Friday, November 20, 2009

Opposition Leader Jufrie Mahmood Acquitted of 2 Wrongful Charges Today

Mr. Jufrie Mahmood was the candidate of the famous Eunos GRC battle of GE 1997 in which I was one of his election campaign agents. He is one of the 19 Tak Boleh Tahan protest case defendants today in court 24's trial which already went on for more than a year. He is also one of the many fighters who is simultaneously fighting multiple cases in the court these while, like myself. I have more than a dozen cases including appeals from 2006 until now, and my cases fixed for hearing at present already lined up until Feb 2010.

Today is another celebration in court.

While the TBT case was stood down in court 24, some of us went to court 19 (one of our very familiar court rooms) for Mr. Jufrie's verdict. This is a labor & immigration case, he was represented by opposition lawyer Mr. Chia Ti Lik who is also one of the TBT defendant.

The judge in Court 19 is none other than District Judge Toh Yong Chong who is still hearing our on going WB/IMF Speakers Cornered case. You can see that the court is now a closely knitted community with the opposition fighters already. :-) Every one knows every one, including LEEgime's mata and prosecutors.

As I heard the verdict being read out, the prosecution's case is fulling depending on a single witness who is the iLEEgal immigrant Bangladeshi worker himself, who had been sentenced; imprisoned and then deported. However he alleged that Mr. Jufrie's construction company employed him to work at a very formal project work-site not involving famiLEE LEEgime, and let him worked and stay at that site for a period of 6 months before he was arrested by LEEgime's MOM agents.

He called Mr. Jufrie as BOSS and alleged that Mr. Jufrie paid him in cash. But Mr. Juffrie told me that his company only employ LEEgal foreign workers via some agencies and all salaries are paid via agencies in crossed cheques, so their company NEVER had any cash payroll system at all. The iLEEgal Alien also claimed that he had worked during certain months during which his job was to carry things upstairs in the building under construction. But it was proven that the building was not even up yet during that month and had only nothing but foundations on the ground. So that evidence is clearly falsified.

The passport of the iLEEgal Alien was found in the workers quarters inside a simple plastic bag. But there was no sleeping mattress there belonging to him, nor there was any clothes; shoes; luggages; towels or personal items of his found at the site. So judge Toh also won't buy his testimony that he had been really living and working there for 6 month. However even when judge was not not convinced by the prosecution's case, he still asked a defense be entered instead of dismissing the charge.

Mr. Juffrie said this iLEEgal Alien could had made friends with some of his LEEgally employed Bangladeshi workers, and sneak into the quarters when the care taker (guard) was not paying attention at night, to stay there without permission of the company management. I said in that case it could be the gay lovers in the quarters had helped to safe keep passport and told him some incomplete information about the site. He lied in court and at investigation in my opinion because he intentionally did not want to reveal the actual person who employ or harbor him iLEEgally, he could be returning a favor by doing this, or protecting someone else. But his is incriminating Mr. Jufrie and could cause him to be convicted, jailed, fined and disqualified from taking part in the next GE.

I think Mr. Chia Ti Lik did a good job of defending Mr. Jufrie. We are all very happy for them.

As they returned to court 24 from court 19, there as a big applaud this afternoon.

TBT hearing is now at prosecution witness number 5, there is another 22 prosecution witnesses to go. The hearing adjourned this afternoon before 4pm, as I applied to continue my cross examination of PW5 on 24.Nov.2009 next week.

If Mr. Jufrie was convicted today and sentenced fined above S$2000, he will be automatically disqualified as an electoral candidate for period of 5 years from today. Several opposition fighters are disqualified this way including myself.

Sammyboy.Com Thread

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Political / Executive Interference into Judiciary, Obama PREDICTING Political Judgement

The question I am raising now is Obama interfering into Judiciary judgment by an extend worst than Old Dog Thief Lee Kuan Yew? Can a president and Attorney General openly state their own predictions on judgment of Politically Sensitive Court Trials? Is that appropriate and lawful?

Even the notorious famiLEE LEEgime Old Dog Thief Lee Kuan Yew dare not announce their own prediction of court judgment, which his LEEgime had been accused by International Bar Association to be LACK OF INDEPENDENCE APART between Executive & Judiciary. Obama and his Official Governmental Lawyer - AG are on Yahoo headline news today predicting judgment of 911 related trials.

