AIA suing chiatilik!! mati lah!

[leetahbar]

really tak boleh the TAK BOLEH TAHAN! look what's happening now.

Sunday, August 2, 2009
News on the lawsuit
The Defence from AIA was received. Except general denial and general statement of non-admission, it had no answers or clarifications on most of the questions that the Plaintiff raised in the writ of summons.


It is unbelievable that AIA denied all the forms, documents and letters that it sent to the Plaintiff.


The writ of summons, defence and reply will be released soon.


The lawsuit is very crucial to about 110,000 policies affected by AIA Critical Year issue.


The Plaintiff sues Mr Chia Ti Lik for misconduct during the time when he acted for the Plaintiff against AIA.

http://aialawsuit.blogspot.com/

1/2past6 in action again? head hot hot; tail cold cold pattern?

 

[leetahbar]

and the long intriguing drama which unfolds....
Monday, June 29, 2009
Part 9 Exp. with the lawyer Mr Chia Ti Lik

The Plaintiff’s experience with the lawyer Mr Chia Ti Lik

In May 2009, the Plaintiff contacted Mr Chia Ti Lik (“Mr Chia”) exploring whether he was interested in the Plaintiff’s case and whether he was suitable to act for the Plaintiff.

On 15 May 2009, the Plaintiff had the first meeting with Mr Chia at Mr Chia’s office from 2:50pm to 5:00pm.

The Plaintiff provided detailed introduction on the dispute. Mr Chia was very interested in the Plaintiff’s case. He was of the view that AIA made wrongdoings and advised that once the legal proceedings start, all relevant information shall be released to the public through internet and press. He confirmed that the Writ of Summons can be published without any problem as it is open once it is issued.

He told the Plaintiff that he would be very busy during the following week (i.e. from 18 May to 22 May of 2009) and shall have time to concentrate on the Plaintiff’s case after that. When the Plaintiff expressed that she was planning for school holidays with her children and expected that the Writ of Summons could be ready before 29 May 2009, he promised that he should be able to make it.

He told the Plaintiff that he would prepare a draft of the Writ of Summons first. When it was ready, he would quote his price for writing the Writ and it would be between S$1,000 and S$2,000. He said that if the Plaintiff was not satisfied with the draft, she would need only to pay him S$300 for the initial meeting. Then, the Plaintiff asked him whether the first meeting could be free if she was not satisfied with the draft. He agreed.

He impressed the Plaintiff that he was sincere, kind and considerate. The Plaintiff had a very good impression of him believing that he could be trusted and he would help the Plaintiff and not AIA.

During the meeting, he also told the Plaintiff that he would need to contact Rajah & Tann and Engelin Teh Practice before issuing the Writ of Summons to AIA and stated that was his professional conduct. The Plaintiff told him that according to her understanding, it should not be necessary as she was about to sue AIA and besides, Engelin Teh Practice was no longer her lawyer and all the documents were taken back. But, he provided his reasons which the Plaintiff failed to understand.

At the end of the meeting, Mr Chia made a copy of the OPQ, the Plaintiff’s demand letter dated 4 February 2009 and Rajah & Tann’s legal letter dated 13 February 2009. He did not ask for any other documents. He did not ask the Plaintiff to sign any documents.

One week later on 22 May 2009, the Plaintiff through her email asked Mr Chia whether they could have a meeting on the following Monday or Tuesday to discuss the Writ. He did not reply.

On 25 May 2009, the afternoon, Mr Chia’s secretary Ms Chia called the Plaintiff and arranged for the second meeting on 26 May 2009 around 10:45 am to 12:30pm.

At the second meeting, Mr Chia told the Plaintiff that the draft was not ready and he should be able to get it ready by that week, i.e. by 29 May 2009. He asked the Plaintiff to give a detailed introduction on the dispute again.

As the Plaintiff had prepared a detailed document of Introduction of my insurance dispute with AIA (“the Document”), the Plaintiff passed a copy of it to Mr Chia and explained the whole story of the dispute again through the Document. It could be sure that Mr Chia had a very good view on the Plaintiff’s case after two detailed introductions by the Plaintiff.

