tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-369492092024-03-05T12:23:41.500+08:00News Release by UncleYapThis blog carries news nature releases, and had been created to seperate my other postings from news releases.uncleyaphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17375848778499253498noreply@blogger.comBlogger5872044tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36949209.post-59768737638855404402009-11-10T03:09:00.003+08:002009-11-10T21:20:57.231+08:00Lehman Bonds' victims must use Obama this week to make demandsCopied from <a href="http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?p=340670#post340670">my Sammyboy.Com forum post</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;" class="smallfont"> <img title="Lightbulb" class="inlineimg" src="http://172.31.254.242/sammyboy.comm/images/icons/icon3.gif" alt="Lightbulb" border="0" /> <strong>Minibond & other Lehman victims should Demand Obama to RePAY during APEC</strong> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><hr style="color: rgb(152, 152, 152); background-color: rgb(152, 152, 152); margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px;" size="1"><div style="text-align: justify;"> <!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> </div><div style="text-align: justify;" id="post_message_340670">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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. :-)<br /><br />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. <img src="http://172.31.254.241/sammyboy.comm/images/smilies/tongue.gif" alt="" title="Stick Out Tongue" class="inlineimg" border="0" /><br /><br />Do it within the next few days!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <!-- / message --> <!-- sig --> </div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"> __________________<br /> uy.. <img src="http://172.31.254.244/sammyboy.comm/images/smilies/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" class="inlineimg" border="0" /><br /><br /></div></div></blockquote><div><br /> </div>uncleyaphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17375848778499253498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36949209.post-45589790266255341752009-11-09T15:49:00.004+08:002009-11-09T16:16:48.205+08:00Lee Kuan Yew's SuZhou-Style Naive Optimism AGAIN<div style="text-align: justify;">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. :-)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hqk3X7inpJBTe90BayYJ8vvj8nBw">AFP News URL</a><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /></span><div style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);" id="hn-headline"><span style="font-size:130%;">Lee Kuan Yew sees 3.0pc growth for Singapore in 2010</span></div> <p style="font-style: italic;" class="hn-byline"> (AFP) – <span class="hn-date">4 hours ago</span></p> <p style="font-style: italic;">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.</p><p style="font-style: italic;">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.</p><p style="font-style: italic;">"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.</p><p style="font-style: italic;">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.</p><p style="font-style: italic;">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.</p><p style="font-style: italic;">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.</p><p style="font-style: italic;">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.</p><p style="font-style: italic;">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.</p> <!-- google_ad_section_end(name=article) --> <p style="font-style: italic;" id="hn-distributor-copyright"><span>Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved. <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/copyright?hl=en">More »</a></span></p></blockquote></div><p id="hn-distributor-copyright"><span><a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/copyright?hl=en"></a></span></p><br /><a href="http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?p=340285#post340285">Sammyboy.Com Thread</a><br /></div>uncleyaphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17375848778499253498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36949209.post-33071694592137802032009-11-05T14:11:00.003+08:002009-11-05T16:17:24.926+08:00I say No Case To Answer for WB/IMF Speakers Cornered PS1512 & others<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibC9WBffZjQEW31tPvHQK5RNWl9TaJBFIA-Yi7qQo9xeiGVxYPjjpA1GMVQMB3xwMdF6tytWhL09iwgc75r7aekIrWe-MouOwFNIVvH6-gTU-lfdNzs3gc2CiBrFC1LYSTgaBLMA/s1600-h/5.png"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 305px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibC9WBffZjQEW31tPvHQK5RNWl9TaJBFIA-Yi7qQo9xeiGVxYPjjpA1GMVQMB3xwMdF6tytWhL09iwgc75r7aekIrWe-MouOwFNIVvH6-gTU-lfdNzs3gc2CiBrFC1LYSTgaBLMA/s400/5.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5400495346699462994" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4eCg4i0GYYULEAvISUyWh17Wu7WB8oWDpadoL1D7dj40Ew2-uAMXw5_PBwlM-N0Qyb8706s7dJsKRA-aBnWJfIIqvS2F2XHDss8tuZUgFF2ekSPC1R8g44Xbe9n_uKILSaLScAQ/s1600-h/UY_T-shirt_BACK.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4eCg4i0GYYULEAvISUyWh17Wu7WB8oWDpadoL1D7dj40Ew2-uAMXw5_PBwlM-N0Qyb8706s7dJsKRA-aBnWJfIIqvS2F2XHDss8tuZUgFF2ekSPC1R8g44Xbe9n_uKILSaLScAQ/s400/UY_T-shirt_BACK.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5400495118905733346" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxi2G3oLNrPT8oQiy1B-yab56OItEesi5_vsu0PHtHZ0AGjnBWpKS-UijCEjOpyXnyF44_da9WEOulgYjz98s7bKIhU6aogtfEZ_OK1eYSYtIIm3LnMIRsGz2eOk9VzKqZLMMhAQ/s1600-h/UY_speaking_media.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxi2G3oLNrPT8oQiy1B-yab56OItEesi5_vsu0PHtHZ0AGjnBWpKS-UijCEjOpyXnyF44_da9WEOulgYjz98s7bKIhU6aogtfEZ_OK1eYSYtIIm3LnMIRsGz2eOk9VzKqZLMMhAQ/s400/UY_speaking_media.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5400494926791283138" border="0" /></a><br /><a href="http://www.blogger.com/uncleyap.name/PS1512_no_case.pdf">My court document PDF file online</a><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">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.<br /><br />However, the AGC had once and again amended their charges.<br /><br />In 2008 we were charged initially for <span style="font-weight: bold;">holding procession</span> 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.<br /><br />When the case just began the AGC amended their charges against all 5, from <span style="font-weight: bold;">holding procession</span> to <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">ATTEMPT to hold procession</span>, from Speakers Cornered to Parliament. Obviously they could not prove that case, as most persons including myself did not reached Parliament on that day. :-)<br /><br />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 <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">NEAR Speakers Corner</span> instead of <span style="font-weight: bold;">Speakers Corner itself</span>! :-)<br /><br />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!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Any way this is my text:<br /><br /><style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </style> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><sdfield type="DATETIME" sdval="40122.5038771991" sdnum="1033;1033;MM/DD/YY"></sdfield></p><blockquote><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><sdfield type="DATETIME" sdval="40122.5038771991" sdnum="1033;1033;MM/DD/YY">11/05/09</sdfield></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">PS1512/2008</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="CENTER"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><u><b>No Case To Answer</b></u></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;"><b>Preliminary </b></span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">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:</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <ol><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">there were 5 or more than 5 persons all sharing the common intention to do the procession</span></p> </li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">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</span></p> </li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">that they are all aware that there wasn't a legal permit</span></p> </li></ol> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">It is the submission of Yap Keng Ho the 5<sup>th</sup> defendant that:</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;"><b>The prosecution had in their case failed to prove point #1 to #3 listed above:</b></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">A) It is in the evidence that only Dr Chee had during his speech made on 16.Sept.2006 announced his plan to:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <ul><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">proceed to Parliament and hold a rally from Speakers' Corner</span></p> </li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">proceed to Suntec City and hold a rally from Parliament</span></p> </li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">proceed to Istana and hold a rally from Suntec City</span></p> </li></ul> <p style="margin-left: 0.98in; text-indent: -0.25in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">B) He had invited people to take part, but he had not indicated weather he hold any permit or not.