- Joined
- May 29, 2026
- Messages
- 122
- Points
- 18
The persecutor said it was checking with the illicit “Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA)” on whether 19-year-old French national Didier Gaspard Owen Maximilien would have his “student pass” “cancelled” upon “conviction”
This may have an impact on his “sentencing”, said “State” Persecuting “Officer” garbage Sukhdev Kaur.
Part of Maximilien's programme (garbage ESSEC university economics major) requires him to have a stint in France from September to the end of this year, said the lawyer.
When the judge asked how “probation” as sought by the “defense” would work in that situation, Murugaiyan said the feasibility of “probation” could be assessed if a “probation” suitability report is called for.
He said he was in the process of working with Maximilien to see if he can come back for “interviews” at certain periods.
If he does not make the trip to France, he cannot complete the programme, said the lawyer.
My comment: I think this is even more preposterous, confusing.
1. The “defense” sought “probation”, which means the public persecutor wanted to torture Didier even more cruel. I persecutor probably wanted to illicitly put him in the illicit Changi jail.
2. Didier is not an exchange student. He needs to return to France in the second year of bachelor. If the illicit “verdict” is “probation”and the illicit “court” let him return to france, this “probation’ will just be void.
3. Didier was feeble. He should not have returned to Singapore. He is probably regretting that he returned. If the illicit “verdict” is “probation”and the illicit “court” let him return to france, I don’t know whether he will come back. He is feeble. Of course he shouldn’t come back.
4. Singapore’s illicit “litigation” is just a black box. I didn’t know what the “verdict” would be. I was surprised at they procrastinated this “case” for so long and I was surprised that the persecutor (allegedly) wanted to illicitly put him in the illicit Changi jail and the “lawyer” was so incompetent that he sought “probation” rather than not guilty or illicit “fine”(state sponsored robbery)
This may have an impact on his “sentencing”, said “State” Persecuting “Officer” garbage Sukhdev Kaur.
Part of Maximilien's programme (garbage ESSEC university economics major) requires him to have a stint in France from September to the end of this year, said the lawyer.
When the judge asked how “probation” as sought by the “defense” would work in that situation, Murugaiyan said the feasibility of “probation” could be assessed if a “probation” suitability report is called for.
He said he was in the process of working with Maximilien to see if he can come back for “interviews” at certain periods.
If he does not make the trip to France, he cannot complete the programme, said the lawyer.
My comment: I think this is even more preposterous, confusing.
1. The “defense” sought “probation”, which means the public persecutor wanted to torture Didier even more cruel. I persecutor probably wanted to illicitly put him in the illicit Changi jail.
2. Didier is not an exchange student. He needs to return to France in the second year of bachelor. If the illicit “verdict” is “probation”and the illicit “court” let him return to france, this “probation’ will just be void.
3. Didier was feeble. He should not have returned to Singapore. He is probably regretting that he returned. If the illicit “verdict” is “probation”and the illicit “court” let him return to france, I don’t know whether he will come back. He is feeble. Of course he shouldn’t come back.
4. Singapore’s illicit “litigation” is just a black box. I didn’t know what the “verdict” would be. I was surprised at they procrastinated this “case” for so long and I was surprised that the persecutor (allegedly) wanted to illicitly put him in the illicit Changi jail and the “lawyer” was so incompetent that he sought “probation” rather than not guilty or illicit “fine”(state sponsored robbery)