What kind of Democratic Reformist Star is this?

Yahoo News Headline today

Obama, Holder predict conviction in 9/11 case

Attorney General Eric Holder testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, AP – Attorney General
Eric Holder testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2009,
before …

WASHINGTON – From opposite ends
of the globe, President Barack
and Attorney General Eric Holder firmly rejected
criticism Wednesday of the planned New York trial of the professed Sept. 11 mastermind and predicted
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be
exposed as a murderous coward, convicted and executed.

"Failure is not an option," Holder declared.

The president, in a series of TV interviews during his trip to Asia,
said those offended by the legal
accorded Mohammed by virtue of his facing a civilian trial rather
than a military tribunal
won't find it "offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty
is applied to him."

Obama, who is a lawyer, quickly added that
he did not mean to suggest he was prejudging the outcome of Mohammed's trial.
"I'm not going to be in that courtroom," he said. "That's the job of the
prosecutors, the judge and the jury."

The president said in
interviews broadcast on NBC and CNN that experienced prosecutors in the case who
specialize in terrorism have offered assurances that "we'll convict this person
with the evidence they've got, going through our system."

In Washington, the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Holder for
hours about his decision to send Mohammed and four others from the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to New York for trial in a federal courthouse blocks
from the site of the World Trade Center towers destroyed in the 9/11 attacks in

The attorney general said he is certain the men
will be convicted, but even if a suspect were acquitted, "that doesn't mean that
person would be released into our country."

Tempers flared
when Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.,
challenged Holder to say how a civilian trial could be the best idea, since
Mohammed had previously sought to plead guilty before a military

"How can you be more likely to get a conviction in
a (civilian) court than that?" pressed Kyl, to applause from some in the hearing

The attorney general said his decision was not
based "on the whims or the desires of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. ... He will not select the
prosecution venue. I will. And I have."

Critics of Holder's decision
— mostly Republicans — have argued the trial will give Mohammed a world stage to
spout hateful rhetoric.

Holder said such concerns are misplaced,
because judges can control unruly defendants and any pronouncements by Mohammed
would only make him look worse.

"I have every confidence that the
nation and the world will see him for the coward that he is," Holder told the
committee. "I'm not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial —
and no one else needs to be, either."

Democrats on the panel were
largely supportive of the administration's decision.

"We're the most
powerful nation on earth; we have a justice system that is the envy of the
world. We will not be afraid," said Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

Among the
spectators were some relatives of 9/11 victims who disagree with Holder's plan
to put Mohammed, the most senior al-Qaida suspect in U.S. custody, on public trial.

Opponents of the plan, including Holder's predecessor, Michael Mukasey, have accused
him of adopting a "pre-9/11" approach to terrorism.

emphatically denied that.

"We are at war,
and we will use every instrument of national power — civilian, military, law
enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic and others — to win," Holder said.

But South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham
called the decision "a perversion of justice" by putting wartime enemies into
the civilian criminal justice
. "We're making history, and we're making bad history," Graham

The attorney general said he does not
believe holding the trial in New
— at a federal courthouse that has seen a number of high-profile
terrorism trials in recent decades — will increase the risk of terror attacks there.

He also voiced support for extra federal money for
the city to help safeguard the area while the trials are under way.

Alice Hoagland, whose son Mark Bingham died aboard Flight 93, spoke with
Holder after the hearing had ended. One of four jetliners hijacked on 9/11,
Flight 93 crashed into a Pennsylvania field after passengers rushed the cabin.

"We are heartsick and weary of the delays
and machinations," said Hoagland, of Redwood Estates, Calif.

Holder sought to reassure her there was evidence,
not yet made public, that makes federal court the best place to try Mohammed.

"I guess what I'm saying is trust me," the
attorney general said quietly, as reporters and security staff crowded around
the pair.

