REFERENCE: Debbie Does Dallas But Arif Nizami Does Sheikh, Tarin, WB, IMF, and ALL Bankers Published March 20, 2010 http://fkpolitics.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/debbie-does-dallas-but-arif-nizami-does-sheikh-tarin-wb-imf-and-all-bankers/
LAHORE, Nov 24: Justice Mian Saqib Nisar of the Lahore High Court on Tuesday admitted for hearing a petition that sought winding up of The Nation Publications (Private) Limited and issued notices to respondents for Wednesday (today). The respondents included Majid Nizami, chief executive of The Nation Publications (Private) Limited, and Ms Rameezah Nizami. Arif Nizami, son of the founder of the Nawa-i-Waqt Group, the late Hameed Nizami, has filed the petition in his capacity of a director and share-holder of The Nation Publications (Private) Limited as well as the founder editor of ‘The Nation’. He is being represented in the case by Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, Abid Hasan Minto and Uzair Karamat Bhandari. Mr Nizami was sacked as the editor of “The Nation” on Sept 7, 2009. It has been argued in the petition that though the company was incorporated as a private limited company, in essence, it was a family concern being managed solely by its members and was in the nature of a partnership. Relying on decisions of Supreme Court and the House of Lords of England, counsel submitted that the company was, therefore, subject to the principles for dissolution applicable to partnership concerns. The petition levels allegations of acts of omission and commission in violation of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and the Memorandum & Articles of Association of the publications. Petition also alleged illegal dilution of shareholding, oppression and mismanagement of the company and says Arif Nizami had been illegally ousted from management. Arif Nizami moves court —Staff Reporter Wednesday, 25 Nov, 2009 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/arif-nizami-moves-court-519
LAHORE: Arif Nizami, director and former editor of The Nation, filed a petition with the Lahore High Court (LHC) through senior advocates Aitzaz Ahsan and Abid Minto, seeking closure of The Nation Publications (Pvt) Ltd over a feud among the partners. It is pertinent to mention here that Arif Nizami is the son of the founder of the Nawa-i-Waqt Group, late Hameed Nizami. He is one of the directors and shareholders of The Nation Publications (Pvt) Limited as well as the founder and former editor of The Nation. The petition came up for hearing before Justice Mian Saqib Nisar of the Lahore High Court on Tuesday. It may be recalled that Arif Nizami was sacked from office on 7 September 2009 by his uncle Majid Nizami. The petition has been filed against The Nation Publications (Private) Limited and its shareholders, including Majid Nizami, Chief Executive of The Nation Publications (Private) Limited, and his daughter Rameezah Nazami.
It has been urged in the petition that though the company is incorporated as a private limited entity, in essence, The Nation Publication (Private) Limited, is a family concern being managed solely by family members and is in the nature of a partnership. Relying on decisions of the Pakistan Supreme Court and the House of Lords of England, the counsel submitted that the company was, therefore, subject to the principles of dissolution applicable to partnership concerns. It has been further urged that Arif Nizami with the status of a partner has been deliberately, wrongfully and illegally ousted from management of the company affairs, an irreversible state of deadlock exists in the company; and there is complete mistrust and a total lack of confidence among the parties. Thus, it is only just and equitable that the company be wound up. The petition levels serious allegations of the acts of omission and commission in violation of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and the Memorandum & Articles of Association of The Nation Publications (Private) Limited on the part of Majid Nizami. Other grounds urged in the petition include illegal dilution of shareholding, oppression and mismanagement of the company. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar was pleased to admit the petition for hearing on Tuesday. REFERENCE: Arif sues Majid Nizami for The Nation closure Wednesday, November 25, 2009
“The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff and the taking of oath is upon the defendant.” (Al-Bayhaqi)”
Guilty by Suspicion is against the Spirit of Islamic Law because when you raise finger then it’s the responsibility of those who allege to produce witness. Benefit of doubt is always given to those who is under trial.
The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff, and the oath is upon the one who is accused (Tirmidhi)
Therefore the ruler is forbidden from imposing a penalty on anyone, unless they perpetrate a crime which Shari’ah considers to be a crime, and the perpetration of the crime has been proven before a competent judge in a judiciary court, because the evidence could not be admissible unless it is established before a competent judge and in a judiciary court.
