|
|
Post by tactician on Mar 14, 2013 17:28:50 GMT 3
Anyone know where I can get a complete copy of the video recording of the status conference? Kamalet, I have been looking for the video too but no success yet. In its stead, have a look at the transcript of the proceedings here: www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1565837.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 14, 2013 18:31:26 GMT 3
Anyone know where I can get a complete copy of the video recording of the status conference? Kamalet, I have been looking for the video too but no success yet. In its stead, have a look at the transcript of the proceedings here: www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1565837.pdfThanks Tactician!! I realised I could not get one and literary queued up waiting for the transcripts which I read yesterday. Now waiting for the next conference on Monday 18th to see if Bensouda has more for us. She has a filing due tomorrow prior to the conference. |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Mar 15, 2013 6:08:18 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 15, 2013 7:48:53 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by amadain on Mar 15, 2013 16:16:03 GMT 3
Witnesses were either killed, were bribed or had died. Can we therefore conclude that ICC Witness Protection is useless?
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Mar 15, 2013 17:04:16 GMT 3
Earlier I wrote:First, is not necessary that the other people involved in the "common plan" also be in the dock . In this particular case, for example, Maina Njenga is featured quite prominently in the "common plan".
Second, keep in mind that in one other case where two people were jointly charged, the court decided to separate the case into two and re-characterize the charges. So it would unwise to make any assumptions about how the court might handle this one.Read more: jukwaa.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=7906&page=5#ixzz2NcG1DjHQIn her latest submissions the prosecutor notes that:8. Third, precedent from this Court demonstrates that a trial may proceed against an individual charged as co-perpetrator under Article 25(3)(a), even if others alleged to be co-perpetrators are not charged, or are not present at trial.
11 .... On 3 July 2012, at the Chamber’s invitation, the Prosecution submitted an application for notice to be given under Regulation 55(2) that the accused’s mode of liability may be subject to recharacterisation under Articles 25(3)(b), 25(3)(c) and 25(3)(d). The Prosecution’s pre-trial brief gave further notice that these additional modes of liability could be used to characterise the accused’s criminal responsibility. While the Trial Chamber has not yet ruled on the Prosecution’s Regulation 55(2) application, the parties are on clear notice that indirect co-perpetration under Article 25(3)(a) is not the only mode of liability open to the Chamber with respect to Mr Kenyatta. www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1567050.pdfThe "simplest" solution for the Trial Chamber, it seems to me, would be to send the case back to the Pre-Trial Chamber.
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 15, 2013 17:28:52 GMT 3
Otishotish
I think Bensouda was reluctant to send the two back to the PTC for she would have lost both there - perhaps the anger of the judges at the lies by the OTP would have just been too much. I suspect that this is the reason behind her pre-mature withdrawal of charges before the trial conference started last Monday.
Now looking at her submissions, she has been good at justification of why one party trial can proceed where there were co-perpetrators.
But I do not think this was all that the chamber wanted. They wanted an idea of what happens to the evidence that had been used to join the two at the hip and she has not answered that as explicitly as she really should have. Her failure to respond to these questions especially the request by the Uhuru defence of referral back to the PTC might make the judges actually take the case back to PTC with the very high prospect of her not proceeding with the case as I doubt that court will accept evidence that had not been previuosly tendered.