"I will trust you. I will defer
judgment," said Hoagland, though she added she still has serious doubts about
his plan.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

A Mr. Lee's Letter To Obama in Respond to My Blog Post

Click HERE for My Blog Post This Week
Mr. Lee's email address is MASKED by me for this blog post for his privacy, since I have yet asked him about posting his petition to Obama

fromAnthony Lee,
dateWed, Nov 11, 2009 at 9:06 PM
subjectAppeal Letter to compensate Minibond investors

hide details Nov 11 (1 day ago)

To: President OBAMA


American Embassy
27 Napier Road
Singapore 258508
Main Tel. No: (65) 6476-9100
Main Fax No: (65) 6476-9340

Mr President,

As you grace our country with your presence during these APEC meetings, we beseech you to take some time off your meeting schedule to meet with MAS Chariman Goh Chok Tong, Finance Minister Tharman and bank CEOs to discuss compensation measures for minibond holders and investors that have lost entire life savings due to your predecessor’s failure to bailout Lehman Brothers in 2008.

A total of S$375 million (US$258 million) worth of Lehman-linked structured products was sold to 8,000 retail investors who did not have the financial acumen to understand the risks of these complicated products. The total number of structured products, which value evaporated overnight, is closer to S$500 Million. Our misplaced faith in the US banking and financial regulatory system, together with predatory sales tactics, had left us exposed to the whims and fancies of ruthless bankers and the former Treasury Sec. Hank Paulson.

Minibonds investors in Singapore have been filing complaints and lawsuits against various financial institutions, but many lack the resources to proceed with the lengthy and costly litigation process.

The spillover damage has also been hefty. Eight town councils in Singapore – institutions entrusted with funds meant for the maintenance and running of Public Housing facilities – had about S$16 million invested in troubled structured products.

The effort of some (e.g. Great Eastern Life) to redeem the original capital injection value of these products is but a drop of water in an ocean of judiciary irresponsibility. While three of the US biggest banks have exited the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) – a fund meant to save financial institutions from collapse – and handed out US$29.7 billion in bonuses, Singaporean investors are left wondering where was the Lehman Brothers Rescue?

Here in Singapore, investors holding credit-linked notes linked to Lehman Brothers had received no coupon payments (as of Oct this year) toward the end of the grace period. Yet another event of default as US banks trade TARP funds for bonuses.

Many people have the mistaken impression that investors have been assisted by the Singapore to get a fair compensation. This is the impression is forged by the streams of feel good press statements that misguide the uninformed reader.

The truth is, Singaporean investors have been shortchanged. Less than 20% has been compensated, while our neighbours in Hong Kong and Taiwan are getting more headway as 777 Singaporean investors continue to be ignored by Prime Minister Lee who declined to meet the investors or to delegate his officials to resolve this issue. Not much else has transpired as Singaporeans are ignorant of their human or contractual rights and unable to seek redress outside of governmental assistance due to years of a nanny state under the Lees.

Former CEO of NTUC INCOME Mr Tan Kin Lian had been an earlier crusader for our rights and we thank him for it. It heartens me that our plight is not forgotten and that Mr Yap Keng Ho is reigniting the spirit of justice.

A few affected investors and I are standing behind Mr Yap’s open call for resolution and invitation to gather at Speakers’ Corner. In the spirit of American’s 1st amendment, we will gather at Hong Lim Park and make our demands heard. Demands that the US be held culpable for its fair share in this debacle.

Mr President, Although you did not preside over this debacle, the current injustice is within your reach to fix.

Yours Sincerely,
Anthony Lee


Lehman Bonds' victims must use Obama this week to make demands

Minibond & other Lehman victims should Demand Obama to RePAY during APEC
Yes! I am calling on the minibond victims & other victims to get organized and protest at Speakers Corner where you can conduct demonstration lawfully. :-) Demand Obama to Repay You, yes with US tax payers' funds and not SGP tax payers funds.

I had disagreed to have Singaporean tax payers fund or SGP public funds or SGP Banks' funds to be scooped out to repay you. This is unfair for Singaporean public interest and not their fault at all. It is bank & MAS & Minister of Finance's fault (Ass Loong Son).

Your money was sucked to the USA by Wall Street Scum Lehmen Bros. The USA should be made responsible to compensate you. You should list US secretary of finance & Obama as defendant if you want to file class action lawsuit - my suggestion.

When Obama found that your angers are against him, then he will check with famiLEE LEEgime officially to find out that you had been treated so unfairly. :-)

You have to push Obama because he can kick the famiLEE LEEgime for you, if there is a person that can do it for you, it would be Obama, not that I need to flatter him at all. That's the basic strategy I am offering you, you have a chance this week to exploit Obama.

Do it within the next few days!