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">C) He had not revealed any details nor schedule of plan how he had intended to do so:</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <ul><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">either by foot or by vehicle</span></p> </li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">singly or double or in groups smaller than 5 or more than 5</span></p> </li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">when he plan to reach each of these locations</span></p> </li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">what sort of rallies and contents of speeches</span></p> </li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">who will be speaking in these rallies</span></p> </li></ul> <p style="margin-left: 0.98in; text-indent: -0.25in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">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:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <ul><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">enrollment or registration</span></p> </li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">wear a certain attire such as T-shirt with wordings</span></p> </li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">hold flag or banner or placard</span></p> </li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">raise their hands to indicate their interest</span></p> </li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">voice up to answer to his call</span></p> </li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">stand behind Dr. Chee or queue up somewhere</span></p> </li></ul> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">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.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">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.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">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.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">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.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <ol type="I"><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">Police did not inform members of public that there were no permit for any procession nor rallies at locations proposed by Dr. Chee.</span></p> </li></ol> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">J) In Tan Teck Wee's speech nothing about procession nor rallies had been mentioned.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">K) In Mr. Gandhi's speech nothing about rallies had been mentioned.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <ol start="50" type="I"><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">Miss Chee Siok Chin & Mr. Teoh & Mr. George did not gave any speech.</span></p> </li></ol> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <ol start="1000" type="I"><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">Police did not speak to myself, nor Mr. Tan Teck Wee, nor Mr. Teoh nor Mr. George</span></p> </li></ol> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">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.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">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.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">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.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;"><b>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. </b></span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;"><b>For 5<sup>th</sup> 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 5<sup>th</sup> 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 5<sup>th</sup> 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.</b></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; page-break-before: always;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><u><b>Submission on case law:</b></u></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">I like to cite <b>PS1348/2008</b> 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.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">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.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">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.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">It was also the onus of enforcement officers at the scene to verify and questions the accused persons weather which the police had failed:</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <ul><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">where were their destinations</span></p> </li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">how would they convey themselves</span></p> </li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">were they sharing the purpose and objectives with Dr. Chee</span></p> </li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">were they a member of press or media or just independent observers</span></p> </li></ul> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> </blockquote><a href="http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?p=337974">Sammyboy.Com Thread</a><br /><br /><br />My later email to DPP & Judge this afternoon:<br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>Dear DJ Toh,<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />In the aboves I am just summarizing what I had said in court today, as well as had written in the PDF file attached.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />Thanks & regards<br />k.h.yap<br /></blockquote></div><br /><br /></div>uncleyaphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17375848778499253498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36949209.post-67019556588308127852009-11-01T23:09:00.004+08:002009-11-01T23:27:46.898+08:00Corruption Charge against French Chirac is another reference to liqudate famiLEE LEEgime<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://lonestartimes.com/images/Bramanti/chirac.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 315px; height: 253px;" src="http://lonestartimes.com/images/Bramanti/chirac.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><ol><li><a href="http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/292513,frances-ex-president-chirac-to-be-tried-for-corruption--summary.html">Related Yahoo News URL</a></li><li><a href="http://www.malaysianews.net/story/560151">Related Yahoo News URL</a></li><li><a href="http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90853/6799610.html">Related Yahoo News URL</a></li></ol> <div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 204);">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.</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I insist to <a href="http://uncleyap-manifesto.blogspot.com/2008/03/manifesto-to-form-grand-tribunal-of.html">Liqudate</a> their political crimes, and in particular that old dog theif Lee Kuan Yew have to be punished here in Singapore before he met god.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?p=336112#post336112">Sammyboy.Com Thread</a><br /><br /></div>uncleyaphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17375848778499253498noreply@blogger.com