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Mar 15, 2013 18:09:33 GMT 3
I doubt that court will accept evidence that had not been previuosly tendered. I don't see why not. Also, looking at other cases, the court has been insistent that finding the truth comes before any legal games and has sometimes allowed new evidence fairly late in proceedings. I don't think it is necessary, but, she could, for example, simply charge under a different mode of liability and bring new evidence to support the case. In the extreme case, she could for example drop the current charges and them promptly charge again. As for the withdrawal, I believe it has more to do with the witnesses (which as far as I can tell are in two different groups). I believe that most of the witnesses against Muthaura are among those still in Kenya (some in GoK) and have been hedging their bets to see which way the elections went. I think it On the Uhuru side, something like close to half the witnesses appear to be Mungiki who have long been relocated. For other reasons that I believe has to do with certain witnesses, Bensouda does not wish to have her hand forced right on some matters, which is what would happen in another skirmish over Muthaura. Better to let the small fish go and focus on the big one. The gourd + 11 beans (not beads) + ancient leopard also tell me that at some point .... who knows when ... Ruto will have to be thrown under the bus by his new friends. That will be fun to watch. |
|
|
|
Post by furaha on Mar 15, 2013 18:36:39 GMT 3
Witnesses were either killed, were bribed or had died. Can we therefore conclude that ICC Witness Protection is useless? That.s a good question but difficult to answer. I believe the ICC's witness protection programme has some serious weaknesses. On the other hand, the Kenyan situation is quite unique in the sense that the accused remain free and are able to wield the power and money they have to intimidate friends and relatives who have remained behind. It is probably not too difficult to establish where witnesses have been relocated to. The situation of relocated witnesses has often been depicted as living a life of luxury in rich countries. That is far from the truth. More often than not they find it difficult to make ends meet in an alien environment. Some will have given up their jobs and careers in Kenya but have skills and knowledge that their temporary country does not need or does not value. After one or two years abroad doubt may start setting in whether they have done the right thing for themselves, for themselves and their relatives back home. And then, all of a sudden two of the accused become President elect and Vice President elect of Kenya. They wield even more power. That must is another factor witnesses have to cope with. The trouble is that since early January when the deadline for disclosure of witnesses to the defense lapsed (except for a few cases) the identities and statements of witnesses were disclosed to the defense and thus to the accused. The witnesses now have to factor in renewed efforts by proxies of the accused to approach relatives who have remained behind. What does one do under such circumstances? Can one expect that each and every witness is prepared to withstand the enormous pressure? They are human beings.... The real question should be and it has been posed here before, is why the prosecutor has not taken on some of those who have engaged in the crime of perverting the course of justice by threatening and intimidating witnesses. If she does not charge some of these folks she can rest assured that the intimidation and threats will get worse. If no one is charged it is clear for everyone to see that intimidation works.... |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Mar 15, 2013 18:55:44 GMT 3
The situation of relocated witnesses has often been depicted as living a life of luxury in rich countries. That is far from the truth. More often than not they find it difficult to make ends meet in an alien environment. Some will have given up their jobs and careers in Kenya but have skills and knowledge that their temporary country does not need or does not value. After one or two years abroad doubt may start setting in whether they have done the right thing for themselves, for themselves and their relatives back home. This is why some witnesses chose to remain in Kenya and (with the outcome of the elections) have changed their minds about testifying. As far as I know there has been and still is an extensive investigation; I imagine that the prosecutor will act at the right time, but I'm sure there will be some serious action. In the case of Witness 4, for example, I am inclined to believe that he decided to toboa after being offered a deal on perjury charges, and we don't know all that he told. There are other things to keep in mind as well. First is that these witnesses come to the ICC through intermediaries, who vouch for their background etc. Some of these intermediaries have seen opportunities to eat and taken them; I believe these include people in some seemingly reputable places in Kenya. Second, some witnesses, even though told not to, probably engage in communications with people back in Kenya. Third, as far as I can tell, those killed have been in Kenya. Lastly, keep in mind that if ICC people decides to take action against people in Kenya, GoK would be required to cooperate in dealing with them locally or handing them over to the ICC. Bearing in mind GoK's inaction over those who carried out the PEV mayhem, I don't see that happening. Add to that the fact that Uhuru et al (if confirmed in government) are unlikely to act against those who have "helped" them and who would just talk too much. I do, however, see cases being brough sooner against some people in the UK and the USA. |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Mar 15, 2013 20:08:58 GMT 3
This is BENSOUDA equivocating:
That the GK refused to cooperate, could mean there are smoking guns to be hidden, gotten rid of, destroyed, buried forever. In other words the evidence is not available, but it was there alright. Intransigence of the GoK highly incriminating. Crime committed, court can not convict. Happens more often than most would want to admit. And so like Mafia Godfathers whose acts have been cleaned up [bodies dissolved in acid and no body no death no conviction], the consiglieri too walks free.
