Dear Mr. Klasra,
With reference to your article published in Daily Jang on 9th September 2009, we noticed you mentioned taking an unnamed website to court which had published some information regarding your financial transactions. Since we have yet to receive the court summons, and since you have not mentioned the website in your article, we can only assume PKPolitics is the only website you could have meant.
After reading about your complaint, we have carefully gone over the whole issue with our lawyers who have advised us to immediately contact, and make amends with the injured parties.
Even though we would like to stand by our stated position on the issue, we unreservedly apologize for any offence we may have caused as a result of any errors in the original document, wherein the precise connection between the information we transmitted and the specifics of the matter, as far as they can be established and confirmed, is such as to raise juridical questions of sufficient magnitude, because the circumstances, when viewed from your vantage point, put on the logical and intellectual resources of the human intelligence, a far heavier burden than it can rationally be expected to tolerate.
In other words, Mr. Klasra, please allow us to express in the strongest possible terms our profound regret and please accept our heartfelt Apology, because the conditions for satisfaction which you anticipate to stipulate, imposes severe and intolerable restrictions on the transmission of news and commentary on our website, which if taken to its logical conclusion, in all probability, should the current adversarial relationship between us be perpetuated, precipitate a gradual congestion of the digital pathways of expression, climaxing in a condition of editorial weakening and organizational paralysis at PKPolitics, which will render, in point of fact, impossible the articulate and synchronized functioning of this body.
As far as we can see, looking at it by and large, taking one thing with another, in terms of the average of scenarios, in the last analysis, it is probably true to say that, at the end of the day, you will find, in general terms that, there really was not very much in it, one way or the other, which deviated, in any considerable degree, from what is commonly referred among the gentility as precision of exactitude. That is why it is of the essence that the issue at hand is pressed through, acted upon, immediately, without any further delay and leaving aside procedural matters on the validity of the question.
In retrospect, from hindsight and taking in the larger picture, if it appears that Mr. Klasra has been portrayed in a manner, which while not deviating far from the pedestrian understanding of the concept of veracity, has perhaps, in all considerations, caused hilarity to ensue in a manner commensurate with the realms of higher tragedy, we offer our unconditional apology to Mr. Klasra.
Regarding our unconditional Apology, as far as the proceedings of the legal case are concerned, which they aren’t or not necessarily, the correlation between deviation from reality and doubts about veracity, as it is understood from a purely conservative and literal understanding of the concerned phenomena, had these phenomena existed, not ruling out the possibility of circumstantial coincidence, there would have been the matter of monetary restitution, which we hereby pay to Mr. Klasra, along with our unconditional Apology, granted certain conditions.
Our Unconditional Apology, and the attendant monetary restitution, comes with the consideration that he, generally, and in a manner of speaking, abstains, as is generally understood to be, or more precisely, from indulging in activities or pursuits, which are purely of a financial nature involving monetary and real estate practices, not entirely in keeping with what is understood, by the layperson, to be standards of ethical behavior. Whereas, Mr. Klasra, as I expect you would agree, we hope not to be forced to regard the likelihood, in return for this monetary restitution, that dealings have been conducted in a way which, making all possible allowances, not to put too fine a point on it, all things being considered, is, perhaps not entirely ethical.
Without further ado, in the fullness of time, making all possible allowances, please acknowledge our Unconditional Apology, and accept the 100 Million POUNDS STERLING, in restitution.
I remain yours, ever faithfully,