- Joined
- Jun 17, 2020
- Messages
- 13,272
- Points
- 113
-
I will be taking legal action vs Lee & Lee's lawyers and also the bailiff officer.
Hello everyone, this is Gazy.
On 10 February, Calvin Cheng carried out a debt recovery enforcement process in a legally questionable manner.
The enforcement was conducted in the presence of multiple newspaper camera crews.
To my knowledge, since the founding of the Republic of Singapore, such an incident has never occurred. Even PAP ministers who sue for defamation have never attempted to recover court-awarded damages in the presence of the press.
I realized that bailiff officers and legal counsels, as officers of the Court, have an obligation to ensure that debt recovery is conducted with only essential personnel involved. As such, they are duty-bound to prevent the media from turning the enforcement into a public spectacle.
Failing to uphold this obligation suggests that the officers of the Court—the bailiff and legal counsels—may have committed professional misconduct.
Therefore, I am in the process of filing an originating summons to compel the bailiff and legal counsels to testify about their roles, if any, in facilitating an enforcement action that appears to have been orchestrated to embarrass me and my wife, Iris. Their actions may have the potential to scandalize the judiciary, but I will leave it to the Honourable Court to determine whether such misconduct has occurred, rather than prejudging the matter. It will also be for the Court to decide whether disciplinary action should be taken against the bailiff or the legal counsels involved.
Additionally, the originating summons, which will be filed in the High Court, will compel testimony from various newspapers regarding how they obtained knowledge of the execution schedule. While court orders are public information, the specific date and time of an enforcement action are not. This suggests that someone must have tipped off the media.
Raymond Ng
Gazy The Great
I will be taking legal action vs Lee & Lee's lawyers and also the bailiff officer.
Hello everyone, this is Gazy.
On 10 February, Calvin Cheng carried out a debt recovery enforcement process in a legally questionable manner.
The enforcement was conducted in the presence of multiple newspaper camera crews.
To my knowledge, since the founding of the Republic of Singapore, such an incident has never occurred. Even PAP ministers who sue for defamation have never attempted to recover court-awarded damages in the presence of the press.
I realized that bailiff officers and legal counsels, as officers of the Court, have an obligation to ensure that debt recovery is conducted with only essential personnel involved. As such, they are duty-bound to prevent the media from turning the enforcement into a public spectacle.
Failing to uphold this obligation suggests that the officers of the Court—the bailiff and legal counsels—may have committed professional misconduct.
Therefore, I am in the process of filing an originating summons to compel the bailiff and legal counsels to testify about their roles, if any, in facilitating an enforcement action that appears to have been orchestrated to embarrass me and my wife, Iris. Their actions may have the potential to scandalize the judiciary, but I will leave it to the Honourable Court to determine whether such misconduct has occurred, rather than prejudging the matter. It will also be for the Court to decide whether disciplinary action should be taken against the bailiff or the legal counsels involved.
Additionally, the originating summons, which will be filed in the High Court, will compel testimony from various newspapers regarding how they obtained knowledge of the execution schedule. While court orders are public information, the specific date and time of an enforcement action are not. This suggests that someone must have tipped off the media.
Raymond Ng
Gazy The Great
