Serious Lawyer GCP Wife conned Socialite Nancy Gan’s Son Millions!

[Bonut]

Likely to be a keling catholic. Keling muslim would have arabic names to help erase some of the kelingness.

KNN, now I know why so many kelings turned to Jesus.

 

[JohnTan]

KNN, now I know why so many kelings turned to Jesus.

I think more kelings prefer to turn to muhammad because they all have brown skins. Even aryan arabs are treated as semi-brownies. Much fewer chinks turn to muhammad because chinks are racists pigs who look down on anyone with brown skin or associated with brown skins, including desert niggers. Most chinks prefer to turn to Jesus or convert keling buddha into a yellow-skin chink. Most sinkies I meet in my grassroots believe that Buddha was chink! A small handful prefer to think of buddha as a tanned chink instead of keling.

 

[Bonut]

I think more kelings prefer to turn to muhammad because they all have brown skins. Even aryan arabs are treated as semi-brownies. Much fewer chinks turn to muhammad because chinks are racists pigs who look down on anyone with brown skin or associated with brown skins, including dessert niggers. Most chinks prefer to turn to Jesus or convert keling buddha into a yellow-skin chink. Most sinkies I meet in my grassroots believe that Buddha was chink! A small handful prefer to think of buddha as a tanned chink instead of keling.

Kelings turn to Mohd cannot have AMDK names leh.

 

[aerobwala]

60. I begin with the observation that it is clear from the second defendant’s defensive behaviour on the stand that his central aim during the trial was to distance himself from the affairs of the second defendant and the plaintiff. To that end, he denied any involvement in the preparation and signing of the DOT. I give two examples this behaviour.

61. The first is his inexplicable refusal to answer the question whether the DOT in his view was a standard document:

Q. Have you read the DOT, the declaration of trust?
A. Declaration of trust?

Q. Have you read it? No, I’m not asking you to read it now, but have you read it?
A. Oh, yes, I have read it.

Q. In your opinion, is that a standard document?
A. Can I look at the document?

Q. Oh, sure. It’s in 1AB-26.
A. Yes.

Q. Have a look at page 26, the trust deed that we are talking about.
A. Yes.

Q. My question to you is: is this a standard document?
A. I don’t know.

Q. Okay. Next question.
A. Yes.

Q. Is it a usual document, from your experience?
A. I don’t know.

Q. That a 29-year-old man –
A. Sorry?

Q. That a 29-year-old man would sign such a document, create a trust giving away all his properties, his assets, on trust, to his infant son who was then only about one and a half years old?
A. So what are you asking me?

Q. I’m asking you whether it’s usual, in your view.
A. I’m here to give evidence of facts, not my opinion.

Q. You refuse –
A. I know that experts and all that are there for opinion evidence but I’m here to give, as far as I know, your Honour, evidence as to what factually transpired. Now, he’s asking for my legal opinion. I don’t think that’s what I’m here for.

Q. Would you sign a document like that yourself?
A. Again, it’s an opinion. Whether I would sign or not sign is not an issue here.​

62. It can be seen from this exchange that his initial response was to say that he did not know whether the document was a standard document. I find his claim of ignorance to be unbelievable, given that he is a senior lawyer. When counsel for the plaintiff persisted in that line of questioning, he retreated by declining to give his opinion on the basis that he was present only as a witness of fact. That appeared to me to be unnecessarily defensive and evasive. In cross-examination, it is a common and accepted practice to ask witnesses of fact for their opinion on a certain matter in order to establish whether they hold that opinion, not in order to establish whether that opinion is true. As a lawyer himself, the second defendant’s father must have known that the plaintiff’s counsel clearly intended the former and not the latter because it was the plaintiff’s very case that the DOT was not a standard document.

63. The second example is that during cross-examination, the second defendant’s father insisted that he and his wife had no reaction to the second defendant’s telling them that the plaintiff was leaving the Stevens Road property. I find this indifference surprising, given that the plaintiff was, after all, their son-in-law. Simple concern would have been apposite, but the second defendant’s father gave no reason for his equanimity. Again, this gave me the impression that he was trying to distance himself from the plaintiff’s affairs.

64. Next, a key piece of evidence of his presence in the second defendant’s bedroom on the evening of 26 March 2014 comes from the transcript of the confrontation of 12 February 2015. During the confrontation, the plaintiff said to the defendant, “You even got your dad to read through it and to force me to sign it.” The second defendant responded by denying the fact that anyone had “forced” the plaintiff to sign the DOT. She is recorded as having said, “No one forced you. (chuckles) I don’t know why you keep saying someone force you. How can any of us force you?”Thus, she did not deny that she had asked her father to read the DOT. Indeed, she appeared to accept, by her use of the word “us”, that someone other than her was involved in the plaintiff’s signing of the will.

 

[Bonut]

60. I begin with the observation that it is clear from the second defendant’s defensive behaviour on the stand that his central aim during the trial was to distance himself from the affairs of the second defendant and the plaintiff. To that end, he denied any involvement in the preparation and signing of the DOT. I give two examples this behaviour.

I think it's second defendant's father.

 

[JohnTan]

The keling father and daughter lawyers are truly devious. I like them. Thanks to the publicity from this case, I've reached out to them for their professional legal expertise. I need them to help me screw some people legally. Of course I have to make sure they aren't as careless like in this botched will legal suit.

 

[Wunderfool]

The keling father and daughter lawyers are truly devious. I like them. Thanks to the publicity from this case, I've reached out to them for their professional legal expertise. I need them to help me screw some people legally. Of course I have to make sure they aren't as careless like in this botched will legal suit.

If you need a really good lawyer, get the one that handled the Oxley will.

 

[scroobal]

As an aside, I could not help but note the legal cast for this case have had their own marital woes that would be headline grabbing as well. One lost his wife to her lesbian lover who is prominent in her right. Another had a short gun marriage to an American student but too was short lived.

Life is increasingly becoming complex.

 

[JohnTan]

As an aside, I could not help but note the legal cast for this case have had their own marital woes that would be headline grabbing as well. One lost his wife to her lesbian lover who is prominent in her right. Another had a short gun marriage to an American student but too was short lived.

Life is increasingly becoming complex.

What's wrong with the traditional marriage?

Things would work out if both parties worked to maintain the romance. Important things would be to communicate everyday, make win-win compromises, maintain good physical appearances to enhance sexual appeal.