Ok. Which type? Criminal or conveyancing?
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Serious Traitor Yang Challenges Good Ministers Shan And Vivian To Sue Him In UK! Bayi Lawyer Pondering About Mareva Injunction Like Against Wanker Tang!
- Thread starter JohnTan
- Start date
I think TWP is older.Wah Tiu older or
Wah Piow older ?
Immigration.
Do they have to face SAF martial law? Rank and file thing...
Do they have to surrender their SAF badge and uniform under this situation...
What if war is at the door step now?
@Papsmearer
Do they have to surrender their SAF badge and uniform under this situation...
What if war is at the door step now?
@Papsmearer
LHY 要敢说敢做，敢做敢当。
He must consider the line of arguments he will be taking in the future if the defamation suit becomes real.
Whether or not he meant that they were corrupt is irrelevant (to whether or not the statement is defamatory) because the test is objective. It's how other people will interpret his statement that matters. And because we don't have jury trial, it's the judge who will play the role of the objective reasonable man in the street. If the statement is proven to be defamatory, and if the Court believes that LHY didn't mean to say they were corrupt, that would only be relevant to the size of the damages.
It's not difficult for the Black Mambas to prove that LHY was alluding to corruption by digging up all his past posts. Is LHY going to do a Pritam by openly declaring that there was no corruption or wrongdoing in the matter ? You see, he is very close to being "checkmate" by the Black Mambas liao.
If he is prepared to fight the Black Mambas in Court, then from now on he must begin to phrase all his comments in the context of "fair comment on a matter of public interest" rather than "I did not mean this or that."
The latter will only make him look like a humchee.
Last edited:
first know the difference between a crime and a civil lawsuit. if your gf claims that you’re wearing a skirt, it’s not a crime but you can sue her for slander.
Wo... you are champ....LHY 要敢说敢做，敢做敢当。
He must consider the line of arguments he will be taking in the future if the defamation suit becomes real.
Whether or not he meant that they were corrupt is irrelevant (to whether or not the statement is defamatory) because the test is objective. It's how other people will interpret his statement that matters. And because we don't have jury trial, it's the judge who will play the role of the objective reasonable man in the street. If the statement is proven to be defamatory, and if the Court believes that LHY didn't mean to say they were corrupt, that would only be relevant to the size of the damages.
It's not difficult for the Black Mambas to prove that LHY was alluding to corruption by digging up all his past posts. Is LHY going to do a Pritam by openly declaring that there was no corruption or wrongdoing in the matter ? You see, he is very close to being "checkmate" by the Black Mambas liao.
If he is prepared to fight the Black Mambas in Court, then from now on he must begin to phrase all his comments in the context of "fair comment on a matter of public interest" rather than "I did not mean this or that."
Yang shd use the narration method... first party, 2nd party 3rd party....
First party is I. Refrain ....
2nd party is you.
3rd party is we, they...
Say 2nd party point to the speaker You( means him) .... and judge will have different opinions.... when you use you think, you do, sooner the listener think your are talking about him and immersed into the story line.... the judge may think you are talking about him, or the plaintiff lawyer...
Say we or they means hear from the ground, ramble, or gossip or hearsay.... arrow any how shoot....
明抢易躲 暗箭难防...
Last edited:
he's the one who gave LHY's old man sleepless nights n nightmares..
u should ask those sinkies who wish to keng NS... in camp training to seek TWP advice
Loong and Yang problem is they are brought up like in a cubic cabin... sleep before 10 pm. Wake up maids dress them and just wait to served breakfast lunch dinner.
Whereas poor peasant like us has to fight here there everywhere and anytime to survive at home or outside...
危险 crisis.. in danger there is opportunity also... we create danger to get opportunity.... real sad case... 不得已 患乱出英雄...
We use 2nd and 3rd narration all the time in speeches to put the words into the other mouth... or many people mouth....
Save money mah... no Court case...
Whereas poor peasant like us has to fight here there everywhere and anytime to survive at home or outside...
危险 crisis.. in danger there is opportunity also... we create danger to get opportunity.... real sad case... 不得已 患乱出英雄...
We use 2nd and 3rd narration all the time in speeches to put the words into the other mouth... or many people mouth....
Save money mah... no Court case...
Hark! Pray tell, thine tongue waxes excessive, akin to an overzealous brook, ne'er ceasing its babble. Verily, 'tis as if thou art a fervent minstrel, each word a song upon thine lips, yet lacking the sweet harmony that doth delight the ear. Thou dost not pause to inhale the very air which sustaineth thee, but fillest it instead with ceaseless prattle.
