PAPee Prostitute Lawyer 'Blossom Hing'

[makapaaa]

<TABLE id=msgUN border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>

Coffeeshop Chit Chat - PAP Prostitute Lawyer 'Blossom Hing'</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right>

Subscribe </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>Lola (Langusta) <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>8:29 pm </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 8) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>20156.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is one thing for a human being to deliberately harm another by abusing her position as a lawyer. I have said this all along about lawyers such as Davinder Singh of the law firm Drew and Napier who is always a willing participant for money whom Lee Kuan Yew uses to destroy his opponents through the courts. A specialist in Singapore style defamation actions, no matter how preposterous his legal argument is, he always wins whenever he has Lee Kuan Yew or nay of his family members as his clients. A dirty man doing a dirty job for money.

Recently a reader of this blog wrote to me about a Chinese woman who calls herself Blossom Hing (true Chinese name: Hing Shan Shan). She is a lawyer in the same firm as this thoroughly disgraceful specimen of a human being, Davinder Singh, which is Drew and Napier. In her profile which she advertises in the firm web site, one of the areas she claims she has experience is defamation law. I quote her achievement or rather her disgrace:

Among her commercial litigation experience, Blossom acted with Davinder Singh, S.C. and Hri Kumar, S.C. for Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in defamation actions against various parties.

I have listed her address and contact particulars. The reader might want to point out to her that helping Davinder Singh prepare defamation cases against a completely innocent man with the aim of bankrupting him and destroying him as a politician to please Lee Kuan Yew is not something to be proud about. It is something to be ashamed about instead. She might also want to know that being a member of the New York bar Association makes her liable to be disbarred as the New York Bar Code of Ethics specifically makes it unlawful for an attorney to knowingly use the law for an improper purpose, as she appears to have repeatedly done in Singapore to please Lee Kuan Yew.

The reader might also want to write to the State Bar of New York pointing out that this lawyer has clearly violated the code of ethics of New York Bar which specifically makes a lawyer subject to discipline for pursuing an action in court when she knows it has no merit in law whatsoever. When she was pursuing these defamation actions against Dr. Chee Soon Juan and others in the Singapore courts, she knew that it had no basis either in law or in fact. Therefore she should be subject to discipline by the New York State Bar. The reader might also like to know that the New York State Bar in particular is keenly aware of the abuse of legal process in Singapore by Lee Kuan Yew in his use of the law to destroy his political opponents. It carried out an investigation in the late 1990s and came out with an article headed "Decline of the rule of Law in Singapore".

Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@...
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@... And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.


Director
Drew and Napier LLC
Blossom Hing

T: +65 6531 2494
F: +65 6533 9029
blossom.hing@...

Qualifications
LL.B. (Hons), National University of Singapore
Admitted to the Singapore Bar in May 1997
Admitted to the New York Bar in 2004

CORPORATE AND FINANCE

About Blossom

With a decade of corporate and commercial litigation and arbitration experience, Blossom now focuses on insolvency litigation and restructuring work, handling also corporate fraud and shareholder disputes.

Blossom has been involved in the US$16 billion debt restructuring of Asia Pulp Paper, one of the world’s largest restructuring exercises. The APP group has about 150 subsidiaries world-wide including China, Indonesia, Singapore, Europe, etc. Its creditors include the export credit agencies of various countries such as the United States, Japan, Germany and France, public and institutional investors, financial institutions and other government agencies. Blossom is a part of the team defending the company in the Export-Import Bank of the United States of America’s US$211 million claim against it. Over three years, Blossom was also part of an international team of lawyers that successfully restructured the APP group’s Indonesian subsidiaries – it was in fact named the Southeast Asian Insolvency and Restructuring Deal of the Year at the Asian Legal Business Awards 2006. In addition the team devised a scheme of arrangement sanctioned by the courts in Bermuda that restructured some US$690 million of debt relating to APP’s China holdings. In the Singapore High Court and Court of Appeal, the team also successfully resisted creditors’ applications to place APP under judicial management.

Among her commercial litigation experience, Blossom acted with Davinder Singh, S.C. and Hri Kumar, S.C. for Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in defamation actions against various parties.