|
|
|
|
Post by mank on Mar 15, 2013 21:00:27 GMT 3
This is BENSOUDA equivocating: That the GK refused to cooperate, could mean there are smoking guns to be hidden, gotten rid of, destroyed, buried forever. In other words the evidence is not available, but it was there alright. Intransigence of the GoK highly incriminating. Crime committed, court can not convict. Happens more often than most would want to admit. And so like Mafia Godfathers whose acts have been cleaned up [bodies dissolved in acid and no body no death no conviction], the consiglieri too walks free. Are you saying you believe what this lady is saying? For me she has no credibility. How do I believe the allegations of a prosecution that built a case upon one fraudulent individual when it is obvious they would have determined that the guy was not genuine? How would I trust that the reason the case is falling apart is because of another party's failure to cooperate when I personally concluded that a case was not made that the individuals on the doc had a case to answer in the first place? Cooperate with what? The fake case? What kind of cooperation did the OTP request? I believe it is just a scape goat after they hit a wall with their fake witness. They have been telling us that W4 was bribed or intimidated. By whom? By those he bore false witness against, or by those for whom did so? There is more than meets the eye here, and as far as I can see there are more questions to ask about the conduct of the office of the prosecutor than whoever else that office points a fingure at. |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Mar 15, 2013 23:53:06 GMT 3
I believe the charges against Muthaura will eventually be dropped, but it is important to note that this has not happened as yet. The Muthaura case has not been withdrawn. What has happened is that the OTP has made a request, but the chamber has not responded to (i.e. formally accepted) that request.
Part of the legal problem is that court's devotion to finding the truth. Keep in mind that according to the statute, even if a criminal yells "Yes, I did it! And I would do it again!", the court can still order a trial in order to get to the truth as to what really happened. Of course, that is the very opposite of what we have here, but it's not a simple matter of the OTP saying "we withdraw the charges" and the judges saying "ok, then, next!". So, as likely as it seems that Muthaura is off the hook, there could be complications, and I advise caution until the court formally accepts the OTP's request.
The case of Witness 4 seems complicated, but at the end of the day it boils down to an old-fashioned story of greed, betrayal, money, abuse of power, unwarranted "cleverness". Etc. I will, on 1 July, post my "theory" of "the story behind the story". (I hope to be helpful to many who have been asking questions.) By the way, expect to learn, by Sep, that two other (former, now) OTP witnesses have been severely compromised. But, for balance, two others who ate the perps's money are now on the other side. Life is all about balance, I suppose. Yin and Yang.
I doubt that Uhuru's trial, even if he agrees to show up, will start in July. In the meantime, the date to focus on is 28 May and the period is the four or so months after that: does Ruto get the inevitable knife-in-the-back soon or much later? If you want ICC-Related Excitement, that's what you should look for.
P.S. I thought I should mention a debate we had here on Jukwaa: when does a trial "commence"?
