Don't be afraid of receiving lawyer letter. You can either write back to tell the farker to fuck off or intimidate the farker back with counter sue, or just relax and wait for the court order. No court order no case, hot air only from the whinger using lawyer to intimidate you for nothing.
Lawyers are just business people and under Company Act to behave like everyone else. They need a legal trade license to practice law just like any other licensed traders, taxi license for example, to tan jia in that trade.
Lawyers have strict Codes of Conducts and Practices boundary to work within and lose license, suspended or revoked if they breached it. No license cannot tan jia as lawyer.
You can even sue the lawyer or complain to the legal Counsel if you find he was unethical, intimidating, and some have become personal and 'take you on' in his personal capacity to ruin you down. Watch for their behavior and code of ethic in the courtroom to pick up their personal vendetta and vindictive on you. You can smell smoke from fire.
If their client is a plaintiff and if their complaints and issues are frivolous, vexatious, vindictive, vendetta and malicious of this sort to hurt the defendant, then more so the lawyer must back off and watch his Code of conduct and practice are not breached in handling this case. Going further will cause the lawyer to breached the code of conduct and practice and lose his license.
With the court order, you can see the complaint statements and points are raised by the farker. You can be surprised that even their lawyer can't help much or even screwed up this client.
Take the court order to your lawyer and they will know where to take it from here.
There will be a time for out-of-court-settlement, and both party pay their own legal bills in civil suit (criminal case is different).
In the case below, the lawyer letter is weak, hot air only. He may have breached the Code of Conduct and Practices of his license to practice. Looks like a pure intimidating letter and he act on his own "big huha" consider his client is a high-office holder and a politician to intimidate the adversary.
We may be surprised the court order statements are different in fighting this case points by points, as the writer has pointed out.
--------------------------------------
refer to PM Lee’s lawyer Mr Davinder Singh’s first letter of demand to Roy Ngerng.
Point No. 8 of the letter claims that Roy’s article was clearly malicious. It is not clear why Mr Singh characterized the article as such as he made no explanations. Is a false claim automatically and clearly a malicious one?
Mr Singh’s claim for damage is based on Roy’s article being widely read and widely circulated through the internet. However, an article’s wide readership and circulation doesn’t necessarily imply damage done to PM Lee’s reputation. If readers do not believe Roy’s supposed assertion on the PM, then no damage has been done. Examples abound from the internet and from the press of people who do not believe Roy’s supposed assertion:
• Most of the points he raised were without merit and probably reflected a lack of understanding of how complex financial systems work.
- ST Forum, CPF cannot behave like hedge fund, Jason Soon Hun Khim, 27 May 2014
• Unfortunately he said the wrong thing and got sued by a government minister.
- TR Emeritus, I’d debate the person openly if he accuses me of something, Ben, 26 May 2014
• For a start, I do think this blogger Mr. Roy Ngerng has probably gone a little too far by saying you misappropriated funds. It is indeed not well substantiated. I think you can rest assured Sir that most Singaporeans are well conceived enough to know that this is not well served on you.
http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/05/28/mr-singh-roys-article-didnt-damage-pms-reputation/
Lawyers are just business people and under Company Act to behave like everyone else. They need a legal trade license to practice law just like any other licensed traders, taxi license for example, to tan jia in that trade.
Lawyers have strict Codes of Conducts and Practices boundary to work within and lose license, suspended or revoked if they breached it. No license cannot tan jia as lawyer.
You can even sue the lawyer or complain to the legal Counsel if you find he was unethical, intimidating, and some have become personal and 'take you on' in his personal capacity to ruin you down. Watch for their behavior and code of ethic in the courtroom to pick up their personal vendetta and vindictive on you. You can smell smoke from fire.
If their client is a plaintiff and if their complaints and issues are frivolous, vexatious, vindictive, vendetta and malicious of this sort to hurt the defendant, then more so the lawyer must back off and watch his Code of conduct and practice are not breached in handling this case. Going further will cause the lawyer to breached the code of conduct and practice and lose his license.
With the court order, you can see the complaint statements and points are raised by the farker. You can be surprised that even their lawyer can't help much or even screwed up this client.
Take the court order to your lawyer and they will know where to take it from here.
There will be a time for out-of-court-settlement, and both party pay their own legal bills in civil suit (criminal case is different).
In the case below, the lawyer letter is weak, hot air only. He may have breached the Code of Conduct and Practices of his license to practice. Looks like a pure intimidating letter and he act on his own "big huha" consider his client is a high-office holder and a politician to intimidate the adversary.
We may be surprised the court order statements are different in fighting this case points by points, as the writer has pointed out.
--------------------------------------
refer to PM Lee’s lawyer Mr Davinder Singh’s first letter of demand to Roy Ngerng.
Point No. 8 of the letter claims that Roy’s article was clearly malicious. It is not clear why Mr Singh characterized the article as such as he made no explanations. Is a false claim automatically and clearly a malicious one?
Mr Singh’s claim for damage is based on Roy’s article being widely read and widely circulated through the internet. However, an article’s wide readership and circulation doesn’t necessarily imply damage done to PM Lee’s reputation. If readers do not believe Roy’s supposed assertion on the PM, then no damage has been done. Examples abound from the internet and from the press of people who do not believe Roy’s supposed assertion:
• Most of the points he raised were without merit and probably reflected a lack of understanding of how complex financial systems work.
- ST Forum, CPF cannot behave like hedge fund, Jason Soon Hun Khim, 27 May 2014
• Unfortunately he said the wrong thing and got sued by a government minister.
- TR Emeritus, I’d debate the person openly if he accuses me of something, Ben, 26 May 2014
• For a start, I do think this blogger Mr. Roy Ngerng has probably gone a little too far by saying you misappropriated funds. It is indeed not well substantiated. I think you can rest assured Sir that most Singaporeans are well conceived enough to know that this is not well served on you.
http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/05/28/mr-singh-roys-article-didnt-damage-pms-reputation/