KengHo Yap


08 November 2009

Dear Yap Keng Ho


BOOKING ID: DM-08112009-2

DATE: 08/11/2009 to 20/11/2009

EVENT TYPE: Demonstration

Your application has been successfully registered.

We seek your kind cooperation in helping to keep Hong Lim Park litter-free.

Please print this page as proof of your registration and bring it on the day of your activity.

Yours sincerely,
National Parks Board

Sammyboy.Com Thread

Banner Demonstration During APEC 2009

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Asking the dead? Get the ANSWERS while we still can!

Yahoo News URL

Did debts drive him to his death?

Did debts drive him to his death?

SINGAPORE: If Mr Ng Chee Kiang had a debt problem, it did not manifest in very visible ways leading up to his alleged suicide and murder of his two young children on Saturday.

While neighbours had once spotted the "O$P$" loanshark calling card scribbled on the wall beside his Ang Mo Kio flat three months ago, as MediaCorp had reported, the family did not have any history of service and conservancy charges arrears.

"From my experience, S&CC arrears are usually the first signs of any financial trouble," Ang Mo Kio—Yio Chu Kang Town Council chairman Inderjit Singh told MediaCorp.

But six years ago, Mr Ng filed for bankruptcy, Chinese—language daily Lianhe Wanbao reported on Tuesday, citing checks it had made.

The daily said that it was credit card bills — rather than gambling, as some newspapers have speculated — that was behind recent money problems.

Relatives whom MediaCorp spoke to at Mr Ng’s wake were fiercely protective of his wife’s privacy.

Asked what might have led Mr Ng to set fire to his flat with his son, 5, and daughter, 3, before jumping to his death, one male relative said: "You should ask the deceased, all the answers are with him. What I know is from the media."

When MediaCorp approached Mr Ng’s wife, she was carrying some of her husband’s clothes out of their burnt flat, and declined to comment. The petite woman continued to remain calm later at her husband’s wake at the void deck below. — TODAY

My blog title is about Old Dog Thief Lee Kuan Yew, who owes countless number of ANSWERS to Singaporeans from decades of his famiLEE LEEgime rules without any Transparency & Accountablity. I say liquidate the LEEgime while Old Dog Thief himself is still alive and get these answers from him directly.

It will be too late when he is dead, and his son will give us that kind of answer like above - which tells us to ask the dead.

O$P$ ? Yes! Where is our CPF$? Where is Singaporeans' Reserve and wealth? :-Z

Sammyboy.Com Thread

Sammyboy.Com Thread

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Lehman Bonds' victims must use Obama this week to make demands

Copied from my Sammyboy.Com forum post:

Lightbulb Minibond & other Lehman victims should Demand Obama to RePAY during APEC

Yes! I am calling on the minibond victims & other victims to get organized and protest at Speakers Corner where you can conduct demonstration lawfully. :-) Demand Obama to Repay You, yes with US tax payers' funds and not SGP tax payers funds.

I had disagreed to have Singaporean tax payers fund or SGP public funds or SGP Banks' funds to be scooped out to repay you. This is unfair for Singaporean public interest and not their fault at all. It is bank & MAS & Minister of Finance's fault (Ass Loong Son).

Your money was sucked to the USA by Wall Street Scum Lehmen Bros. The USA should be made responsible to compensate you. You should list US secretary of finance & Obama as defendant if you want to file class action lawsuit - my suggestion.

When Obama found that your angers are against him, then he will check with famiLEE LEEgime officially to find out that you had been treated so unfairly. :-)

You have to push Obama because he can kick the famiLEE LEEgime for you, if there is a person that can do it for you, it would be Obama, not that I need to flatter him at all. That's the basic strategy I am offering you, you have a chance this week to exploit Obama.

Do it within the next few days!

Monday, November 09, 2009

Lee Kuan Yew's SuZhou-Style Naive Optimism AGAIN

Once and AGAIN, old dog thief Lee Kuan Yew will brag his big mouth about his egoistic and childish optimism on his famiLEE LEEgime's ability and performance. This is the classic Lee Kuan Yew SuZhou SG Industrial Park style optimism. :-)

Old Dog Thief bragged about SuZhou SG Industrial Park & many other things that proved to be most ugly failures. But none of which he ever know any shame.