|
|
|
|
Post by podp on Mar 16, 2013 0:10:30 GMT 3
I believe the charges against Muthaura will eventually be dropped, but it is important to note that this has not happened as yet. The Muthaura case has not been withdrawn. What has happened is that the OTP has made a request, but the chamber has not responded to (i.e. formally accepted) that request. Part of the legal problem is that court's devotion to finding the truth. Keep in mind that according to the statute, even if a criminal yells "Yes, I did it! And I would do it again!", the court can still order a trial in order to get to the truth as to what really happened. Of course, that is the very opposite of what we have here, but it's not a simple matter of the OTP saying "we withdraw the charges" and the judges saying "ok, then, next!". So, as likely as it seems that Muthaura is off the hook, there could be complications, and I advise caution until the court formally accepts the OTP's request. The case of Witness 4 seems complicated, but at the end of the day it boils down to an old-fashioned story of greed, betrayal, money, abuse of power, unwarranted "cleverness". Etc. I will, on 1 July, post my "theory" of "the story behind the story". (I hope to be helpful to many who have been asking questions.) By the way, expect to learn, by Sep, that two other (former, now) OTP witnesses have been severely compromised. But, for balance, two others who ate the perps's money are now on the other side. Life is all about balance, I suppose. Yin and Yang. I doubt that Uhuru's trial, even if he agrees to show up, will start in July. In the meantime, the date to focus on is 28 May and the period is the four or so months after that: does Ruto get the inevitable knife-in-the-back soon or much later? If you want ICC-Related Excitement, that's what you should look for. Ruto knows that and is scheming how to do as Uhuru does, and not as he says. will Ruto's end be like that of his namesakes father? 'The great seer's life had been dramatic but it ended tragically during a season of madness as an agitated crowd charged into his house, pelted him with stones and speared him to death. And as he drew his last breath, the betrayed diviner declared that never again would his community be independent. This was the price they had to pay for conspiring to kill him and elevate his son as the next Orkoiyot (seer).' www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000040770&pageNo=1or will his death be like that of his namesake? 'Koitalel remained in Nandi and consolidated his power as he reorganised his soldiers into a formidable force that could stand up against the mighty Maasai. He tested his might by continuously harassing the whites as they constructed the railway across the Nandi land, targeting the collies and uprooting the railway at night, a move the British treated as a declaration of war. ... Military historian Moyse Bartlett writes in Kings African Rifles that Uganda administrators could not cope with the constant attacks staged by Koitalel and his men. Despite their superior weapons and trained soldiers, they were unable to contain the rebellion masterminded by the Koitalel’s well-organised military attacks. let us start the count down. www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000040770&pageNo=1'Koitalel was killed alongside 23 of his closest aides but much worse suffering for the community was to follow. His eldest brother Arap Koilegen was initially made a paramount chief, but was later detained at Murang’a (Fort Hall), where he died in 1916. Arap Boisio, was detained in Nyeri at Kirichu village, and later transferred to Moyale where he died. Sing’oei Kibuigut died at Meru where he had been detained. After 106 years since his demise, Francis Imbuga in Betrayal in the City somehow sums up Turgat’s descendants’ fate for "when the madness of an entire nation lies on the solitary shoulders of a man like Koitalel, it is not enough to say such a man is insane' |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Mar 16, 2013 0:48:47 GMT 3
Podp:
You have, in a very subtle way, hit on a point the writer of that article did not realize when he/she was cutting and pasting from the History books. If a person travels in a circle, eventually he/she comes back to the starting point. New-And-Improved Samoei started out as a schoolteacher and quickly realized---he is no blockhead and actually works hard---that electoral violence is a much quicker path to fame and fortune. From YK'92 to Top-Of-The-Heap. Not too shabby. But enough of promises. Finally, the land, the "historical injustices", etc. etc. etc. Plus the ICC Lion. I know it's in very bad taste to say I will enjoy this, but I've had enough of the 12.5% to say it, ... I enjoy American "gangster" movies, and among my favourite ones are those about the Mafia. And in these Mafia movies the best 4:45 Fight---if in Kenyan movie theatres you ever watched those old Kung movies that started at 3 PM and ended at 5 PM, you will know what I mean--is always between The Capo and The Don.
