The Summary Judgement: Ass Loon Vs Roy Ngerng

[Cerebral]

I will give if he ask for more money.

 

[JohnTan]

Re: Ass Loon Lawyers Wants Roy Ngerng to Pay Them $50k in Fees for Summary Judgement!

Roy caught talking cock again. Many samsters supporting Roy only because they hate PAP, not because Roy was right.

Following both M Ravi and Roy Ngerng saying that PM Lee's press secretary lied to the media about what went on at the hearing on Monday, PM Lee's Press Secretary had issued a rebuttal saying that such claims are "baseless".

Read also: Roy Ngerng: PM's Press Secretary and State-Controlled Media Lied About What I Said
M Ravi: PM Lee's Press Secretary Shared False Information with the Media

Read the full statement here:

Yesterday evening, Mr Roy Ngerng said in a blog post that I and the media lied in saying that “Mr Ngerng’s lawyer indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined”.

This morning, Mr M Ravi issued a statement to the media saying that the following statement by me is inaccurate, and that I have been misinformed: “…Mr Ngerng’s lawyer indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined. The judge directed his lawyer to confirm this by 30 January 2015. PM Lee stands ready to be cross-examined, a position he has maintained right from the beginning.”

Mr Ravi is wrong, and Mr Ngerng, who was not present during this part of the hearing, has made yet another baseless allegation.

Mr Ravi said his statement was based on his “recollection”. But my statement was based on contemporaneous notes of the hearing taken by Drew & Napier.

Drew & Napier’s notes show that the following exchange took place in Court yesterday:

Footnote: According to Drew & Napier, the following shorthand was used in the notes: “P” (Plaintiff) is Mr Davinder Singh SC, “MR” is Mr M Ravi, “D” (Defendant) is Mr Roy Ngerng, “J” refers to the Judge, “AEIC” is affidavit of evidence in chief, “aff” is affidavit, “xxing” is cross-examining, “YH” is Your Honour, “wks” is weeks, “app” is application and “PTC” is pre-trial conference. The relevant extracts are attached.

P: Will D be filing aff?
MR: No
P: Is D calling any other witness?
MR: I will be seeking to rely on docs filed by my client in lower
proceedings.
J: Unless they ordered to stand as AEICs, not in evidence
MR: I ask that RN’s affidavit stand as AEIC
J: How many?
MR: 1.
J: Aff he filed in O 14 below to stand as AEIC?
P: I will be xxing if standing as AEIC.
MR: Therefore, I won’t be filing.
Enough YH I won’t be filing
J: I suggest you go through his docs and see if all docs you want to
rely on are there
MR: 2 wks from now?
…………
J: liberty to D to apply within 2 wks, by 31 Jan 2015, leave to submit
AEIC?
…………
J: Might make sense for you to give new aff if only 1-2 docs
P: If D chooses to give AEIC in whatever form, I will be xxing.
J: Until 31 Jan if you have anything you can apply for leave.
…………
MR: If my client decides to file AEIC, does he have to file app?
J: Will be a further PTC.
Write to inform the Registry that D wishes to tender evidence
Write in before 31 Jan. Will schedule PTC for you in Feb to give
necessary leave.
…………
J: Liberty to D to apply to give evidence on or before 31 Jan
Ms Yap tells me 31 Jan is Sat
30 Jan?
MR: Ok

From the notes, it is clear that Mr Ravi had informed the Court that Mr Ngerng would rely on the affidavit filed by him in the earlier summary judgment application as his evidence for the purposes of the assessment of damages. Mr Davinder Singh then gave Mr Ravi notice that if Mr Ngerng was going to give evidence for the purposes of the assessment of damages, Mr Singh would be cross-examining Mr Ngerng. Whereupon Mr Ravi promptly changed his position, and informed the Court that Mr Ngerng would “Therefore” not be filing any evidence.

This was the clearest indication that Mr Ngerng did not want to be crossexamined.

