Statement from Amos Yee’s lawyers

[Narong Wongwan]

They are working pro bono... they are not necessarily paid. So, what 's do we expect them to do otherwise ?

Put their business on the line by defending Amos ?

They stepping forward is already taking a big risk. Kudos to them.
Soon more will be compel to step forward.

 

[steffychun]

They stepping forward is already taking a big risk. Kudos to them.
Soon more will be compel to step forward.

they got nothing better to do because M Ravi can't do it.

 

[Asterix]

They stepping forward is already taking a big risk. Kudos to them.
Soon more will be compel to step forward.

Crowd of lawyers tells polis officer to get lost.

The Bayi says donkey years ago he was arrested for marching from Point A to Point B and tells the scared polis officer, if you want to arrest me do it now!

[video=youtube;ahZkTMXKFqQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahZkTMXKFqQ[/video]

 

[tonychat]

Do not get a lawyer who do not believe in his client. Amos should reject them..

 

[NanoSpeed]

Do not get a lawyer who do not believe in his client. Amos should reject them..

I think so too. Look at the Law Society (Professional Conduct) Rules:

Statements to press or media

67. An advocate and solicitor shall not give a statement to the press or media whether on behalf of the client or otherwise, which may amount to contempt of Court or which is calculated to interfere with the fair trial of a case which has not been concluded.

Will Amos get a fair trial if his lawyers publicly disapprove of his conduct which itself is the subject of a trial ?

 

[Asterix]

I think so too. Look at the Law Society (Professional Conduct) Rules:

Statements to press or media

67. An advocate and solicitor shall not give a statement to the press or media whether on behalf of the client or otherwise, which may amount to contempt of Court or which is calculated to interfere with the fair trial of a case which has not been concluded.

Will Amos get a fair trial if his lawyers publicly disapprove of his conduct which itself is the subject of a trial ?

1) I am not a lawyer, just a layman who knows how to split hairs oops I mean draw valid distinctions.

2) My response to the question highlighted is: Why not?

3) When it is mentioned that they disapprove of his conduct, presumably they are talking about the video he uploaded. There can no dispute of facts here, whatever he said or did not say can be discerned from the video itself. The interpretation of what he said is of course another matter, but they can still personally disapprove of what he expressly said and the manner and demeanour without having the need to go into higher levels of interpretation such as the effect those words might have on the minds and emotions of dim witted and parochial Sinkies which might constitute an element of the crime of sedition. I think it is called the actor's rear.

4) They did NOT comment on the legality or otherwise of Amos' words and actions, which is a matter for the court to decide. It's like Perry Mason saying: I knew my client punched the farktard deceased ah pek for sneezing loudly without covering his CB mouth and nose and it has been captured on CCTV footage and how can anyone say that they approve of what my client did but it is for the prosecution to prove that my client at that moment in time had the required intention to kill, and it is the defence's contention that there was no such intention. This part, I am told, is called the men's rear. My friend also said the actor's rear and the men's rear must meet in order for the crime to be constituted, provided of course it is not a strict liability offence. I am afraid I quite gahbra on the last part.

5) Therefore, as a reasonable lesbian on the Ang Mo Kio MRT, I can truthfully swear that there is no doubt that these pro bono lawyers acting on behalf of Amos have not violated the Rule which you quoted in verbatim. They simply pointed out, and rightly so, that it is the job of the prosecution to prove that a crime has been committed.

6) You need to learn how to draw valid distinctions or go back to law school and restudy Legal Methods, which my lesbian friend very kindly bestowed upon me some rudimentary knowledge.

 

[unclesam]

[video=youtube;HnJQcr21yZE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnJQcr21yZE[/video]

 

[wendychan]

1) I am not a lawyer, just a layman who knows how to split hairs oops I mean draw valid distinctions.

2) My response to the question highlighted is: Why not?

3) When it is mentioned that they disapprove of his conduct, presumably they are talking about the video he uploaded. There can no dispute of facts here, whatever he said or did not say can be discerned from the video itself. The interpretation of what he said is of course another matter, but they can still personally disapprove of what he expressly said and the manner and demeanour without having the need to go into higher levels of interpretation such as the effect those words might have on the minds and emotions of dim witted and parochial Sinkies which might constitute an element of the crime of sedition. I think it is called the actor's rear.

4) They did NOT comment on the legality or otherwise of Amos' words and actions, which is a matter for the court to decide. It's like Perry Mason saying: I knew my client punched the farktard deceased ah pek for sneezing loudly without covering his CB mouth and nose and it has been captured on CCTV footage and how can anyone say that they approve of what my client did but it is for the prosecution to prove that my client at that moment in time had the required intention to kill, and it is the defence's contention that there was no such intention. This part, I am told, is called the men's rear. My friend also said the actor's rear and the men's rear must meet in order for the crime to be constituted, provided of course it is not a strict liability offence. I am afraid I quite gahbra on the last part.

5) Therefore, as a reasonable lesbian on the Ang Mo Kio MRT, I can truthfully swear that there is no doubt that these pro bono lawyers acting on behalf of Amos have not violated the Rule which you quoted in verbatim. They simply pointed out, and rightly so, that it is the job of the prosecution to prove that a crime has been committed.

6) You need to learn how to draw valid distinctions or go back to law school and restudy Legal Methods, which my lesbian friend very kindly bestowed upon me some rudimentary knowledge.

most lawyers know how to choose their words not to get into trouble

 

[Narong Wongwan]

[video=youtube;HnJQcr21yZE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnJQcr21yZE[/video]

Ya man more publicity to this case raise more awareness so more can view the vid.

 

[unclesam]

[video=youtube;M1KnhbHsay0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1KnhbHsay0[/video]

 

[xingguy]

When there is no separation of power between the legislature, executive, and the judiciary, then needless to say whoever who rules have absolute power.
And we all know, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Hope Amos lawyers can pick up some pointers in this speech on rule of law.

[video=youtube;_ZDpHqEZvvI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZDpHqEZvvI[/video]