Which one ends here?

[rusty]

1.Police investigating a serious accident involving a car and pedestrian was told by the owner that he didn't drive it on the day of alleged incident.


2.IRA hauled a businessman to court for false information but defendant claimed he wasn't the one who filled the forms.


3. A court was told that the chef of a famous restaurant did not prepare the food his assistant did resulting in 30 cases of food poisoning.


4. A man charged for murder claimed he wasn't the one who knifed the victim...he only gave the order.


5. A lawyer claimed he did not prepare the inflated bills but he signed them.

 

[krafty]

what is your point?

 

[wendychan]

what is your point?

i will try a guess

that certain people are "protected" species and can tell lies and MUST be believed, even if the evidence says otherwise

did i get it right?

 

[krafty]

seems to me the pple mentioned are using excuses to get out of trouble with the law. no protected spieces mentioned but when there is money involved , there is a way out.

i will try a guess

that certain people are "protected" species and can tell lies and MUST be believed, even if the evidence says otherwise

did i get it right?

 

[wendychan]

seems to me the pple mentioned are using excuses to get out of trouble with the law. no protected spieces mentioned but when there is money involved , there is a way out.

question : whasnt it money that got them in this situaition to begin with

 

[krafty]

no lah, it was their action or their associates to begin with, then money used to settle their inconvenience.

question : whasnt it money that got them in this situaition to begin with

 

[rusty]

what is your point?

1-4. all found guilty and sentenced.

5. It ended without being charged or censured and did not warrant further investigation.

seems to me the pple mentioned are using excuses to get out of trouble with the law. no protected spieces mentioned but when there is money involved , there is a way out.

Money alone can't you out of trouble...connections help. Alvin is a PAP MP and has a brother in AG's chamber.

 

[krafty]

needless to say, when you are well connected, all things bad will turn out well for you.

 

[Equalisation]

The one with the final cutain.:o

 

[WongMengMeng]

1. If my dear Alvin had been illiterate then he can claim the defence of non-est factum, but then how can he be an effective MP if he is indeed illiterate?

2. Non est factum (Latin for "it is not [my] deed") is a doctrine in contract law that allows a signing party to escape performance of the agreement. A claim of non est factum means that the signature on the contract was signed by mistake, without knowledge of its meaning, but was not done so negligently. A successful plea would make the contract void ab initio.

Non est factum is difficult to claim as it does not allow for negligence on the part of the signatory, i.e. failure to read a contract before signing it will not allow for non est factum. In a successful case, the fundamental basis of the signed contract must be completely different from what was intended. In Lloyds Bank v Waterhouse (1990) a father acted as a guarantor to his son's debt when purchasing a farm. The father was illiterate and signed the bank document under the belief that he was acting as the guarantor for the farm only, when the contract was actually for all the debt accumulated by the son. As he was illiterate, this was a mistake as to the document signed and the father was successful in claiming non est factum. (taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_est_factum)

3. At the very least, the Law Society should take my disciple to task for gross negligence or recklessness. A negligent MP? How can he serve his constituents effectively?

4. Those who think I am WongMengMeng need to go to IMH and have their heads checked!

5. If the Law Society does not take Alvin to task, it is failing in its job of protecting the public from the black sheep which will always exist within the profession. Trust is not to be placed on fallible human beings but on strong institutions. Obviously the latter does not exist in Sinkieland and its all the PAP's fault!

 

[WongMengMeng]

There's a letter published in yesterday's Shit Times that tries to put the blame on the Singapore Medical Council for allowing the bill to run to $900,000. Preposterous!

Has this Daniel What the Fark (writer of the letter), bothered to ask a more pertinent question, which is did Alvin the Greedy Apprentice do his duty as required by Section 35 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules:

35. An advocate and solicitor shall inform the client —

(a) of the basis on which fees for professional services will be charged and the manner in which it is expected that those fees and disbursements, if any, shall be paid by the client;

(b) of other reasonably foreseeable payments the client may have to make either to the advocate and solicitor or to a third party and the stages at which the payments are likely to be required;

(c) of the estimates of the fees and other payments, which shall not vary substantially from the final amount, unless the client has been informed of the changed circumstances in writing;

(d) that the fees may be subject to a limit which may be incurred without further reference and, where the limit imposed on the fees is insufficient, the advocate and solicitor shall obtain the client’s instructions as to whether to continue with the matter; and

(e) of the approximate amount of the costs to date in every 6 months, whether or not a limit has been set, or deliver an interim bill in appropriate cases.

If he has not done ALL of the 5 things required by Section 35, then Alvin the Apprentice is in breach of his professional duties and should be disciplined by the Law Society. Singapore Medical Council can file a complaint with the Law Society to start the ball rolling.