And the winnner gets to fight The Fat Lady. Before she sings, of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Mar 16, 2013 12:03:11 GMT 3
This is BENSOUDA equivocating: That the GK refused to cooperate, could mean there are smoking guns to be hidden, gotten rid of, destroyed, buried forever. In other words the evidence is not available, but it was there alright. Intransigence of the GoK highly incriminating. Crime committed, court can not convict. Happens more often than most would want to admit. And so like Mafia Godfathers whose acts have been cleaned up [bodies dissolved in acid and no body no death no conviction], the consiglieri too walks free. Are you saying you believe what this lady is saying? For me she has no credibility. How do I believe the allegations of a prosecution that built a case upon one fraudulent individual when it is obvious they would have determined that the guy was not genuine? How would I trust that the reason the case is falling apart is because of another party's failure to cooperate when I personally concluded that a case was not made that the individuals on the doc had a case to answer in the first place? Cooperate with what? The fake case? What kind of cooperation did the OTP request? I believe it is just a scape goat after they hit a wall with their fake witness. They have been telling us that W4 was bribed or intimidated. By whom? By those he bore false witness against, or by those for whom did so? There is more than meets the eye here, and as far as I can see there are more questions to ask about the conduct of the office of the prosecutor than whoever else that office points a fingure at. please! ONE! Such a case could not have been built on a single individual who was not even vetted before hand to ascertain his level of credibility as a source of facts, information. Were that to be the case, the ICC [Ocampo] would be so amateuristic as to be an international laughing stock! I do not believed they could be that stupid! that naive! The government of Kenya has actually more information on PEV and its leading actors that you might realise. This information can be exculpatory too. So that they chose not to cooperate is highly suspicious on the nature of the info. Likely incriminatory. This info is the intelligence briefs, Intel records, ---state secret is the clause which was used to refuse, which I actually support. In principle, I do not like my country handing over intelligence, nor extraditing her citizens to anybody in foreign lands. But within [responsibilities] being signatory to the Rome statutes, there is a level of informational flow which could have been indulged, that does not impinge on national security. The intimidation and bribery of witnesses is a story I find credible. There are many other witnesses who have confessed to the same treatment, sometimes at the hand of state agents --logically I would assume, on behalf of big boys with problems with the court. Yes. There has always been more than meets the eye with this court. Originally it was Kibaki and Raila Condy Rice threatened with the court. Their subsequent omission was not legal but political tact. |
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Mar 16, 2013 14:06:57 GMT 3
The Muthaura case has not been withdrawn. [/b] What has happened is that the OTP has made a request, but the chamber has not responded to (i.e. formally accepted) that request. [/quote] Take it that charges are withdrawn. The court without the OTP cannot maintain charges where the OTP has indicated they are withdrawing the same. As usual, you are simply talking from your behind! |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Mar 16, 2013 16:36:30 GMT 3
The Muthaura case has not been withdrawn. [/b] What has happened is that the OTP has made a request, but the chamber has not responded to (i.e. formally accepted) that request. [/quote] Take it that charges are withdrawn. The court without the OTP cannot maintain charges where the OTP has indicated they are withdrawing the same. As usual, you are simply talking from your behind! [/quote] Thank you for your little contribution; we all do what we can. Nowhere have I suggested that the court can maintain the charges. Have you considered the possibility that I what I wrote was deliberately written that way in order to increase the blood pressure in some slow people? (And we have the proof in at least one case that it has! ;D) The OTP has asked to drop the charges; so far the court has not accepted that request. Those are the facts. For anything else, particularly the legal bits the court will address those when it accepts the request (which it will) So, let's wait. You really must learn to try harder, Friend Sadik. Put some imagination into it, boy! |
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Mar 16, 2013 20:10:39 GMT 3
