• 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 Trinity Judges Find Good MP de Souza Innocent As White As Snow!

JohnTan

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
1690790615585.png


SINGAPORE: The Court of Three Judges, the legal profession's highest disciplinary body, on Monday (Jul 31) acquitted Member of Parliament Christopher James de Souza of improper professional conduct as a lawyer.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sin...proper-professional-conduct-acquitted-3665811
 

orh mee suah

Alfrescian
Loyal
Li Shengwu was found guilty of contempt of court by K Ramesh.
The Supreme Court is an institution damned by God Almighty. I can't remember who said it.
 

tanwahtiu

Alfrescian
Loyal

Merl Haggard

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
One cabinet minister under arrest for corruption, House Speaker & another female MP had to resign for extra-marital affair; Ah Loong cannot afford to lose any more party member.

The two black snakes were so lucky that their Ridout Gate was exposed after Isawaran's corruption case was uncovered and Ah Loong gave instructions to clear them at all cost otherwise he'll face a political crisis.
 
Last edited:

JohnTan

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Of course not, but you do know who is their boss. Right? Hint: the one who pay them salary.

The judges' bosses are the taxpayers. In the Singapore government, the judiciary is independent of the political party running the government. It's in our Constitution.
 

LexLuthor

Alfrescian
Loyal
I found the arguments of Mr Assomull, who is the less illustrious lawyer of the two sides and representing Law Society, very persuasive. According to the 3 wise men, it all boils down to intention, specifically whether or not DS had the intention to suppress the breach (of undertaking) by his clients:

Screenshot_1.jpg


Now listen to Mr Assomull:



Screenshot_2.jpg


Let's not forget the affidavit of the clients was drafted by a team of 4 lawyers, and even DS admitted that the affidavit was not clear enough to inform the Court that there was a breach of undertaking by his clients. Did the Court agree with Mr Assomull that DS and his team should have discharged themselves if the clients did NOT agree to the lawyers' advice on how the affidavit should be drafted to make it clear to the Court that there was a breach of undertaking?

Screenshot_3.jpg
 
Top