During the meeting, Mr Chia showed his interest again. He was very agreeable with what the Plaintiff said and wrote. He advised the Plaintiff to keep all the documents properly. He asked the Plaintiff to forward a soft copy of the Document to him. He explained that the soft copy shall be helpful when he prepares the draft of the writ and he could cut and paste relevant content from the soft copy.

He also taped down their discussion on his computer. The Plaintiff was touched thinking that he would study what she said and what she wrote and so would prepare a proper Writ of Summons for the Plaintiff.

When the Plaintiff asked whether he could send his partially completed drafts to the Plaintiff later so that she could start to revise it and shorten the preparation time for the Writ, he agreed.

During the meeting, he told the Plaintiff again that he would prepare a draft first. When it was ready, he would then quote his price for writing the Writ which could be between S$1,000 to S$2,000. He impressed the Plaintiff that he was lack of confidence whether the Plaintiff would be satisfied with what he wrote. To encourage him, the Plaintiff told him that she had confidence on him and also she had no problem with the legal fees of S$1,000 to S$2,000 for writing the Writ of Summons. The Plaintiff believed that he was good in writing and should be able to write a proper Writ and what he would wrote should be better than what the Plaintiff could write as the Plaintiff’s English was poor.

He did not ask the Plaintiff for any additional documents.

In the afternoon, the Plaintiff through her email sent the soft copy of the Document to him. She also offered her help if he needed as she believed that he should have the needs to know some details from the Plaintiff during the time when he prepares the draft.

On Wednesday, 27 May 2009 at 9:43:36 PM, the Plaintiff through her email asked Mr Chia whether she could have his partially completed Writ of Summons. He did not reply.

On Friday afternoon, 29 May 2009, Ms Chia, his secretary called the Plaintiff telling that Mr Chia had been busy and so did not have the time to complete the draft. She promised that the draft should be ready next week.

On Monday, 1 June 2009, the Plaintiff through her email asked Mr Chia again whether she could have his partially completed draft. As the progress on drafting the Writ was slow, the Plaintiff suggested that he could use the Document to prepare the draft so as to save his time.

On the same day, Mr Chia replied through his email that he had done 70% of the draft and should be able to get it done by the week. He did not provide any partially completed draft.

In terms of the Document, Mr Chia stated that “your introduction document is very good base for Affidavit preparation and arguments. But in a writ of summons, the statement of claim needs to be as concise and sharp as possible without leaving out any facts that we wish to rely on.” His reply gave the Plaintiff an impression and also confidence that he would draft a proper Writ of Summons.

He also asked “if there is a Governing Law clause in the policy agreement and also whether there is a jurisdiction clause in the policy agreement”.

The Plaintiff replied on the same day through her email that she had checked the policy file and did not find any Governing Law clause or jurisdiction clause and did not find a clause which is essentially relevant to the dispute. She also told him in her email that “If you need the policy file urgently, I can go down to pass it to you. Otherwise, I will provide it to you when we meet next time. Let me know which way you prefer.” But Mr Chia did not reply.

On 3 June 2009, the Plaintiff through her email asked Mr Chia again whether he could send his partially completed draft to the Plaintiff. He did not reply.

On 5 June 2009 at 2:56:28 PM, the Plaintiff sent another email to Mr Chia. She wrote, inter alia, that:-

“May I know the progress of the Writ of Summons? I understand that you are trying to make it perfect. Due to the urgency of the matter, I feel that it is enough to draft the Writ properly.

I am thinking to release those important information to the internet as I have some time to do it while I am waiting for you.

What do you think?”

Just two minutes later (i.e. at 2:58:54 PM), Mr Chia replied inter alia that:-

“Sorry for the delay. I was just about to send a draft of the writ to you. I just spotted one of my errors and am currently making some amendments. The draft will be sent to you in an hour's time.”

Exactly one hour later at 3:58:06 PM, he sent his draft which is extremely short, consisting of eleven (11) paragraphs.

