2moro I apply Warrents of Arrests 4 AG + CJ + LKy + Son

[uncleyap]

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

<!-- Begin .post --> Crippled Kangaroo Limping slowly







In today's proceedings it was during cross examination by Dr CSJ, and due to just one question being objected by prosecution it sparked a length all day long argument that is still not yet over by 18:15hr and will continue tomorrow. :-0

What one the defense councils pointed out today before Dr CSJ cross examination that gazette defined the boundary of the area which the prosecution's charges are all based on is outdated that Parliament Lane no longer exist.

The council asked the prosecution's witness number 2 (Licensing Officer Yeo Kok Leong) to draw lines on a Singapore Land Authority's map (printed from http://www.map.gov.sg re-enlarged shown above with my sketchings) in accordance with the gazette's (first 2 pictures above, click to enlarge) definition text. The witness is not able to draw out a complete area defined by those text in the end!

See what gazette this million dollar parliament came out with?!

I later did some home work and found out that there are basically 4 huge problems with the boundary definition text in gazette, not just limited to that Parliament Lane, according to official government map website.

1. Parliament Lane ceased to exist, it is now Old Parliament Lane
2. Section of road in between War Memorial & The Padang is called Raffles Avenue on Land Authority's map instead of Stamford Road
3. There is none or no longer valid definition of Left Bank Of Singapore River
4. The boundary tried to include not just the parliament + the supreme court, it is actually a huge public area in question

In indicated in purple color in the map here above, the sections of broken boundary defined by gazette.

The Singapore River as on 15 March 2008 (day of Tak Boleh Tahan in question) ceased to be a natural geographical river, and like many other original rivers in Singapore (Kallang, Kranji, Seletar, Pierce, Macritchie) had been converted into fresh water reservoirs, which are artificial lakes essentially, that there is no longer a mouth of river flowing into the sea, and that boats or vessels can no longer travel between the original river and the sea, because either a dam or Dyke had been constructed to enclose the original mouth of river.

Original Singapore River & Kallang River are joint into a fresh water reservoir by Marina Barrage. Rightly a river should have banks differentiated by (geographical definations) either North or East or South or West, not Left nor Right. More so when it had became a reservoir that has no mouth to define Left from Right which are biological definitions.
​

To be most ridiculous, the so called gazetted area banning assembly & procession of TWO or More persons, based on which the 19 activists were charged against, attempted with it's own faulty boundary definition a huge area including:

• public roads e.g. Supreme Court Lane; St Andrew's Road & Parliament Place
• commercial building such as The Adelphi (AGC's office inside)
• the Old Parliament Art House
• entire Padang field
• Singapore Cricket Club
• Singapore Recreation Club
• Riverside Promenade

There are lots of public facilities and even restaurants & shops & private offices within the gazetted area of prohibition. Therefore the prohibition is not regularly nor equally enforced most of the time.

The overly broad boundary and unenforced prohibition actually opened a huge hole in the prosecution's case, in addition to the faults found in the definition text itself, caused it to be even more broken.

I made submission that the boundary is:

1. Outdated
2. Faulty
3. Erroneous
4. Incomplete
5. Ambiguous
6. Misleading
7. Doubtful &
8. Should be regarded as Invalid

Therefore I can say the prosecution's case is crippled.

Any person could allege any others who are found within this huge prohibition area to be in an illegal assembly or procession, while such measures are no enforced, there is no basis for the activist to be charged or trialled for offenses against such ironical prohibitions.

Assemblies and processions
5. —(1) The Minister may make rules —<dl>(a) regulating assemblies and processions in public roads, public places and places of public resort;</dl><dl>(b) providing for the grant of permits for holding assemblies and processions in public roads, public places and places of public resort, and the fees to be charged therefor;</dl><dl>(c) for keeping order and preventing obstruction or inconvenience in public roads, bridges, landing places, and all public places and places of public resort; and</dl><dl>(d) prescribing the punishment by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or both for any act or omission in contravention of the provisions of any such rules.

[10/89]​

</dl> (2) The Minister may by order prohibit or restrict, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order, the holding of any assembly or procession in any public road, public place or place of public resort specified in the order.

[10/89]​

(3) A Deputy Commissioner of Police may, with the concurrence of the Minister, prohibit or restrict the holding of any assembly or procession in any specified public road, public place or place of public resort in any particular case where the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that the holding of such assembly or procession may result in public disorder, damage to property or disruption to the life of the community.

[10/89]​

(4) Any person who —<dl>(a) organises or assists in organising any assembly or procession in any public road, public place or place of public resort in contravention of any order under subsection (2) or any prohibition or restriction under subsection (3) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both; or</dl>(b) participates in any assembly or procession in any public road, public place or place of public resort where he knows or ought reasonably to have known that the assembly or procession is held in contravention of an order under subsection (2) or any prohibition or restriction under subsection (3) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000.​

To prove my point tomorrow, I will apply for Warrants of Arrest against persons who are reasonably believe to be committing same offends in the same area for which I had been arrested and charged for:

• Attorney General Professor Walter Woon & his DPPs (whose office is within the area of prohibition)
• Chief Justice Chan Sek Kiong & his supreme court judges (whose office is within the area of prohibition)
• The Parliament Speaker & his staffs (whose office is within the area of prohibition)
• Old Dog Thief Lee Kuan Yew & Son & their body guards (they form ilLEEgal assembly in persons and their motorcade convoys formed ilLEEgal processions)

I will lodge magistrate complains against these above persons in open court tomorrow and then apply to District Judge Chan Wee Keat for warrants of their arrests immediately.

If these persons were brought to court and charged tomorrow, I will be happy to plea guilty to charges I face. :-)






posted by uncleyap at 11:20 PM

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

I guess it all depends on the intent of the law with regards an "assembly" and "procession". What amounts to the proscribed "assembly" and "procession" as defined in the legislation? Furthermore why did CSJ/SDP apply for a "permit" in the first place?

Saying that, on a technical point Jasclyn's lawyer Thiru raised a reasonable question, although I think the prosecution would probably argue that the intent of the law is quite clear i.e. to delineate parliament house as a gazzeted place.

 

[myjohnson]

Saying that, on a technical point Jasclyn's lawyer Thiru raised a reasonable question, although I think the prosecution would probably argue that the intent of the law is quite clear i.e. to delineate parliament house as a gazzeted place.

What ever is more convenient to the government for their insidious purpose.

 

[myfoot123]

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

• Attorney General Professor Walter Woon & his DPPs (whose office is within the area of prohibition)
• Chief Justice Chan Sek Kiong & his supreme court judges (whose office is within the area of prohibition)
• The Parliament Speaker & his staffs (whose office is within the area of prohibition)
• Old Dog Thief Lee Kuan Yew & Son & their body guards (they form ilLEEgal assembly in persons and their motorcade convoys formed ilLEEgal processions)

I will lodge magistrate complains against these above persons in open court tomorrow and then apply to District Judge Chan Wee Keat for warrants of their arrests immediately.

If these persons were brought to court and charged tomorrow, I will be happy to plea guilty to charges I face. :-)


-limping-slowly.html"]11:20 PM[/URL][/I]

Let's see if they treat themselve above law by resisting arrest.

 

[Angelo]

UY you are mad !!!

The days the dogs bites their master's hand that feeds them is the day, cows fly over the moon and Teekee got to meet his creator

brouhahahahahahhahahahha !!!!

 

[Einfield]

I like to see you in Parliament UY.

 

[methink]

I like to see you in Parliament UY.

Here's one brave man. I like to see whether the father and son will be arrested.