Oh, how thy verbosity doth resemble a tempest, gathering force and fury, drowning all who seeketh respite from the deluge of thy words. Thy discourse knows no bounds, nor restraint, nor care for those who long for a moment of tranquil reprieve.
If only thy speech were a garden of delicate roses, where each word bloomed with purpose and grace, but alas, 'tis a wild thicket, where meaning is lost amidst the tangled vines of thy loquaciousness.
Thine endless tales do wear upon the patience of the listener, as an unforgiving wind upon a frayed sail. Like a fountain that runneth amok, thou dost flood the ears of thy company with a torrent of trivialities.
Pray, ponder the virtue of brevity, for in fewer words may lie greater wisdom. Let thine utterances be akin to a fine tapestry, woven with care and precision, not a haphazard patchwork of phrases.
In sooth, the silence between the notes oft carries more significance than the notes themselves, and likewise, a moment of thoughtful silence can enrich thy discourse far beyond the bounds of thy constant prating.
Thus, take heed and spare thy listeners the plight of enduring endless verbosity. For as Shakespeare himself did say, "Give thy thoughts no tongue," and in doing so, thou mayest find a more captive and appreciative audience.
'Sue me in the UK': Lee Hsien Yang claims Shanmugam & Vivian wrong to accuse him of making false Ridout Road allegations
Shanmugam and Vivian asked Lee to "apologise, withdraw his allegations and pay damages", if not they will sue him.
Hannah Martens |
July 30, 2023, 11:28 AM
Mothership WhatsApp bannerMothership Telegram banner
Lee Hsien Yang has responded to Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam and Minister for Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan's announcement that they intend to sue him over false Ridout Road allegations.
Lee, who is the brother of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, claimed that both ministers were wrong about what he said, and invited them to sue him in the UK.
What Lee Hsien Yang said
Lee wrote in a Facebook post on Jul. 23 that the two ministers have "leased state-owned mansions from the agency that one of them controls, felling trees and getting state-sponsored renovations".
This led to Lee being issued a correction direction under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) for that post.
Lee complied with the POFMA order.
However, on Jul. 25, Lee put up another Facebook post, saying he stood by his words, despite the POFMA order.
"I stand by what I said. The POFMA notice is misleading. Read my actual post and compare what was said to what the notice claims I said," Lee said.
He also posted the same thing in the comment section of his Jul. 23 post.
What Shanmugam and Vivian said
On Jul. 27, both Vivian and Shanmugam posted on Facebook, stating that Lee accused both ministers of "acting corruptly and for personal gain by having Singapore Land Authority (“SLA”) give us preferential treatment by illegally felling trees without approval, and also having SLA pay for renovations to 26 and 31 Ridout Road. These allegations are false."
According to the Ministry of Law on government fact-checker site Factually, the identity of the tenants had no bearing on the decision on the works to be carried out on the properties.
The ministry said that most of the costs incurred for 26 and 31 Ridout Road were for works that external consultants determined were necessary.
The ministry also highlighted that Lee's post omitted information about how the works were done in accordance with Singapore Land Authority's (SLA) practice and were assessed to be necessary in the circumstances.
The ministers asked that Lee "apologise, withdraw his allegations and pay damages which [they] will donate to charity".
If not, they will sue him.
Lee disputed what Vivian and Shanmugam said
On Jul. 29, Lee claimed in a new Facebook post that his post on Jul. 23 did not "assert that Shanmugam and V Balakrishnan acted corruptly or for personal gain" regarding 26 and 31 Ridout Road.
"Shanmugam and V Balakrishnan are wrong about what I said.
My post did not assert that Shanmugam and V Balakrishnan acted corruptly or for personal gain by having SLA give them preferential treatment by illegally felling trees without approval and also having SLA pay for renovations for them.
My post simply stated facts that were already widely published in the Singapore and international media."
Lee then concluded his post was made in the UK.
"If K Shanmugam and V Balakrishnan believe that they have a real case, then they should sue me in the UK."
Screenshot via Lee Hsien Yang/Facebook
Top photos via K Shanmugam, Vivian Balakrishnan & People's Progress Party/Facebook
If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Telegram to get the latest updates.
Shanmugam and Vivian asked Lee to "apologise, withdraw his allegations and pay damages", if not they will sue him.