The draft was full of mistakes and errors. It was ambiguous and hideous messy. It was difficult to understand. There was no single paragraph clear, correct or beneficial to the Plaintiff’s case. There was nothing correct except who the Defendant is.

The statement of claim of the draft is as follows:-

“

The Defendant is an insurance company incorporated in the Colony of Hong Kong. At all material times, the Plaintiff was a client of the Defendant.


By an agreement made between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants in 1993, the Plaintiff agreed to buy and the Defendants agreed to sell a policy of insurance on the life of the Plaintiff.


The agreement was contained in or evidenced by or is to be inferred from the following documents:-
a. The Original Policy Quotation dated 29/04/1993 (“the OPQ”).
b. Policy Contract documents dated ??/??/??.
c. Correspondence between the parties from ??/??/?? till ??/??/??

 

[leetahbar]

The agreement promised, inter alia, the following:-

a. Given a policy for the assured sum of S$100,000, the insured could reach the breakeven point at the policy year 16 (when the Insured reaches 45 years of age) after paying S$33,464 (i.e. S$2091.50 x 16) in that the total cash value of the policy would then be S$33,734.35;

b. Without making any more additional premium payments thereafter, the Insured can receive the insured amount, i.e. S$100,000 around the age of 65 since the total cash value of the policy at the age of 65 is S$103,959.56;


Pursuant to the agreement, the Plaintiff contracted to be insured for the sum of S$200,000/- and she paid S$2,091.50 in annual premiums over a period of 16 years from 1993 till 2008 and the Defendants accepted each of the said premium payments.


The Defendants knowingly repudiated the contract by their letter of 2nd February 2008.

Particulars

a. The Defendants informed the Plaintiff that the policy dividends value was S$15,929.00 and the policy surrender value is S$52,729 when they ought to have been S$23,634.30 and S$60,434.30 respectively according to the OPQ.

b. The Defendants provided two options to the Plaintiff but neither of which conformed to the values stated under the original OPQ.

c. The Defendants invalidated the Critical Year of its promised effect and proceeded to treat it merely as an illustrative number. The Defendants expressed that they would not fulfill the premium payment premium by the insured according to the OPQ. The Plaintiff would have to pay the premium until the age of 85 instead of the age of 45 in order for the policy protection and other benefits unaffected.


By their letters dated 2nd February 2008 and subsequently therefrom and by their conduct, the Defendants repudiated the agreement and refused any longer to be bound by it.

Particulars

a. [Need to consider whether or not to put in the rest of the correspondence]


Further or in the alternative, notwithstanding repeated requests and demands from the Plaintiff for repayment including the solicitors’ letter to the Defendant dated 22nd April 2009, the Defendant has failed to make repayment of the said sum or any part thereof or at all.


By their conduct as set out in paragraphs 6 and 7 above, the Defendants has evinced the intention no longer to be bound by the said agreement and he has repudiated the same.


The Plaintiff as she was entitled to do, accepted the Defendant’s repudiation by letter and by issue and service of the writ herein.


By reason of the foregoing, the Plaintiff has lost the benefit of the agreement and lost the benefits and protection she would otherwise have received under it and have thereby suffered loss and damage.

Particulars

a. Loss of the Sum of $33,464 paid as premium over 16 years (S$2,091.50 x 16);
b. Loss of protection of the insured sum of S$200,000 at the said premium rate;
c. Loss of the right to a waiver of premiums at the critical 16th year;
d. Loss of that the total cash value of the policy at age 65, the 36th year to be S$103,959.56.


AND THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS against the Defendants
(1) Damages to be assessed;
(2) Interest (to be assessed), pursuant to Section 12 of the Civil Law Act (Cap. 43), on the sums claimed at such rate and for such period as the Court shall seem just;
(3) Costs;
(4) Such further or other relief as this Honourable Court deems fit.”

The Plaintiff could not believe that was the draft that she had waited for three weeks while he had told her that “the statement of claim needs to be as concise and sharp as possible without leaving out any facts that we wish to rely on”.