Abbas Ather’s conversation with Asma Jahangir in today’s Column Kaar (16 October 2010)- Part 1
Why? The reason is simple. The Supreme Court has ordered an inquiry to investigate those who created and disseminated the rumour; the court has asked Geo TV / Jang Group to produce their record as a part of that inquiry. By removing a culpable piece of evidence, Geo TV / Jang Group are trying to play smart. Ain’t they? However, we have been able to retrieve the removed story (which was reported by none other than the Ansar Abbasi / Muhammad Saleh Zaafir duo) from another website [Pakistan Tribune]
http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?223604 (which thankfully copy-pasted this report from The News):
"QUOTE"
No plan to withdraw judges’ restoration notification The News Tuesday January 19, 2010 (1035 PST)
ISLAMABAD: There is no plan to withdraw the notification issued on March 17, 2009 for the restoration of deposed judges, including Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, said an important minister. He was responding to a question of this correspondent about reports that the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP)-led coalition government was planning to technically knock out the judiciary in a ‘democratic way’.
But according to sources, the tug of war between the Pakistan People’s Party and the judicial echelon is not yet over. The PPP-led coalition government is planning to deal with the judiciary in a ‘democratic way’. The defiance strategy focuses on the use of constitutional means to make the judiciary toothless and powerless, said a highly reliable source.
However, the important minister who was initially reluctant to respond saying he was not the relevant person to talk on this issue, agreed to express his opinion after told that no other official was available. He said such reports were totally false and whatever steps the government would take would be in accordance with the law and Constitution. He said a propaganda campaign was being launched against the government to mislead the people. He said there may be such a proposal from any quarters, but the government had never committed violation of the Constitution. The government has not done anything which may offend the judiciary, he said, adding every proposal is thoroughly examined by the Presidency and the Prime Minister House and there is no chance that such a proposal can find any favourable response there.
But according to sources, President Asif Ali Zardari has made the PPP to use democracy and constitutionalism as its weapons to fight back. Initially, resilient Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani was also given a go-ahead signal on December 19, 2009 to make his allegiance to the president public after his meeting with Zardari. On the same day, the meeting of the PPP Central Executive Committee ended with a defiant mood. Heated speeches in the meeting considered SC decision “as part of a conspiracy”, informed sources said. The source also revealed that the appointment of Dr Babar Awan as law minister is part of the strategy to fight back judiciary with an executive push. Rescinding government notification and introducing a new ordinance protecting NAB beneficiaries are the options to be used by in coming days to put pressure on the Supreme Court.
Under the same procedural defiance strategy, another highly-placed source said the government intends to withdraw the notification of March 17, 2009 through which the deposed judges of the superior judiciary were restored to the November 2, 2007 position.
The source disclosed that by withdrawing the notification of March 17, 2009, the Presidency believes that the office of the chief justice will fall vacant, so neither any bench could be constituted nor could be any stay order issued until the appointment of a new chief justice.
On March 17, 2009, the Law Ministry had issued two separate notifications and Law Secretary Justice Agha Rafiq had read out the notifications in a press conference.
The first notification stated:
“Whereas the prime minister of Pakistan was pleased to announce on 16th day of March, 2009 that the deposed judges of the Supreme Court and high courts, including Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the deposed chief justice of Pakistan, shall be restored to the position they were holding immediately before 3rd day of November, 2007.
“Now therefore, the president of Pakistan is pleased to restore Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the deposed chief justice of Pakistan to the position he was holding immediately before 3rd day of November, 2007. Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry will assume office of chief justice of Pakistan on 22nd March, 2009, after retirement of Mr Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Chief Justice of Pakistan on 21st March, 2009.”
The second notification announced on same day stated:-
“The prime minister of Pakistan was pleased to announce on 16th day of March, 2009 that the deposed judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, including Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the deposed Chief Justice of Pakistan, shall be restored to the position they were holding immediately before 3rd day of November, 2007:
“Supreme Court of Pakistan: 1. Mr Justice Javed Iqbal; 2. Mr Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday; 3. Mr Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed; 4. Mr Justice Ch Ijaz Ahmad.