Blossom has also acted in a number of landmark cases: representing SM Summit in an action relating to the use of documents obtained under compulsion for collateral purposes; and acting against a major property company in a case involving misrepresentation. Other highly publicised cases in which Blossom acted include successfully obtaining an injunction to restrain an international bank from presenting a winding up application against a major rig building company in Singapore, SA Tours’ minority shareholder action and the S$500 million insolvency of disk drive manufacturer Micropolis, which had companies in Singapore, the United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Sweden, Japan, Germany and Thailand.

Appointments / Memberships

Member of the Law Society of Singapore
Member of the Singapore Academy of Law
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[Lee Hsien Tau]

Yup, lawyers are scum of the earth, unrepentant, immoral prostitutes.

Here's some more listing of their evil deeds.

<a href="http://www.slingfile.com/file/nrwCzAK2y7">Chiam See Tong cannot be trusted.pdf (16.06 MB)</a>

 

[ahleebabasingaporethief]

This CB Gopalan should come back again to S'pore and talk 'big' again.

This time, I hope they lock him up and throw away the keys.

CCB, ah nei....nothing concrete stop barking like a seow cow. We already got a Mad Cow Ministar.

Be like FRANCIS SEOW lah.

 

[TeeKee]

Davinder Sings to the tunes of Hakka Hybrid Regime....

Things like this really necessitates the bringing back of the jury system....

To stop the abuse of power by individuals who thinks he is above the court of law....and can anyhow suka suka sue whenever he likes it..

 

[Lee Hsien Tau]

Who do you think got rid of the jury system?



http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?t=36752

The Straits Times
July 10, 2006
By Andy Ho

Two criminal cases were in the headlines in recent weeks. In Sydney, 12 jurors unanimously found Ram Puneet Tiwary guilty of killing Tony Tan Poh Chuan and Tay Chow Lyang on Sept 15, 2003. All involved were Singaporeans. Tiwary is likely to be sentenced to two life sentences or 40 years.

In Singapore, Briton Michael McCrea killed his Singaporean driver Kho Nai Guan on Jan 2, 2002, and, a day later, Kho's girlfriend, a China national called Lan Ya Ming. After a bench trial (one without a jury), McCrea was sentenced to 24 years' jail.

Granted that their individual circumstances were different, a jury trial (in Australia) led to a longer sentence than a bench trial (in Singapore), even though both cases involved double killings.

Some people feel that Singapore should return to trial by jury. They say we should look at Japan, which passed a law in 2004 to implement a jury system in 2009. At the very least, they say, those charged with serious crimes in Singapore should have the option of a jury trial.

Would that improve the criminal justice system? Many factors say no.



What on earth is this 'kill' word? Genocide (Mass Murder)? Homicide (pre-Meditated Murder)? Culpable homicide (Man-slaughter)? So reluctant to dial 'M'? Further down in the commentary,



Jurors are amateur adjudicators. They have inherent limits in, first, time - their lives and work schedules cannot be interrupted indefinitely; second, experience - by design, jurors have little or none; and, third, resources - jurors have neither staff nor researchers to help them.

In Singapore, jury trials lasted from 1826 until 1960, when they became restricted to capital offences. In the first reading to amend the Criminal Procedure Bill in 1959 for this purpose, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew argued that juries could be swayed by eloquent defense lawyers.

In his 2000 memoirs, Mr Lee said he had himself secured the acquittal of four alleged murderers in a 1950 riot case - as was his professional duty to do so - in part by working on the weaknesses of the jury. That left him with 'grave doubts about the practical value of the jury system in Singapore'.

In 1970, juries were abolished altogether. Speaking during the second reading of the Criminal Procedure Bill for this purpose, Mr Lee argued that juries seemed 'overwhelmed' by the burden of finding a man guilty of a capital offence. After the second reading, the Bill was referred to a select committee, where Mr Lee had an exchange with Mr David Marshall, 'then our most successful criminal lawyer, (who) claimed he had 99 acquittals out of 100 cases he had defended for murder', as Mr Lee put it in his memoirs.

When Mr Lee asked him if the 99 had been wrongly charged, Mr Marshall replied that it was not for him to judge but to defend them, which only buttressed Mr Lee's point that a lawyer with the requisite oratorical skills and flair for the dramatic might just be able to sway juries.