The draft missed all the points. The draft did not contain any meaningful explanations, facts, or other relevant and correct information.

The draft was prepared to protect and help AIA, not the Plaintiff.

For example, the Plaintiff’s policy and all other 110,000 affected policies were sold by AIA as its products and the terms and conditions of the policies were determined by AIA beforehand. As such, it is unreasonable that AIA uses irrelevant replacing option to supersede the OPQ and AIA handles the affected policies on a case-by-case basis and decides the replacing options according to who the policyholder is and what documents the policyholder could provide.

The draft expressed wrongly and emphasised intentionally that the policy was sold by AIA and bought by the Plaintiff based on an agreement. The paragraph 2 to 5 of the draft repeatedly emphasised it as an agreement while it is actually not.

In terms of the breach of its contract by AIA, the paragraph 6 to 11 of the draft expressed wrongly and confusingly that AIA repudiated the agreement and refused any longer to be bound by it; the Plaintiff repeatedly requests and demands for repayment to AIA, AIA has failed to make repayment; and the Plaintiff accepted AIA’s repudiation by letter and by issue and service of the writ herein. What was Mr Chia writing about?

The Plaintiff could not understand what Mr Chia wrote and where he deduced the terms such as agreement, repudiation and repayment from and deduced those falsehoods from. What the Plaintiff had told him and what she wrote never contained such kind of meaning or content. The Plaintiff never mentioned to him that the policy was bought by basing on agreement nor that AIA repudiated the agreement or refused to be bound.

On 7 June 2009, the Plaintiff through her email asked Mr Chia, inter alia, that:-

Whether would he have enough time to work on the Plaintiff’s case as she noticed that he was always busy?
Shall they write to Rajah & Tann before they submit the Writ as Mr Chia mentioned that before?
Shall they submit the Writ to the court, AIA or Rajah & Tann? How to submit it, personally, by email or by a mail?
When could the Document be used as he did not use it in the Writ?

 

[leetahbar]

On 8 June 2009, Mr Chia replied through his email.

For question 1, Mr Chia replied inter alia that:-

“I will arrange my affairs to make sure that i spend adequate time for each matter. In fact the time spent now is most important as the action needs to get off on the right footing. In law, a big opponent and crafty one bent on stopping your action will definitely make an interlocutory application to strike out your claim. This is why the writ has to be properly drafted to be defended. You are right that i was a little too tied up in late may and early june, I had received a few retainers all together within a week at the end of may and early June. If we are to play it safe, i would target the issuance of the writ only in early July after we have gone through a few more drafts.

With a well crafted writ and planned course of action, the Insurer and its lawyers will find it difficult to shove you aside without suffering the public relations damage.”

He told the Plaintiff that a proper writ is important and he meant that he did it while the draft was actually prepared to give the Plaintiff problems and troubles.

He also advised to target the writ only in early July. However, the Plaintiff met Mr Chia as early as on 15 May 2009 and he had promised to get the writ ready before school holidays, i.e. by 29 May 2009.

For question 2, Mr Chia explained inter alia that:-

“My purpose to writing to Rajah & Tann is that as a matter of professional conduct, i have come to be aware that Rajah & Tann are acting for AIA and also that you were previously represented by Messrs. Engelin Teh & Partners. In order for proper housekeeping and order, it is imperative that before we issue the writ, i inform Engelin Teh that i am taking over conduct of the matter and that before we serve the writ we ask that Rajah & Tann confirm its instructions to accept service of the writ on behalf of AIA. This is part of the professional conduct which i am supposed to adhere to as a lawyer.”

The Plaintiff did not understand his logic. The Plaintiff had informed him during their first meeting that Engelin Teh Practice was no longer the Plaintiff’s lawyer.

For question 3, he did not answer.

For question 4, he answered inter alia that “the document you prepared is excellent for later work like the Affidavit of evidence in chief and arguments to be presented in the court.”

He did not put the content in the writ while it was very crucial to put it in.