“Lahore High Court: 1. Mr Justice Khawaja Muhammad Sharif; 2. Mr Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry; 3. Mr Justice Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rehman.
“High Court of Sindh: 1. Mr Justice Mushir Alam; 2. Mr Justice Maqbool Baqar. “Peshawar High Court: 1. Mr Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan.
“Now, therefore, the President of Pakistan is pleased to restore the above mentioned deposed judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts to the position they were holding immediately before 3rd day of November, 2007. These judges will assume their office with immediate effect.”
The source has confided that Law Ministry will be playing a pivotal role in the new strategy. Hence, it was important to replace Afzal Sindhu with Dr Babar Awan as law minister. The NAB beneficiaries in the government ganged together in ousting veteran PPP leader Afzal Sindhu. “Muhammad Afzal Sindhu, a veteran PPP leader having the distinction of being a member of the party’s Central Executive Committee during the days of late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, is a respected lawyer and constitutional philosopher and was unlikely to agree to being part of this dirty game plan, hence he was sent to the Ministry of Railways last month,” the sources pointed out.
Secondly, under the same strategy the government will not take any step for reopening of cases in the Swiss court as was directed by the Supreme Court in its short order declared the infamous National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) void ab initio,” pointed out the source.
According to the source, had the government been serious in implementation of the Supreme Court, there was no need to wait for the detail judgment.
Thirdly, he said, the government has not appointed Justice (Retd) Khalilur Rehman Ramday as ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court as recommended by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Advice of the chief justice was shelved by Law Ministry.
The recent spree of aggressive statements by Mr Zardari and PPP leadership is in a wake of being not sure about how army may react if SC throws ‘NAB beneficiaries’ out in a bid to make Pakistan corruption free and ensure that corruption is rooted out of society.
They are confident that their aggressive posture will make the military to refuse abiding by the Supreme Court order in case Article 190 of the Constitution is invoked by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the source elaborated.
It may be recalled that Article 190 has so far been invoked only twice and on both the occasions, the military sided with the executive instead of abiding by the orders of the chief justice. He recalled that when Justice Sajjad Ali Shah had invoked Article 190 as chief judge, the-then chief of army staff Gen Jehangir Karamat had forwarded the court order to the Ministry of Defence for further process and hence the military defied the court order because Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif held the portfolio of the minister for defence at that time.
On the second occasion, a seven-member bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had ordered the state machinery including the corps and formation commanders of the Army on November 3, 2007 not to abide by any unconstitutional order of Gen Pervez Musharraf. But the Army defied the court order and a new Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) was issued by Musharraf, imposing martial law on the pretext of emergency, which was also described as emergency plus.
The source said that top advisers of the rulers are currently weighing all the available options but majority of them believes that there is no provision in the constitution for the restoration of a chief justice and the executive order through which the judges were restored could be withdrawn anytime.
It is, however, pertinent to recall here that the federal law secretary, while reading out the two notifications of March 17, 2009, had said as all the deposed judges were reinstated to the position of November 2, 2007, they were not required to take fresh oath. REFERENCE: No plan to withdraw judges' restoration notification 19 Jan 2010 ... ISLAMABAD: There is no plan to withdraw the notification issued on March 17, 2009 for the restoration of deposed judges, including Chief ...
www.thenews.com.pk/print3.asp?id=26750 No plan to withdraw judges’ restoration notification Tuesday January 19, 2010 (1035 PST)
http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?223604 Breaking News: The News (Jang Group) removes its 19 January 2010 false story to escape legal action 16 October 2010
http://criticalppp.com/archives/26153
End.