Take it that charges are withdrawn. The court without the OTP cannot maintain charges where the OTP has indicated they are withdrawing the same. As usual, you are simply talking from your behind! Thank you for your little contribution; we all do what we can. Nowhere have I suggested that the court can maintain the charges. Have you considered the possibility that I what I wrote was deliberately written that way in order to increase the blood pressure in some slow people? (And we have the proof in at least one case that it has! ;D) The OTP has asked to drop the charges; so far the court has not accepted that request. Those are the facts. For anything else, particularly the legal bits the court will address those when it accepts the request (which it will) So, let's wait. You really must learn to try harder, Friend Sadik. Put some imagination into it, boy! HIV Aids infected schumck. This idiot has been all over the place with his kumbaffu analysis on ICC, none of which holds any water, despite praising his white lords. He told us he left only to hang around like a stinking stench. What a punctured ego - don't let the door hit you on your way out. |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Mar 16, 2013 21:00:08 GMT 3
A proverb goes: when two elephants fight, the grass under wishes it had grown elsewhere! If these weakly blows is what a fight between two elephant legal brains of Jukwaa amounts to, then .... there is a problem Jukwaa Houston! Thank you for your little contribution; we all do what we can. Nowhere have I suggested that the court can maintain the charges. Have you considered the possibility that I what I wrote was deliberately written that way in order to increase the blood pressure in some slow people? (And we have the proof in at least one case that it has! ;D) The OTP has asked to drop the charges; so far the court has not accepted that request. Those are the facts. For anything else, particularly the legal bits the court will address those when it accepts the request (which it will) So, let's wait. You really must learn to try harder, Friend Sadik. Put some imagination into it, boy! HIV Aids infected schumck. This idiot has been all over the place with his kumbaffu analysis on ICC, none of which holds any water, despite praising his white lords. He told us he left only to hang around like a stinking stench. What a punctured ego - don't let the door hit you on your way out. |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Mar 16, 2013 21:21:11 GMT 3
HIV Aids infected schumck. This idiot has been all over the place with his kumbaffu analysis on ICC, none of which holds any water, despite praising his white lords. He told us he left only to hang around like a stinking stench. What a punctured ego - don't let the door hit you on your way out. I really get up your nose, don't I? ;D That's good; Jukwaaists get some free entertainment. By the way, I did state that I would be back to comment on ICC matters; the Muthaura case seems to be one worthy of attention. P.S. Say hallo to your mum.  |
|
|
|
Post by mank on Mar 17, 2013 7:44:47 GMT 3
Jakaswanga,
Are you saying you believe what this lady is saying? For me she has no credibility. How do I believe the allegations of a prosecution that built a case upon one fraudulent individual when it is obvious they would have determined that the guy was not genuine? How would I trust that the reason the case is falling apart is because of another party's failure to cooperate when I personally concluded that a case was not made that the individuals on the doc had a case to answer in the first place? Cooperate with what? The fake case? What kind of cooperation did the OTP request? I believe it is just a scape goat after they hit a wall with their fake witness.
They have been telling us that W4 was bribed or intimidated. By whom? By those he bore false witness against, or by those for whom did so? There is more than meets the eye here, and as far as I can see there are more questions to ask about the conduct of the office of the prosecutor than whoever else that office points a fingure at.
Such a case could not have been built on a single individual who was not even vetted before hand to ascertain his level of credibility as a source of facts, information. Were that to be the case, the ICC [Ocampo] would be so amateuristic as to be an international laughing stock! I do not believed they could be that stupid! that naive!
The government of Kenya has actually more information on PEV and its leading actors that you might realise. This information can be exculpatory too. So that they chose not to cooperate is highly suspicious on the nature of the info. Likely incriminatory.
This info is the intelligence briefs, Intel records, ---state secret is the clause which was used to refuse, which I actually support. In principle, I do not like my country handing over intelligence, nor extraditing her citizens to anybody in foreign lands.
But within [responsibilities] being signatory to the Rome statutes, there is a level of informational flow which could have been indulged, that does not impinge on national security.
The intimidation and bribery of witnesses is a story I find credible. There are many other witnesses who have confessed to the same treatment, sometimes at the hand of state agents --logically I would assume, on behalf of big boys with problems with the court.
