-
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 Cause of the rift between LWlL, LHY and LHL
- Thread starter Papsmearer
- Start date
lol, perhaps they did and got their answer, then now retract the appeal..such drama..
They have
been told by Shan that no number of appeals or lawsuits will result in victory for them, they might as well save their money and time.
As I have mentioned, the
assets from the estates were put into a trust. Hsien yang, Wei Ling and Gay loong are all beneficiaries of the trust. Its not a fight for money. Also, a big chunk of Old fart's estate is to be donated to charity. That is his house at Oxley. It is probably worth $50 million or more as the land is very big and its in a prime location.
lol, perhaps they did and got their answer, then now retract the appeal..
It should never have gone that far all the way to court.
You are speaking like a royal consort.
Last edited:
Spoken not speaking. What is said has been spoken, what is yet to be one will be speaking. Mind your language, chump!
Spoken not speaking. What is said has been spoken, what is yet to be one will be speaking. Mind your language, chump!
Thank you, chump.
Last edited:
I meant royal consort.
I am not royal consort lah. Her royal consort is another woman.
Perhaps nephew Li Shengwu can debate the issue for LWL.
http://www.socfell.fas.harvard.edu/senior and junior fellows.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9jJAm-8bFh8dmpBM1lEaXZlaTA/view
http://www.shengwu.li/
http://www.socfell.fas.harvard.edu/senior and junior fellows.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9jJAm-8bFh8dmpBM1lEaXZlaTA/view
http://www.shengwu.li/
learnt a new word today, rift = asshole tear by bangla = shafted. better than the time i was in lembaga
can also title it - the shaft!
learnt a new word today, rift = asshole tear by bangla = shafted. better than the time i was in lembaga
can also title it - the shaft!
The title "Shaft" will be reserved for another thread. :-)
LHL does not have the courage to do the right thing
One has to remember that when LWL and LHY initiated the lawsuit against the govt., one of the major goals (in addition to getting the transcripts out of the hands of the govt. and back into the estate) was to embarrassed the unnamed family member who removed them in the first place. In this way, they hoped to show some deceit and subterfuge on the part of this unnamed family member and how sneaky she was in taking the transcripts out of Oxley. The implication is to show that this unnamed family member basically stole the transcripts from them. That is why they asked for a very specific remedy from the judge. Here is the quote from the article:
Earlier this month, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang - in their role as executors of Mr Lee's estate - had applied for leave to appeal against a High Court decision that prevented them from submitting to court an account of how their father's interview transcripts ended up with the Government after his death.
So basically, when they when to court initially, the decision went against them. But not only did the decision go against them, the judge did not even allow them to show how the transcripts left Oxley and ended up in the govt's hand. Think about this for a moment. this is a very valid point on their part. If the unnamed family member or in fact any member of the public or the govt. thinks that there are official documents in Oxley which is covered under the OSA, they should report that to the proper authorities. The govt. or Law Ministry then has to file a request with the estate through the govt to return the documents. This is the proper way to do it. A formal request has to be submitted by the govt's legal counsel to the executors of the estate stating that some information is in their possession that OSA documents, specifically the transcripts of the interviews, are in Oxley and that they would like it returned to the govt. The estate can then decide to comply or not. If they do not comply, the govt can take them to court or charged them all under the OSA for possession of restricted documents. In this particular case, the unknown family member simply removed the documents from Oxley without going through the proper procedures. Wei Ling and Hsien Yang wanted to show the court that how the documents were taken out was illegal and unauthorized, and hence if the court agrees, then by implication the person who removed them can be charged for an offence. If the unnamed person is Ho Ching, then it is a no win situation for the court. If she is charged, a whole can of worms is opened up. If she is not charged, then the people will say that the Lees can get away with anything. In any case, it does not look good for the court.
So, in the end, to prevent this thing from escalating, it was simply easier to just not allow them to disclose in court who it was that took the transcripts out, and the illegal way in which she did it.
Just my 2 cents.
Earlier this month, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang - in their role as executors of Mr Lee's estate - had applied for leave to appeal against a High Court decision that prevented them from submitting to court an account of how their father's interview transcripts ended up with the Government after his death.
So basically, when they when to court initially, the decision went against them. But not only did the decision go against them, the judge did not even allow them to show how the transcripts left Oxley and ended up in the govt's hand. Think about this for a moment. this is a very valid point on their part. If the unnamed family member or in fact any member of the public or the govt. thinks that there are official documents in Oxley which is covered under the OSA, they should report that to the proper authorities. The govt. or Law Ministry then has to file a request with the estate through the govt to return the documents. This is the proper way to do it. A formal request has to be submitted by the govt's legal counsel to the executors of the estate stating that some information is in their possession that OSA documents, specifically the transcripts of the interviews, are in Oxley and that they would like it returned to the govt. The estate can then decide to comply or not. If they do not comply, the govt can take them to court or charged them all under the OSA for possession of restricted documents. In this particular case, the unknown family member simply removed the documents from Oxley without going through the proper procedures. Wei Ling and Hsien Yang wanted to show the court that how the documents were taken out was illegal and unauthorized, and hence if the court agrees, then by implication the person who removed them can be charged for an offence. If the unnamed person is Ho Ching, then it is a no win situation for the court. If she is charged, a whole can of worms is opened up. If she is not charged, then the people will say that the Lees can get away with anything. In any case, it does not look good for the court.
So, in the end, to prevent this thing from escalating, it was simply easier to just not allow them to disclose in court who it was that took the transcripts out, and the illegal way in which she did it.
Just my 2 cents.
Last edited:
Good analytical insight. Tks
if the "unnamed family member" acted accordingly to hisher conscientious discretion and judgment to remove said transcripts and return them to the authorities, heshe was rightfully doing hisher part. afterall, heshe was the designated clutter clearer. it's a thankless, tiring, and taxing task. the beneficiaries should at least show some gratitude and thank her for sorting through trash that might or might not be holding state secrets.
Thankless is subjective. But given a task, heshe must do it well. Doing a task wrongly, whether negligently or not, is wrong and subject to prosecution.
Does heshe have the authority to view a classified document?
She was making sure that the CON man did not have any written documents that would implicate her or husband. She didn't do the 'clean-up' out of goodness of her heart.
if heshe is the designated clutter clearer and she inadvertently cums upon classified info it's not hisher fault nor heshe is held liable in breaking any osa laws. first of all heshe may not realize it's classified. the fact that she removes said transcripts and returns them to the proper authorities to vet, verify and ascertain, she's doing the right thing. when in doubt escalate matter to proper authorities.
Similar threads