"UNQUOTE"
OLD HABITS DIE HARD
MUHAMMAD SALEH ZAAFIR, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT OF JANG GROUP OF NEWSPAPERS/GEO TV & CONTEMPT OF COURT - ISLAMABAD: The 13-member full court of the Supreme Court on Tuesday accepted the unconditional apology of a newsman for filing a report pertaining to the alleged preparation of references against four senior judges of the said bench. Following is the text of the order issued by the 13-member full court of the Supreme Court after unconditional apology by journalist Muhammad Saleh Zaafir:
“Muhammad Saleh Zaafir, editor special reporting of daily Jang and The News, has entered appearance on our call in connection with the news items appearing in the Rawalpindi edition of the daily ‘Jang’ and daily ‘The News’ on 11th June, 2007, regarding some references being made against four senior hon’ble judges of this Court who, presumably also happen to be the members of this bench. The said news item appeared to be open to further serious exception because such a news item had been published, more than boldly, on the front pages of the said two newspapers on the day when the bench was expected to announce its decision on the maintainability of the petition filed in this court questioning the presidential reference against the chief justice of Pakistan. It may be added that certain insinuation have been made in the said news items pointing towards some alleged misconduct committed by the four un-named senior judges of this Court.
2. Muhammad Saleh Zaafir, who is the reporter of the said news items, when confronted with the same, frankly and honestly conceded that he had made no effort to verify the veracity of the allegations levelled in the said news items before publishing the same nor did he have any proof in support of the contents thereof. He, however, added at the very outset that he had utmost regards and respect for not only the said hon’ble judges of this Court but for the entire judiciary; that he did not have even an iota of doubt about their integrity and character and that reporting the said news items was a grave mistake on his part.
3. He tendered verbal unconditional apologies in open Court and also placed on record his statement to the above noted effect, in writing.
4. The regrets offered by Muhammad Saleh Zaafir, reporter/editor, appear to be sincere and the remorse expressed by him appears to be genuine. In this view of the matter, we do not consider it necessary to proceed with the matter any further except warning him to be careful in future.
5. On our call, Muhammad Afzal Butt, president of the Rawalpindi-Islamabad Union of Journalists, also entered appearance for assistance.
6. The reporting of the proceedings which have taken place in Court in connection with the matter in question shall be made only to the extent that the apology tendered by the said Muhammad Saleh Zaafir shall be published in full and so would be published this order passed thereon. The daily ‘Jang’ and daily ‘The News’, which have published the news items in question, shall publish the apology and this order, prominently, on their front pages. Muhammad Saleh Zaafir undertakes to do the same and has been ordered accordingly.”
Meanwhile, the following is the text of unconditional apology tendered by Muhammad Saleh Zaafir before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
“I, Muhammad Saleh Zaafir, do hereby tender an unconditional apology to the hon’ble court in relation to the contents of the story that appeared in daily The News/daily Jang on June 11, 2007.
“I have been directed by the hon’ble court to submit any proof in relations to the contents of the said items. I would humbly submit that I have no proof whatsoever in relation to the matter discussed in the said story.
“I keep this hon’ble court in the highest esteem and respect. I can never ever think of bringing about a bad name to the hon’ble court or to any learned judge of the hon’able court. I would submit that I can never think of committing contempt of this hon’ble court.
REAL FACE OF GEO TV/Jang Group of Newspapers & The News International
LAHORE: Iftikhar Ahmed, the host of Geo TV show ‘Jawabdeh’, resigned on Sunday after the channel administration refused to air an interview with former Pakistan Television managing director Shahid Masood. The interview was recorded last week and was being advertised in the group’s The News and Jang newspapers. On Sunday, the Geo TV administration seized the original recording and declined to run it. Iftikhar Ahmed told Aaj Kal he was being pressured to censor parts of the interview but he did not compromise on principles and resigned. aaj kal report REFERENCE: Geo ‘Jawabdeh’ host Iftikhar Ahmed resigns in protest Monday, November 17, 2008
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\11\17\story_17-11-2008_pg7_34
Real Face of Dr Shahid Masood Part 1
Real Face of Dr Shahid Masood Part 2
Real Face of Dr Shahid Masood Part 3
Real Face of Dr Shahid Masood Part 4
Real Face of Dr Shahid Masood Part 5
Real Face of Dr Shahid Masood Part 6
The tailpiece
Correspondents of The News International/Jang Group/GEO TV often fight with each other
ISLAMABAD: Top constitutional expert and former chief justice of the Sindh High Court (SHC) Fakhruddin G Ibrahim has said that he met President Asif Ali Zardari before the hearing of the NRO case on the request of Chairman Senate Farooq H Naek who wanted to seek legal guidance on NRO and his meeting was never secret, known to everyone and he never gave any assurance to President Zardari on any possible court verdict. Justice Fakhruddin, generally known as Fakhro Bhai, has written a letter to the president and the prime minister to set the record straight after reports that President Zardari had told his PPP parliamentarians that a former judge had trapped him not to defend the NRO in the Supreme Court. Zardari did not name the judge but it was widely speculated that it was Justice Fakhruddin G Ibrahim. In his letter he said senior journalist Hamid Mir was also witness to the whole developments in this regard. Hamid Mir while talking to The News also confirmed that no secret meeting ever took place between President Zardari and Fakhro Bhai and when the latter met the former it was an open secret and was even discussed in Hamid Mir’s Geo News programme Capital Talk. Hamid Mir also verified whatever was stated in the letter of Fakhro Bhai was absolutely correct. The letter makes it repeatedly clear that he never desired to meet President Zardari and only went to the Presidency on the request of his old colleague Farooq H Naek and during the said meeting the prime minister had also arrived. The issue of Swiss cases never came under discussion. He termed the allegation leveled against him defamatory and an attempt to malign him.
