Some lawyers have moral conscience to take on cases where they believe the accused is truly innocent and justice must prevail. There are of course certain lawyers who will take cases mainly for money only regardless whether the accused is truly a murderer or a rapist.
-
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.
Kong's. City Harvest Trial Trivia
- Thread starter scroobal
- Start date
Some lawyers have moral conscience to take on cases where they believe the accused is truly innocent and justice must prevail. There are of course certain lawyers who will take cases mainly for money only regardless whether the accused is truly a murderer or a rapist.
Ya, remember the case of Anthony Ler? He was the master mind who used the teenager to murder his wife although he did not kill her himself. He was hung for the crime and the teenage killer got life imprisonment. Sometimes, the paps would do wonderful things but sometimes, they would be silly like shit.
It gets more complicated for this case when many in the law enforcement chain are believers themselves.
Where money talks, smear on character is immaterial. Similarly, why do some people like to be OKT although it is a smear on their character?
Money walks in after the customer walks out.
No complication, lah. Onus is on KH to show he is innocent but if he is the head of CHC, how could he be ignorant about the happenings in his church? Moreover, the case involves the use of the church funds on his wife as well.
If he is truly ignorant, then LHL could also say he is not aware what his Ministers are doing which is unlikely. When his Minister farts, he should be able to tell which one is the farter.
The sad part is that Commissioner of Charities cracked under pressure and and did a u-turn by allowing the wife to takeover the running of the Church. In effect King is back in the chair detecting how his empire moves even when he is cools his heels in Changi.
After 5 years, he will be back and do what. Jim Bakker and preach that he is learnt from his sins and God took him back. That alone will bring him more converts as they think that he is honest.
After 5 years, he will be back and do what. Jim Bakker and preach that he is learnt from his sins and God took him back. That alone will bring him more converts as they think that he is honest.
I am sure Edwin has realised by now that he is being used by Kong for other reasons other than the law.
Having dealt with many, never trust them. They are only keen to milk you dry. Worst profession.
How's this different from insurance agent or secondhand car salesman?
Very different. Lawyers will promise you the moon to get your business. Once obtained, a different version will appear.
Doctors better. Success or failure still get money!
Same with lawyers. Locals rules prevent success as a criteria for payment. Worst part is that unlike Doctors you cannot work out the estimate. They can drag as long as they want.
Docs may need to buy equipments. Lawyers just use their mouths.
If it can be proven that Kong Hee is footing the legal bills of everyone else, would this be a ground for Appeal upon conviction?
Would not this give rise to the suspicion of conflict of interests/dual representation?
Would a re-trial be ordered by the Court of Appeal?
Would not this give rise to the suspicion of conflict of interests/dual representation?
Would a re-trial be ordered by the Court of Appeal?
Really good question.
It is actually completely out of bounds to find out who is paying the bill. The lawyer is expected to act in the interest of his client only. Of course easier said and done. Even if parents, spouses and relatives ask who is footing the bill, the lawyer cannot reveal. It is up to accused to accept or not to accept.
Sometime the accused smells a rat and this is when they discharge their lawyer. And guess who discharged his lawyer?
It is actually completely out of bounds to find out who is paying the bill. The lawyer is expected to act in the interest of his client only. Of course easier said and done. Even if parents, spouses and relatives ask who is footing the bill, the lawyer cannot reveal. It is up to accused to accept or not to accept.
Sometime the accused smells a rat and this is when they discharge their lawyer. And guess who discharged his lawyer?
Guess Kong is aware that in 1997, AGC showed itself to be the lapdog/ sock-puppet of the PAP. Perhaps by deploying a PAP lawyer to do his dirty work, Kong Hee hopes to hoodwink the AGC into going soft on the case by perhaps implying that there is value/ PAP endorsement of the way CHC managed (mismanaged) their accounts.
I just hope that the AGC has since outgrown that passing phase and are now able to discharge their duty of protecting all Singaporean's without fear/ favour rather than defending the PAP brand/ associated cronies at all costs.
The CHC trial will show if the AGC has grown up since that embarasing debacle of 1997. Or will PAP and its associates of overpaid cronies be favoured again?...