In the select committee too, as Judge of Appeal Andrew Phang pointed out in a 1983 article he wrote while still a tutor at the National University of Singapore law faculty, two sets of jurors offered testimony which shed some light on how juries functioned here at the time. (The inner sanctum of jury deliberations is traditionally off limits to everyone else in virtually all jurisdictions.)

First, the foreman in a case dubbed the Peeping Tom murder revealed that a 4-3 decision had been reached rather than the minimum 5-2 required by law. However, he had erroneously reported a unanimous verdict. Realizing his mistake later on, he notified the High Court Registrar but, by then, no reversals could be made. The foreman revealed that at least four of the seven jurors were totally confused by the terms 'majority' and 'unanimous'.

Second, there was testimony that many jurors in what was dubbed the Murder By Car case could not even read the oath properly. Moreover, one juror had called another afterwards to say he was shocked at the death sentence, which he did not know was mandated by law. However, he mistakenly spoke to the juror's brother, who informed the killer's lawyer.

At select committee, the juror admitted to these facts but insisted that jury trials should be abolished. Clearly, he would have found the accused guilty of a lesser charge had he known about the mandatory death sentence. Another juror also expressed similar distress upon learning about the death sentence after the fact. These lent support to Mr Lee's point that local juries were hesitant to convict because of the death penalty.

Overall, at the time, public support for serving on juries was clearly less than enthusiastic. Unsurprisingly, the Bill passed with little opposition.

Would a more educated citizenry today make for better jurors?

We do know that they would certainly cost more. Operating a jury system will incur costs in gathering names to draw a list of possible jurors. There have to be staff to summon jurors, answer queries, reschedule those with conflicts, check jurors in on the first day of jury duty, and escort them to the right courtroom. In court, they must be instructed again and either is chosen or sent home. Those chosen must be then be sheltered and sometimes sequestered throughout the trial.

Costs are also incurred by jurors and their employers in terms of lost time, wages and productivity.

Also, jury trials are simply longer than bench trials. Jurors must be selected and instructed anew in each case. Motions must be filed and hearings conducted to shield jurors from inadmissible evidence. By contrast, in a bench trial, the judge can listen to all evidence submitted and decide which is not admissible.

Moreover, lawyers typically reiterate an important fact many times to make sure that no juror misses it. Thus trying a case will just take longer than a bench trial.

And as each trial gets longer, fewer can be tried, witnesses may move away, their recall could fade and some may even die in the interim.

These not inconsiderable costs aside, the cultural context to jury trials must be kept in mind. It was the fear of government oppression in the form of misguided legislatures, iniquitous judges or overzealous prosecutors that led Americans to favor divided over efficient government. Jury trials were part of that plan: Having both judge and jury approve each judgment meant that one would need to corrupt both court and jury to cause a miscarriage of justice.

Not so in Singapore. The idea here is that it is far better to choose the right personnel than look to checks and balances in the criminal justice system. With responsible and competent officials in charge, checks and balances are less important; if they are not, no checks and balances will suffice anyway.

Here, at bench trials, the judge functions to make sure that police and prosecutors have made no obvious errors in their pre-trial investigations which help to establish guilt. Such an approach trades off what would be long drawn-out jury trials for efficient administrative decisions.



When it's so tongue-tripping just negotiating the 'M' word, how could the Straits Times cover Ram Puneet Tiwary's sentencing. McCrea was sentenced to 24 years jail. No blue collar. If his stay in the slammer is uneventful, he'd be out in 18. That's Singapore perverted justice.

Ram Puneet Tiwary hails from an extended family that boasts several legal experts on Singapore law. Nobody told him Australian justice was different. Nobody told him to pay for his baseball bat in cold hard cash. Nobody told him to vary his methods a little. Nobody told him his plan stank a mile off. Nobody told him two hour breaks in-between 'killings' was pushing his luck (And no, not even if he took a day off in-between either).

Davinder Sings to the tunes of Hakka Hybrid Regime....

Things like this really necessitates the bringing back of the jury system....

To stop the abuse of power by individuals who thinks he is above the court of law....and can anyhow suka suka sue whenever he likes it..