Mr Ibrahim sent the following details of the letter to The News:
“I write to you with reference to two columns dated 28.9.10 and 30.9.10 in The News titled “Backdoor channels played key role” and “Zardari admits he was trapped, vows to fight on” authored by Rauf Klasra. In the said articles, Mr. Klasra cites an “inside source” and levels the following defamatory allegations against me”:
1. “At the time of hearing of the NRO case in the SC, a Karachi based former judge who enjoyed good reputation and was considered to be a credible person had visited the Presidency and secretly met Asif Ali Zardari. In this meeting, the former judge had told Mr Zardari that he should not worry about the Swiss cases, as they were closed transaction.”
2. “The former judge advised Mr Zardari to believe in him and should not defend the NRO in the court and he assured him that the judges would not open the cases against him.”
3. “Mr Zardari later discussed this judge’s advice with his top legal aides and Babar Awan was the only minister who had strongly opposed the idea. But Awan’s advice was ignored as Zardari tended to believe in the so-called assurance given by the former judge, who had also taken some drafts with him to convince Zardari how it was in his own benefit not to defend the controversial law promulgated by a military dictator.”
4. “Zardari was said to have commented after reading the explosive contents of the NRO judgment that a former judge had clearly used his credibility to trap him.”
5. “According to this former judge, the Swiss cases were already a “closed transaction” and the court would not touch it at all. Based on this broad understanding given by the former judge in the presence of the legal team of the top constitutional personality, it was decided not to contest the NRO in the court.”
6. “The PPP government was feeling betrayed at the hand of a Karachi based retired judge who had met one of the top constitutional personalities of the government in Islamabad.”
“It is obvious to all that the “Karachi based former judge” repeatedly cited in the above articles is a reference to me, as my meeting with President Zardari and also my candid advice in this matter is a matter of public record and the same was even acknowledged in Hamid Mir’s Capital Talk as far back as 2009. Therefore, there was never any secrecy with regard to my meeting with President Zardari on this issue.”
“For the sake of good record, please note that I met President Zardari prior to the hearing of the NRO case at the request of an old friend and former colleague, Farooq Naek, the Chairman Senate. My advice to Farooq Naek and also to the president on the NRO was clear: The NRO was indefensible and the federation should not defend an immoral law made by a former dictator. The suggestion that I appear in the NRO case on behalf of the federation was politely declined.”
Importantly, at no time have I offered any advice in relation to the Swiss cases nor has the same ever been sought. The Swiss cases did not even come up for discussion in my meeting at the Presidency. Therefore, the despicable allegation, “I assured the president that the judges would not open the cases against him” and other equally defamatory assertions that my opinion was meant as a “trap” callously made in the aforesaid articles are highly deplorable. Kindly, note that it is not in my character to proffer any assurance as to the outcome of a court proceeding. I have not done this in my near 60-year law career, and I have no reason to start now.”
