Now for the nitty-gritty.
The first thing that people need to do is that to treat this separately from the usual criminal case. CPIB cases involves scums on both the prosectuion and the defence sides. One offered the gratification and the pne who received it.
The law clearly requires the court not to disgard the creditworthiness of the person who contributed to the criminal act such as providing the bribe or gratification. That in itself is a powerful stipulation and many lawyer struggle with that as discrediting the that person is the most powerful tool.
CPIB is not interested if she is lying whore. All they want her to say is that sex was involved and not the type of sex and that it occurred during a position of conflict. Her slutiness and her lying nature is not a reflection of CPIB in the eyes of professionals. How else can you get a conviction unless you use one criminal against another.
What has been established so far.
1. Sex has indeed occurred and more than one time.
2. It occurred during a period where she was actual account manager for CPIB and he was the Head of CPIB
3. A $300k contract was involved during the material time where NCS was the contracting party and Oracle was the software used.
4. That she is a manipulative whore and a lying one at that. Which leads strongly to the point that CPIB wants to make. She was keeping him warm to get contracts and no love was involved and she was not a convenient FB.
What can Ng rely on
1. Proof that it was not gratification but pure love and he was smitten
2. That he was not in position of conflict. Which would be a miracle as its a matter of fact. CPIB does not have to prove the exercise of influence but a position of influence when gratification is involved.
.
It is common knowledge that subordinates will less likely yo challenge a contract submission if the boss is screwing the vendors account manager. He does not have to say anything. She on the other hand is in her interest to say that or create that perception to his subordinates.
That is why all civil servants avoid position of conflicts for obvious reasons. Politicians however can get away with it as it is their job to meet voters and interest groups of various persuasion.
The first thing that people need to do is that to treat this separately from the usual criminal case. CPIB cases involves scums on both the prosectuion and the defence sides. One offered the gratification and the pne who received it.
The law clearly requires the court not to disgard the creditworthiness of the person who contributed to the criminal act such as providing the bribe or gratification. That in itself is a powerful stipulation and many lawyer struggle with that as discrediting the that person is the most powerful tool.
CPIB is not interested if she is lying whore. All they want her to say is that sex was involved and not the type of sex and that it occurred during a position of conflict. Her slutiness and her lying nature is not a reflection of CPIB in the eyes of professionals. How else can you get a conviction unless you use one criminal against another.
What has been established so far.
1. Sex has indeed occurred and more than one time.
2. It occurred during a period where she was actual account manager for CPIB and he was the Head of CPIB
3. A $300k contract was involved during the material time where NCS was the contracting party and Oracle was the software used.
4. That she is a manipulative whore and a lying one at that. Which leads strongly to the point that CPIB wants to make. She was keeping him warm to get contracts and no love was involved and she was not a convenient FB.
What can Ng rely on
1. Proof that it was not gratification but pure love and he was smitten
2. That he was not in position of conflict. Which would be a miracle as its a matter of fact. CPIB does not have to prove the exercise of influence but a position of influence when gratification is involved.
.
It is common knowledge that subordinates will less likely yo challenge a contract submission if the boss is screwing the vendors account manager. He does not have to say anything. She on the other hand is in her interest to say that or create that perception to his subordinates.
That is why all civil servants avoid position of conflicts for obvious reasons. Politicians however can get away with it as it is their job to meet voters and interest groups of various persuasion.