Like a naive self-boasting 6 year old this 86 year old dog thief is the ONLY egoistic leader in the world today to declare that recession is over and projected 3% growth for next year under his famiLEE LEEgime.

I predict that he will be proven wrong again just like with SuZhou SG Ind Park and many other classic shameless and baseless big talks of the Classic LKy brand.


Lee Kuan Yew sees 3.0pc growth for Singapore in 2010

SINGAPORE — Singapore's economy is set to grow by around three percent in 2010 after suffering its worst ever recession this year, former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew said in remarks published Monday.

Lee, 86, now an adviser to the cabinet of his son Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, cautioned Singaporeans against expecting a return to high growth rates soon because of the island's heavy dependence on exports to rich markets.

"We will not resume high growth for several years until the major economies in the world have recovered," Lee, who holds the title minister mentor, was quoted by local media as saying on Sunday.

It was the first time a government official has publicly put a number to 2010 growth, and it appears more conservative than some private economists' forecasts for next year's recovery, the Straits Times newspaper said.

The government currently predicts a gross domestic product contraction of 2.0-2.5 percent this year, less severe than the previous forecast of 4.0-6.0 percent shrinkage in 2009.

The economy grew by an estimated 0.8 percent in the three months to September from a year ago, the economy's first year-on-year expansion in five quarters, according to the ministry of trade and industry.

But key industrial output during September fell 7.7 percent year on year as declines were posted across every sector. The figure snapped two straight months of expansion and was worse than analysts' expectations.

The central bank said last week that Singapore will increasingly look to its services sector rather than industry as the main engine of growth in order to soften the impact of any future global economic crises.

Sammyboy.Com Thread

Thursday, November 05, 2009

I say No Case To Answer for WB/IMF Speakers Cornered PS1512 & others

My court document PDF file online

For the 3 days of stand off at Speakers Cornered during WB/IMF 2006 which the hearing had went on for over a year from 2008 till today, it is already APEC 2009 already :-), the prosecution has just been able to close their case before yesterday and this morning in court 19, we had just entered our No Case Submissions. I say there is no case to answer, after more than a year fighting it because the prosecution still failed to raise evidence to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

However, the AGC had once and again amended their charges.

In 2008 we were charged initially for holding procession from Speakers Cornered to Parliament, without permit that I/O at that time was DSP William Goh - the same guy then ASP who investigated our CPFB 4 person protest; the same guy who arrested the TBT-18 plus me on 15.March.2008, then he got transferred to another post in 2008, and a new investigator took over the case after the case was already hearing in court.

When the case just began the AGC amended their charges against all 5, from holding procession to ATTEMPT to hold procession, from Speakers Cornered to Parliament. Obviously they could not prove that case, as most persons including myself did not reached Parliament on that day. :-)

Then at the very end of prosecution's case just before yesterday after more than a year of hearing, they had once again amended the charge! This time they realized that they prosecuted the WRONG CHARGE again after doing it for over a year, that the actual boundary of Speakers Cornered does not include those park benches from which Dr CSJ etc were speaking atop of! The amendment became that Attempted Procession from NEAR Speakers Corner instead of Speakers Corner itself! :-)

While this is most unfair because all the cross examinations and defense arguments were made for more than a year to defend a different charge, this should be a Miscarriage of Justice and I thus have the rights to apply or appeal for a re-trial!

Legally speaking, I have ala-by that I wasn't inside the legal boundary of Speakers Corner as stated in the charge, this can be deem very slight difference but for legal boundaries a tiny difference from within to outside of boundaries can be very significant, e.g. smoking within or outside the Yellow Lines defining a Smoking Zone. We are talking about several meters from the actual legal boundary on that day.

Any way this is my text:



No Case To Answer


For the charge of attempting to participate a procession on 16.Sept.2006 from Speakers' Corner to Parliament consisting of 7 persons listed on the charge, and ought reasonably to know that it was lacking a permit, it is the prosecution's onus to prove beyond reasonable doubt that:

  1. there were 5 or more than 5 persons all sharing the common intention to do the procession

  2. that the way they that they had intended to proceed to parliament in a way that constitute to a procession and not just a casual walk

  3. that they are all aware that there wasn't a legal permit

It is the submission of Yap Keng Ho the 5th defendant that:

The prosecution had in their case failed to prove point #1 to #3 listed above:

A) It is in the evidence that only Dr Chee had during his speech made on 16.Sept.2006 announced his plan to:

  • proceed to Parliament and hold a rally from Speakers' Corner

  • proceed to Suntec City and hold a rally from Parliament

  • proceed to Istana and hold a rally from Suntec City

B) He had invited people to take part, but he had not indicated weather he hold any permit or not.