On the same day, i.e. 8 June 2009, the Plaintiff wrote him inter alia that “The writ of summons that you drafted is believed not correct. Almost all the paragraphs are problematic, ambiguous and logically wrong. The way you wrote did not benefit my case, but otherwise. As such, I will get someone else to do it and take my case. Let me know if you have any explanation on the matter.”

On 9 June 2009, Mr Chia replied. He did not provide any clarification. He just wanted the Plaintiff to pay him S$1,800. He replied inter alia that:-

“It is your prerogative to do so. Except for the fact that you agreed to our estimated costs of S$1800 to draft the writ. That sum would be payable.

You are free to take as many second opinions on the matter as possible. There are no explanations needed in this matter. Do let me know if you intend to pay our costs of $1800/- within the next 3 days.

I look forward to hearing from you.”

On 10 June 2009 at 12:27:42PM, the Plaintiff wrote him that:-

“Dear Mr. Chia,

I am extremely disappointed with your reply.

Could you give me your reasons why I should pay? There was no single paragraph which could be used! There was no single paragraph clear, correct or beneficial to my case! They were all written to protect and help AIA, why?

You never told me that I should pay for the draft unless I was satisfied. During our first meeting, you told me that you would draft the writ first. You told me that if I am satisfied with your draft, you would quote me a price and it would be between S$1,000 and S$2,000. If I am not satisfied, I would need to pay you S$300 for the initial meeting. Then, I asked you whether the first meeting could be free if I am not satisfied with the draft? You agreed. Do you remember that?

When I met you the second time, you told me that the draft was not ready and you would get it ready by that week. Then, you requested me to make a detailed introduction on the dispute again. It could be sure that you had very good view on my case through my two detailed introductions and the introduction document that I passed to you.

However, what you wrote was completely different from the facts. Where did you deduce the terms such as agreement, repudiation and repayment from? If I did not discover the problems in the Writ, what could be the consequences and implications? I could not believe what you did!

As you never intend to write the Writ of Summons properly and you actually intended to help AIA, why did you ask me for the soft copy of my introduction document, request me to explain the dispute again during our second meeting and tape down our discussion? When I saw you record our discussion on your computer, I was very touched. I was thinking that you would study what I said and what I wrote and so would prepare a prefect draft for me. Therefore, I tried to make my explanation as clear as possible. That was why I told you several times that you need not make the draft perfect and a proper draft was good enough.

Could you tell me why you never sent me your partially completed draft when I asked for it many times, why you kept me wait for three weeks for the draft which you could do it within one or two hours, why you tried to impress me that the Writ you drafted is very good and you would help me by stating that ‘with a well crafted writ and planned course of action, the Insurer and its lawyers will find it difficult to shove you aside without suffering the public relations damage’?

I am now completely unsatisfied and disappointed with the draft which was intentionally written to make me lose the case. Why should I pay?

Regards,

May Chew”

 

[leetahbar]

Within hour, i.e. at 1:24:03PM on 10 June 2009, Mr Chia replied. He did not answer her questions and concerns. His email is as follows:-

“Dear May

At the first meeting i told you that i would be busy at the 3rd week of may and possibly the 4th week of may. I told you that I would need to clear my hearings before i can work on your Statement of Claim. I told you that i would come up with a draft first then give you a quote but as i was busy this was not possible. This was made known to you at the 2nd meeting.

At the 2nd meeting then told me that if the writ and statement of claim is estimated at between 1,000 to 2,000 then its fine you agree with the fee and i am supposed to proceed to draft it. You even claimed that you needed the writ urgently as you want it to be issued before you take a holiday with your children.
I had postponed giving you the draft twice because i had to spend time drafting it. Do not insult me by saying that it can be crafted in 2 to 3 hours. Even if its 2 to 3 hours, my professional rate will bring the entire billable amount for the matter to be close to S$2,000/-.

Do not deliberately try to find fault with my drafting. We spend our good time producing the work for clients and we do not try to make money by cutting corners. I spent more than necessary time on this writ and i expect to be paid for it.