“Contrary to the defamatory allegations published in the above articles, I did not meet the president “secretly” or to “convince” him. I met the president, because I was requested to do so. I never sought any meeting on my own accord. When asked, I stated my honest legal opinion on the NRO. Even otherwise, I have never made any secret of my views on the vires of the NRO or my meeting with President Zardari. At the meeting in the presidency, where many others including the prime minister and the law minister also joined in, it was the Advocate General Sindh who openly stated that the NRO should be defended. At such stage, I left the meeting at the presidency and was not contacted by any person thereafter.” “In conclusion, I regret that a newspaper of your standing and record sought fit to make the aforesaid scandalous allegations without even the courtesy of a phone call to consider the version of the person Mr Klasra so callously sought to defame.” Yours sincerely Fakhruddin G Ebrahim. REFERENCE: Karachi judge denies president’s defamatory allegations By Ahmad Noorani Saturday, October 02, 2010 Shawwal 22, 1431 A.H. http://www.thenews.com.pk/02-10-2010/Top-Story/1030.htm
http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=1030&Cat=13ISLAMABAD: With reference to the report, “Karachi judge denies President’s defamatory allegations”, published in ‘The News’ on October 2, I may be allowed to ask the honourable retired judge Fakhruddin G Ibrahim that why does he consider himself the only respected former judge of Karachi who could be invited to meet the president and advise on NRO or even offer a deal. Has Karachi no other distinguished person who could have been my ‘unnamed judge’? This correspondent had only reported that President Asif Zardari had told his partymen at the Presidency in the PPP parliamentary party meeting that a former judge from Karachi had met him and advised him not to contest NRO case in SC and that the SC would not touch his Swiss cases, as it was a “closed transaction”. Mr Zardari had further claimed that he had believed the words of this former judge but he was shocked to know the court had ordered reopening of all cases against him. Mr Zardari had commented before his party men that now he was feeling betrayed because this judge had trapped him by advising him not to contest the NRO. He confessed that he had made a mistake to believe in the words of this judge.
I have a right to ask Mr Ibrahim as to where have I misquoted President Zardari and when and where did I name him in the entire story. I could not have misquoted Mr Zardari in the presence of his big media team comprising top professionals like Farhatullah Babar, Faouzia Wahab, Farrah Ishphani, Jamil Soomro, Qamar Zaman Kaira and others. I could not have misquoted the president while dozens of PPP ministers and more than 100 PPP MNAs were present in the same meeting. After the story appeared in the press Senator Dr Safdar Abbasi who had actually triggered this debate on NRO in the Presidency was the first one in the morning to call me. Dr Abbasi said, “Mr Klasra, your story is 99.9 percent correct. This is what I had said in the meeting and this was the response of the president.” After Raja Pervez Ashraf, this is second case in which a person has volunteered to confirm something without being named or asked to. I simply followed the ethics of journalism by not quoting any judge’s name in my story as I will repeat not because I was afraid of someone. I did so simply because Mr Zardari did not name the unknown judge, who according to him had trapped and deceived him. Had he quoted anyone name, I might have used his name even in the start of my story and also took his version. REFERENCE: Neither Zardari misquoted nor ‘retired judge’ named By Rauf Klasra Sunday, October 03, 2010 Shawwal 23, 1431 A.H. http://www.thenews.com.pk/03-10-2010/Top-Story/1057.htm
http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=1057&Cat=13 
![[PLOTS+KLASRA+1.gif]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTNedX9tHts9WAeytyTGvevbOa5Vue2NmKMieEXN9KQ1ZkYbmjdMMYa1cDw7MTkve7kq6_raq8e2xYfJj5l4AdCo5Am-rGYsqDNuKCAaCj0jy_XVbXVLDFIyDCXocDNBlATwd9fQpeFrJ5/s1600/PLOTS+KLASRA+1.gif)
![[PLOT+KLASRA+2.gif]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxfdBTRIB30z8nwDrRgsj6bPm2OJ2uoiLBR0ETj8kmXjowEu-5zEW_d6TV9R6CkLqece_K865nrRscjRZASgAjsJwDvm8AuFqRKSIZ9Fw2WuhVDFDjzpRkZ3pxVo2hIbrqvftajN_IZE4c/s1600/PLOT+KLASRA+2.gif)
And 
