they are also prone to womanize and gamble, compromising their integrity. same with secret service in the u.s. - always looking for holes to bang.
-
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
they are also prone to womanize and gamble, compromising their integrity. same with secret service in the u.s. - always looking for holes to bang.
The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) on Friday issued a clarification on an assertion in the statement from the estate of Mr Lee.
"The statement is incorrect in saying that the High Court decision that the estate holds a limited copyright to the oral history transcripts was a 'key point' that the Government had 'disagreed with' the estate on," said the AGC.
"On the contrary, the Government agreed that the estate had a limited copyright to the transcript under the interview agreement between Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the Government. In fact, the High Court’s finding that the estate held a copyright, 'but only for the purpose of ensuring the Government’s compliance with the terms' of the agreement, is identical with the argument that the Attorney-General submitted to the court on behalf of the Government on Jul 14, 2016," it said.
I think Rajah and Tann, the estate's lawyers, should have fought on the point that the transcripts were not covered under the OSA, as there was no govt agency that had classified it as a secret and that there was no written agreement between Old Fart and the oral history department that they were secret. As such, they need not be in govt custody, and that the judge has over stepped his boundary by ruling they were secrets under the OSA. Hence, the docs should be released to the estate.
"The statement is incorrect in saying that the High Court decision that the estate holds a limited copyright to the oral history transcripts was a 'key point' that the Government had 'disagreed with' the estate on," said the AGC.
"On the contrary, the Government agreed that the estate had a limited copyright to the transcript under the interview agreement between Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the Government. In fact, the High Court’s finding that the estate held a copyright, 'but only for the purpose of ensuring the Government’s compliance with the terms' of the agreement, is identical with the argument that the Attorney-General submitted to the court on behalf of the Government on Jul 14, 2016," it said.
I think Rajah and Tann, the estate's lawyers, should have fought on the point that the transcripts were not covered under the OSA, as there was no govt agency that had classified it as a secret and that there was no written agreement between Old Fart and the oral history department that they were secret. As such, they need not be in govt custody, and that the judge has over stepped his boundary by ruling they were secrets under the OSA. Hence, the docs should be released to the estate.
fuck lah, i was going out for dinner, now lost my appetite
Go cheong geylang dinner later
Seriously, I am not too sure about that. While they are good litigators in many areas, this is a totally new field for any law firm in Singapore. I mean when was the last time any entity sued the singapore govt over personal documents that may or may not be OSA? They are breaking new grounds here. Even the fucking judge gabra inventing new laws and circumventing the OSA with wrong interpretations.
There is no gabra. He who pays the judges is always right.
Similar threads