It does not mean that you came up with a good summary of the situation and the events, it would be proper to follow it by the letter in crafting a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim.

There is a reason why pleadings are crafted by lawyers and not laypersons.

All i can surmise from all this is that you just wanted some unsuspecting lawyer to draft a writ for you which then you would use for your own action and refuse to pay for it simply by finding baseless fault with it.

If you do not understand by now, let me spell it to you. I do not take too kindly to treachery when it comes to my professionalism and professional fees. If you carry on with your baseless statements, i am prepared to issue a writ against you for the agreed sum of S$1,800/- and maybe even more if you carry on your baseless statements. If you think that my writ is that badly written we can let the court decide in time to come.

Let me repeat this. I am a very nice and reasonable lawyer. BUT I do not like to be cheated. Pay up within the next three days. Otherwise a writ will be issued.

I hope you will know that this is your chance to prevent things from turning ugly. If you know who i am, you should know that i am not afraid of anything or anyone. Taking clients to court is not something which i have not done before.

Chia”

The Plaintiff was shocked by “…I do not take too kindly to treachery when it comes to my professionalism and professional fees … If you know who i am, you should know that i am not afraid of anything or anyone …”

The Plaintiff has the following questions to Mr Chia:-


Why did he not ask the Plaintiff to sign any document or provide any deposit?


Why did he not inform the Plaintiff his service charges during the two meetings? Instead, he wanted to prepare a draft first. If the Plaintiff satisfied with his draft, he would quote his price for writing the writ. He is an experienced lawyer. He should be very clear how he charges clients.


Why did he not ask the Plaintiff for all the relevant documents on the case while he definitely needed them if he would draft the writ? He only made a copy of the OPQ, the Plaintiff’s demand letter dated 4 February 2009 and Rajah & Tann’s legal letter dated 13 February 2009.


Who prepared the draft? If it was Mr Chia, where did he deduce the terms of agreement, repudiation and repayment from? Where did he deduce the content of the draft of the writ from?


Why did his draft not contain any relevant facts? He had asked the Plaintiff to introduce the dispute two times and he even taped down their second discussion. It could be sure that he had obtained a good view on the dispute by the two discussions and the Document that the Plaintiff passed to him.


Why did he request the Plaintiff to send the soft copy of the Document while his draft did not contain any relevant content?


Why did he keep the Plaintiff wait for three weeks while his draft should not spent him too much time to prepare?


Why did he never send his partial completed draft to the Plaintiff while she asked him for it many times? He had agreed to provide it during their second meeting.


Why did his draft not contain a single paragraph which is clear or correct?


Why did his draft emphasise that the policy was sold/purchased by basing on an agreement?


What he wrote and what he was doing shocked the Plaintiff.

 

[leetahbar]

who is zhu yong zhen? too long winded to read the entire story. :(

(Singapore News) A legal action against AIA & Mr Chia Ti Lik
This Blog provides information on the lawsuit between the Plaintiff of Zhu Yong Zhen and the Defendants of AIA & the lawyer Mr Chia Ti Lik. More complete information will be provided after receiving defence from the Defendants. The action commenced on 16/06/2009. Case no. S515/2009/Z. Feedback: [email protected].

 

[leetahbar]

it's the plaintiff suing chiatilik after engaging him to sue AIA.

gosh!! very confusing!!

i think this story simply condensed would be like this:

plaintiff may engaged chia to hantam AIA. chia drafted out writ of summons but according to may was full of loopholes which disadvantged her on the losing ends instead of aiding her to win her case against AIA.

chia turned nasty and demanded for payment or else.....

may got fed up and sue chia as the side dish while AIA was her main course.

any comment from u guys by the way?

then who is ZHU YONG ZHEN? was he th new lawyer engaged by may to hantam chia and AIA?

intriguing reality drama i must say!

 

[leetahbar]

and along comes a nasty clone. is he acting as a distractor for chiatilik? or could he be chia the goon lawyer? could he be ngejay or lamei?

the modern 3 stooges of moe, larry and curly are now replaced by: ngejay, lamei and ctl. ngejay should be curly who is the botak most gooniest among the 3 stooges.

funny!