C) He had not revealed any details nor schedule of plan how he had intended to do so:

  • either by foot or by vehicle

  • singly or double or in groups smaller than 5 or more than 5

  • when he plan to reach each of these locations

  • what sort of rallies and contents of speeches

  • who will be speaking in these rallies

D) Dr Chee had not indicated how he was going to know who had accepted his invitation, neither there were any of follow ways that people could indicate that they wish to take part:

  • enrollment or registration

  • wear a certain attire such as T-shirt with wordings

  • hold flag or banner or placard

  • raise their hands to indicate their interest

  • voice up to answer to his call

  • stand behind Dr. Chee or queue up somewhere

E) Police had not announced that they were stopping or preventing any procession, but only had instead told a legally assembled Speakers Corner Audience that they were An Unlawful Assembly without any reasons nor explanations.

F) Police did ordered some sort of dispersal for all persons not wanting to take part in unlawful assembly to leave Hong Lim Park, but then they did a self-contradicting actions by force preventing people from leaving Hong Lim Park subsequently and almost immediately.

G) The police did so without verifying the intentions of individual at the scene, except for just only NOT MORE THAN 3 PRESONS. They had however blindly assumed that all the rest of people were sharing intention of executing plan mentioned in Dr. Chee's speech.

H) Police did not issue any order of reasonable crowd management, that if the members of public want to leave Speakers Corner lawfully via which exits or how they may do so, without being treated as attempting to proceed to Parliament to attend Dr. Chee's proposed rally.

  1. Police did not inform members of public that there were no permit for any procession nor rallies at locations proposed by Dr. Chee.

J) In Tan Teck Wee's speech nothing about procession nor rallies had been mentioned.

K) In Mr. Gandhi's speech nothing about rallies had been mentioned.

  1. Miss Chee Siok Chin & Mr. Teoh & Mr. George did not gave any speech.

  1. Police did not speak to myself, nor Mr. Tan Teck Wee, nor Mr. Teoh nor Mr. George

N) I had only brought the unreasonable enforcement acts of police to the attention of members of medias & public. I had not talked nor indicated anything regarding procession nor rallies.

O) Even if indeed Dr. Chee & Miss Chee & Mr. Gandhi had in the evidence indicated intention to proceed to parliament from Speakers Corner, there are only 3 of them, still less than 5. Furthermore, there is no evidence on exactly how they had wanted to proceed to Parliament, either by taxi or foot or singly or together with how many other persons.

P) There is no evidence raised by the prosecution regarding how the other accused persons had reasonably received information regarding the status of permit application or was there any application, except that the applicant Dr. Chee be the only person who must know.

The prosecution had not proved at all, what would the objective of each accused persons be, even if they might be attempting to leave Speakers Corner. They therefore could be attempting to leave in compliance of the police's dispersal order, or had their own other destinations other than Parliament when attempting to leave Speakers Corner.

For 5th defendant who did not arrived together with Dr. Chee's group and did not wear the same protest T-shirt as that group, and had separately applied for Procession & Assembly Permit apart from Dr. Chee's application, and had separately registered to be a legitimate speaker at police post, even if the 5th defendant had intended to follow the crowd to the Parliament, he have the rights to do so legitimately as an independent observer just like the press, as long as his movement and gestures is legally and apparently apart from Dr. Chee's proposed action. All the dozens of members of press & media also have this same rights to be observers independent from Dr. Chee's proposed actions. The court should not deem each and every persons to be a part of Dr. Chee's proposed action unless these persons share the same objective and consent with Dr. Chee's proposed action. The prosecution had entirely failed to prove the stands of 5th defendant that if he had attempted to proceed to parliament, that he was bearing an unlawful intention to participate in any procession without a permit.

Submission on case law:

I like to cite PS1348/2008 pp vs Yap Keng Ho & others before DJ John Ng at Court 15 in which all 5 accused persons were acquitted based on DJ Ng's decision that action of a casual walk is apart from that of a procession as defined by the meaning of that English word. Defendants were acquitted because a casual walk conveying themselves from Speakers's Corner Parliament to Istana does not require a permit as a procession would.