Yes. There has always been more than meets the eye with this court. Originally it was Kibaki and Raila Condy Rice threatened with the court. Their subsequent omission was not legal but political tact., my friend, ONE? Heard that! You say such a case could not have been built on a single individual who was not even vetted before hand to ascertain his level of credibility as a source of facts, information. Where do you get that? Didn't you and I, and many others here, listen to the confirmation hearings? What evidence did witnesses give? I heard the evidence of Witness 4 ... then I heard that other witnesses had said that they had been at the venues where W4 was witnessing what he alleged. Those other witenesses did not claim to have witnessed the same things W4 alleged, but only that they had been at the venues that W4 was witnessing those events. The only other witness of value was Nguyai who seemed to incriminate the person he was supposed to be freeing. But he was not a witness for the prosecution (except he seemed to lean toward being one on voluntary basis). In my view, therefore, the case is built on witness 4, who turns out to be a helpless liar. Amateuristic, an international laughing stock, stupid and naive is what I think the prosecution will turn out to be, unless it is willing to submit to being a political tool instead. Remember we have said before that Muthaura would be going free any moment ... that was 100% informed by the confrimation hearings. There is nothing left where OTP snatched its evidence for the confirmation hearings from. |
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Mar 17, 2013 10:18:14 GMT 3
HIV Aids infected schumck. This idiot has been all over the place with his kumbaffu analysis on ICC, none of which holds any water, despite praising his white lords. He told us he left only to hang around like a stinking stench. What a punctured ego - don't let the door hit you on your way out. I really get up your nose, don't I? ;D That's good; Jukwaaists get some free entertainment. By the way, I did state that I would be back to comment on ICC matters; the Muthaura case seems to be one worthy of attention. P.S. Say hallo to your mum. You are a KI*HII with AIDS. As I said before, the gods must have screwed you big. You have nothing to say, left to be the fool with Aids that you are talking to yourself. When it rains, it pours. Uhuru and Ruto again screwed your AID infested self. Screwed KI*HII boy. For your information I insult you - not your family. Your are KI*HI with AIDS. Getting through your KI*HI Aid infested head of yours, my mother is dead - I know you pathetic scum sleep with corpses, try your luck somewhere else - AID INFESTED SCUM. Nothing is worse that a You are a KI*HII with AIDS. As I said before, the gods must have screwed you big. You have nothing to say, left as to be the fool with Aids that you are talking to yourself.
When it rains, it pours.
Uhuru and Ruto again screwed your AID infested self. They screwed KI*HII Aids Infected boy all over again and again. In 2002, in 2007, in 2013. Aid infected KI*HI boy.
For your information my mother is dead - I know you pathetic scum sleeping with corpses, try your luck somewhere else - AID INFESTED SCUM.
Nothing is worse that a KI*HI WITH AIDS KI*HII WITH AIDS KI*HII WITH AIDS KI*HII WITH AIDS KI*HII WITH AIDS KI*HII WITH AIDS KI*HII WITH AIDS KI*HII WITH AIDS KI*HII WITH AIDS[ KI*HII WITH AIDS WITH AIDS. KI*HII WITH AIDS KI*HII WITH AIDS KI*HII WITH AIDS KI*HII WITH AIDS KI*HII WITH AIDS KI*HII WITH AIDS KI*HII WITH AIDS KI*HII WITH AIDS[ KI*HII WITH AIDS |
|
|
|
Post by Horth on Mar 17, 2013 11:15:18 GMT 3
sadik,
This is really really not necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Mar 17, 2013 12:45:55 GMT 3
sadik,This is really really not necessary. Not at all. And being one of the most foul-moutheD fellas here when provoked, I got right to speak on it. Sadik, this is not the level I expect you to engage. Yes, friend Otishotish needs a whacking for dropping his Kenyan citizenship, and I myself is going to pay for his circumcision at the hospital, silly boy him, but let us keep it cerebral. I think you are tempting OO too much. Be imaginative in insulting this unpatriotic handle with whom you have other bones to pick other than ideas apparently. NB: I am not personally sensitive to the epithet ke-hee, it has never gotten in my way with love affairs with ladies from regions where circumcision is divine, so I always shrug and say, may be the day I want an hot affair with a man from those areas, is the day it will be an issue! ---Meanwhile any lady on the board may call me ke-hee, far better than than blindsight's ;D spelling methinks! But I happen to know, Sadik, that some fellows take venomous exception at being called that word. It is a sensitivity to beware of. As Horth says, it all wasn't necessary. You and I have argued hard, but how come you never keheed me, nor I up your nostrills? Lawyers amongst lawyers! A god-damn lot! ;D |
|