 

[leetahbar]

well, i dunno about all these CRAPS. someone just emailed the whole drama to me.

i just post it to share with u guys.

 

[leetahbar]

one particular fact is quite obvious.

whatever dish chia cooks up, it's always left half cooked. it's never fully cooked for human consumption. it's always half cooked. if u ate it, prepare to hit the toilet!!

 

[leetahbar]

don't worry about my li'l brother LEETAHSAR. someone just willed a property to him. LOL!

 

[leetahbar]

just like SDP, bully the weak and balls polishing the foreign powderful. some forummer here actually stupidly went to seek "free" leegal advice from him. what a joke!!

many should know what happen after that. my li'l brother LEETAHSAR was falsely accused and defamed.

emptiness is form, form is emptiness....

would we be getting more forms created fr emptiness from the cowards and losers nasty clones? of course, we shall if not living for them would be damn damn boring. LOL!!

 

[leetahbar]

all the defaming stories and funny pics of my li'l brother LEETAHSAR are massaged by the coward and loser nasty clones. but story about bashed up lawyer and now a sued 1/2past6 are true stories in the heartland.

the intiguing part now is: WHY AND HOW DID IT HAPPEN?

initially, the plaintiff thought "he was a nice pleasant chap" but later it turned out really nasty and unpleasant liasion with intimidation of another "writ of summon" against the plaintiff.

.....and the suing ensured.

if we were to take comparision of the characters in SDP, aren't they of similar calibre? ya, continue to be CHEETED by their concern for peasants' welfarism and then die pain pain without knowing why.:oIo:

 

[ektay]

one particular fact is quite obvious.

whatever dish chia cooks up, it's always left half cooked. it's never fully cooked for human consumption. it's always half cooked. if u ate it, prepare to hit the toilet!!

thanks for sharing. we can see clearly how fucked up this Chia Ti Lik is now....haha.

fucking useless roar-ear.

 

[ektay]

This Cheebye half past 6 lawyer only good at fucking other ppl's wife and play with his $15k speakers Really good for nothing, A small police officer can talk better than him. This fucker lawyer cried during TBT 18 street protest after arrested by the police Whahahaha..act tough but no balls

thank u and give u some points too.

 

[ektay]

this fucked-up roar-ear chia is really uselsss.....haha.

why?

those who read his blog will know that he told LKY....'mark my words.....blar blar blar.....'. very impressive initially, but recently, he say he is tired and no time to do his fucked-up roar-ear work. take this case for example.....told the plantiff that she got a case but those who have read abt the it in the blog, we can safely say that chai ti lik is FUCKED UP and behaved like a fucking gangster......he actually threatened the poor lady. unbelievable.....really.

so chia ti lik......what r u going to do to her now? she has sued u leh.....haha. pls.....fight her in court....dun apologise or admit guilty.....pls dun hor.

i will be following closely this case......haha. i hope YOU, yes YOU, CHIA TI LIK, fight her in court.

TBT the fucked up roar-ear CHIA TI LIK.

haha.

 

[leetahbar]

who is ZHU YONG ZHEN? another lawyer engaged to sue that lawyer?

 

[leetahbar]

sometime one's misery commence when he mixes with the wrong company. i m not talking about my li'l brother LEETAHSAR. he's completely immuned to misery.

yes, i m talking about this 1/2past6 lawyer. my li'l brother last time had hinted to him but i guess it had fallen on deaf, stubborn and arrogant ears and so the miseries are beginning.

DRAMA! ACTION!! CAMERA!

 

[yellow people]

DRAMA! ACTION!! CAMERA!

Pondan! Don't deny! Quick turn yourself in!

 

[ektay]

chia ti lik....u threatened a lady who approached u for help.

how fucked up can u be? haha.

last time, lamei's ex-hubby come look for u to help him. u ended up screwing lamei's loose pussy behind the poor man back.

this time round....u r really sick in your fucked up brain.