This is applicable in our case PS1512/2008 and others, that there is no evidence how the proposed or intended movements will be conducted, it could be either a lawful casual walk with requires no permit or an unlawful procession. In our case the venues of Speakers Corner & Parliament and Istana are ALL the same as in case PS1348/2008.

It is the onus of prosecution to prove that the intended or proposed conveying of persons to the Parliament was not to be in the form of a lawful casual walk which requires no police permit. But in the proceeding during prosecution's case this is not at all proven, there is no evidence raised regarding how Dr. Chee had wanted to convey himself to Parliament.

It was also the onus of enforcement officers at the scene to verify and questions the accused persons weather which the police had failed:

  • where were their destinations

  • how would they convey themselves

  • were they sharing the purpose and objectives with Dr. Chee

  • were they a member of press or media or just independent observers

Sammyboy.Com Thread

My later email to DPP & Judge this afternoon:
Dear DJ Toh,

As the no case submission is from the defense, I think it should be only fair that defense gets the rights to do a final reply?

In essence, my position for the no case argument is that, motives and intention unless proven by prosecution by evidence can not be presumed nor imaginary. There are many elements lacking in the case.

The motive originating from only Dr. Chee is not proven that others had prior knowledge of Dr. Chee's plan in details, not just on weather he had any permits, but weather how he had intended the proposed movements to be carried out.

Even more remote are the motives of the other accused persons, including myself. There is not a single bit of evidence regarding my motive nor consent to participate in anything.

Even if myself or any other defendants were proven to be attempting to leave Speakers' Corner it could be only in compliance with the Police Order to disperse from that area. This again is the onus of prosecution to prove and can not be grossly assumed. There is no evidence on this.

Even if myself or any other defendants were intended to proceed to Parliament, it is again the onus on prosecution to prove that the intention were to be participating in anything illegal or as proposed by Dr. Chee. Any member of public have the lawful rights to proceed to parliament from Speakers Corner for objective of observation or reporting for journalism or for their own purposes unrelated to Dr. Chee's proposal or invitation. There is no evidence to prove this either.

In the very first place, what is in the evidence as Dr. Chee's plan reveal by none other than that speech, is very fuzzy and unconvincing. It is not at all logical for audience who were already lawfully assembled for a rally at Speakers Corner to follow the speaker to proceed to a number of places in order to hold a number of rallies. It is not reasonable nor logical that Dr. Chee can really expect any person to follow him, nor believe that was what he was really going to do.

There is no such kind of activity in common knowledge as a multi-staged-mobile-rallies. Dr. Chee had held so many rallies in his political life, and we had not seen such kind of complicated and almost meaningless exercise. Therefore on the ground of motive, I don't think what is mentioned in the prosecution's case can make logical sense that such a strange invitation would had convinced persons such as myself to participate in.

In the aboves I am just summarizing what I had said in court today, as well as had written in the PDF file attached.

I had at about 3PM today finally managed to locate Court Officer Jason and past him a printed copy of this PDF file for the court's record.

Thanks & regards

Sunday, November 01, 2009

Corruption Charge against French Chirac is another reference to liqudate famiLEE LEEgime

  1. Related Yahoo News URL
  2. Related Yahoo News URL
  3. Related Yahoo News URL
French court ordered today that ex-president Jacques Chirac will be trial for corruptions by abusing public funded jobs to pay his own political party's workers.

Most Singaporeans can be very sure that famiLEE LEEgime's dogs and cronies had all these years been fed and fatten in quite identical ways. The situation in famiLEE LEEgime will only be about 100 times worst, as their dogs in huge quantity are fed in very highly paid posts not just in public positions in government but also in privatized GRC & GLC etc, but all under the same political umbralla of famiLEE LEEgime, enjoying the same pork barrel and guarding the political interest of ONE PARTY & one single famiLEE.

In famiLEE LEEgime, corruptions and frauds and grafts are LEEgalized, but that does not mean that they are not guilty at all. They are all the more punishable and liable.

I insist to Liqudate their political crimes, and in particular that old dog theif Lee Kuan Yew have to be punished here in Singapore before he met god.

Sammyboy.Com Thread