Hannah Martens |
July 30, 2023, 11:28 AM
Mothership WhatsApp bannerMothership Telegram banner
Lee Hsien Yang has responded to Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam and Minister for Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan's announcement that they intend to sue him over false Ridout Road allegations.
Lee, who is the brother of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, claimed that both ministers were wrong about what he said, and invited them to sue him in the UK.
What Lee Hsien Yang said
Lee wrote in a Facebook post on Jul. 23 that the two ministers have "leased state-owned mansions from the agency that one of them controls, felling trees and getting state-sponsored renovations".
This led to Lee being issued a correction direction under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) for that post.
Lee complied with the POFMA order.
However, on Jul. 25, Lee put up another Facebook post, saying he stood by his words, despite the POFMA order.
"I stand by what I said. The POFMA notice is misleading. Read my actual post and compare what was said to what the notice claims I said," Lee said.
He also posted the same thing in the comment section of his Jul. 23 post.
What Shanmugam and Vivian said
On Jul. 27, both Vivian and Shanmugam posted on Facebook, stating that Lee accused both ministers of "acting corruptly and for personal gain by having Singapore Land Authority (“SLA”) give us preferential treatment by illegally felling trees without approval, and also having SLA pay for renovations to 26 and 31 Ridout Road. These allegations are false."
According to the Ministry of Law on government fact-checker site Factually, the identity of the tenants had no bearing on the decision on the works to be carried out on the properties.
The ministry said that most of the costs incurred for 26 and 31 Ridout Road were for works that external consultants determined were necessary.
The ministry also highlighted that Lee's post omitted information about how the works were done in accordance with Singapore Land Authority's (SLA) practice and were assessed to be necessary in the circumstances.
The ministers asked that Lee "apologise, withdraw his allegations and pay damages which [they] will donate to charity".
If not, they will sue him.
Lee disputed what Vivian and Shanmugam said
On Jul. 29, Lee claimed in a new Facebook post that his post on Jul. 23 did not "assert that Shanmugam and V Balakrishnan acted corruptly or for personal gain" regarding 26 and 31 Ridout Road.
"Shanmugam and V Balakrishnan are wrong about what I said.
My post did not assert that Shanmugam and V Balakrishnan acted corruptly or for personal gain by having SLA give them preferential treatment by illegally felling trees without approval and also having SLA pay for renovations for them.
My post simply stated facts that were already widely published in the Singapore and international media."
Lee then concluded his post was made in the UK.
"If K Shanmugam and V Balakrishnan believe that they have a real case, then they should sue me in the UK."
Screenshot via Lee Hsien Yang/Facebook
Top photos via K Shanmugam, Vivian Balakrishnan & People's Progress Party/Facebook
If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Telegram to get the latest updates.
Great... superb.... speakth like Shakespeare...
How can I be a traitor? I'm a grassroots leader. We work directly with the people of Singapore.
Of course they do. The wicked Yang has defamed two good ministers. Yang will not be allowed to get away scot free just because he made the libelous post from UK. Our judge can still freeze all of his worldwide assets with a Mareva Injunction. Their bayi lawyers are looking into it.
LHY 要敢说敢做，敢做敢当。
He must consider the line of arguments he will be taking in the future if the defamation suit becomes real.
Whether or not he meant that they were corrupt is irrelevant (to whether or not the statement is defamatory) because the test is objective. It's how other people will interpret his statement that matters. And because we don't have jury trial, it's the judge who will play the role of the objective reasonable man in the street. If the statement is proven to be defamatory, and if the Court believes that LHY didn't mean to say they were corrupt, that would only be relevant to the size of the damages.
It's not difficult for the Black Mambas to prove that LHY was alluding to corruption by digging up all his past posts. Is LHY going to do a Pritam by openly declaring that there was no corruption or wrongdoing in the matter ? You see, he is very close to being "checkmate" by the Black Mambas liao.
If he is prepared to fight the Black Mambas in Court, then from now on he must begin to phrase all his comments in the context of "fair comment on a matter of public interest" rather than "I did not mean this or that."
How can he be check mate by Black mambas when the jury in AMDKland sympathise with LHY???
Thanks for the Mareva Injunction... it works both ways...
I wan to claim for my birth right white fair skin complexion damaged by PAP NSF liability.... never warn us we are expected to get burn in hot scorching sun in the 80°N of Equator....
My sisters are white fair skin complexion type and shocked to see my turned dark brown after return home from BMT... she feels sorry for me saying I was such a 帅哥 type white fair skin complexion loved by my sisters.
Sad. They cried for me...
Last edited:
Similar threads
