%\)w'Iq XG
[[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: rT*|sdo*?/M'M1P
hello vivi, you beat me to it [/quote][p3\ f2]j(h H6IXG
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:+l.N5S8p b9R
告人個條友= your goverment (not you)
N&T i4cv8r X#{
民事訴訟:Ic q1^(Lk9I
告人個條友 =you [quote]Originally posted by [i]happylion99[/i] at 2005-6-15 05:06 AM:
G/i[U |6B`
照你咁講,咁樣告人個條友有咩錢要支付呢? ;)j%F8jK L2{ G
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]0~nh P3l1H
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。}(v:J,t_"V
p'A#gcXV;F
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:.y"_Rz#pi d^H
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]t#Z n'U#N,Y
Not always... like this case.. '?ugPvZ$] A!x f
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/fT+B]2J
如果你喜歡
您可以加入討論2K]/Sw.a s+m Eyi
但如果某人認為那"人地講左啦~"
已經代表自己的觀點_,{7]w t K `j z
您沒有需要繼續吠&V Cj z3|7a R6V I }`
THE END
頁:
[1]
2