After saying that Mr Ngerng intended to rely on an earlier affidavit as his evidence, Mr Ravi did a hasty U-turn after Mr Singh said that he will cross-examine Mr Ngerng if he gives evidence. Mr Ravi was so determined that Mr Ngerng not be cross-examined that he even said to the Court “Enough Y[our] H[onour] I won’t be filing”.

In his statement, Mr Ravi said that if “the client choses [sic] to give evidence… he will be liable to cross examination. If he does not, he will not”. That explains why Mr Ravi changed his position at the hearing.

As is also clear from the notes, Mr Ravi’s statement that “If my instructions had been that my client did not wish to give evidence and I had indeed conveyed that fact to the Court, it would have been illogical for the learned Judge to have asked me to confirm this by 30 January 2015” is also incorrect. The fact is that after Mr Ravi said that Mr Ngerng would not be giving evidence, and even after he tried to end the discussion, the Court asked Mr Ravi to consider the matter and let the Court and Drew & Napier know by 30 January 2015 if Mr Ngerng would be giving evidence.

My statement that the Prime Minister stood ready to be cross-examined right from the beginning and had previously informed the Court of that position is also correct.

There are two parts to this case.

The first was the application for summary judgment. That application was decided on the basis of affidavit evidence, and the issue of cross-examination did not arise. Judgment was given in favour of the Prime Minister on 7 November 2014.

The second is the assessment of damages where evidence is given on the stand and the witnesses are subject to cross-examination. That process began with the Prime Minister’s application for directions that was filed on 18 November 2014.

At the very first hearing of that application, which took place on 19 December 2014, Mr Singh informed the Court in Mr Ravi’s presence that the Prime Minister will give evidence and that any suggestion that the Prime Minister is not to be cross-examined should be dispelled.

Drew & Napier indicated to the Court and to Mr Ravi on at least two more occasions before yesterday’s hearing that the Prime Minister stands ready to be cross-examined. The first was by a letter dated 22 December 2014 and the second was in submissions which were filed in Court and served on Mr Ravi on 9 January 2015.

Finally, Mr Ravi has asked whether it is appropriate for the Prime Minister’s Press Secretary to issue statements in connection with this case. He appears to have forgotten that, as the Court has found, Mr Ngerng falsely alleged that “the plaintiff, the Prime Minister of Singapore… is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF”. It is therefore entirely proper for me to deal with this matter as the Prime Minister's Press Secretary.

http://therealsingapore.com/content...m-ravis-accusations-i-lied-media-are-baseless

 

[EijiKisaragi]

Re: Ass Loon Lawyers Wants Roy Ngerng to Pay Them $50k in Fees for Summary Judgement!

Help is on the way.

 

[Papsmearer]

Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn

I will give if he ask for more money.

So would I.

 

[JohnCrawley]

Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn

So would I.

So would i ..

 

[frenchbriefs]

Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn

I think you should appraise yourself of the facts before you shoot your mouth off. I would think Roy does not care about the 90% of sinkies who don't give a fuck. he only cares about 11%. I don't know whether you live in singapore or not, but the last election, 40% of singaporeans DID NOT VOTE FOR THE PAP. Let that sink in. SInce that happened, the PAP has been constantly shooting itself in the foot. eg. allow in pinoy FTs in to insult us, allowing PRC FTs in to shit in public places, mishandling of the Little India riot, losses in Temasek, screw ups in CPF, high cost of living, high cost of housing, FT kids getting free scholarships, etc. This lawsuit is just another nail in the PAP coffin. If 11% of the votes change their minds about the PAP for the next election, they will have less then 50% of the vote. They may still be in power, but their mandate to govern is not there anymore.

That's what a loser says,u only care about the 10%,u only care about 60.1% while ur market share slowly erodes away and interest slowly fades.is this how u market to the masses and galvanize the people?how are u going to grow ur movement if forever remain small?how u going to effect change if ur support base forever remain the same or keeps shrinking?Roy has proven to be another sinkie dud like csj.give another 5 or 10 years he would be another broken mad dog like csj.Roy has shown that he could blow 100k while achieving absolutely nothing.waste of resources.pinky has played him like a fool using the absolute lamest attempt with no finesse or skill and Roy can do nothing except bend over and let him poke.and LHL still managed to make him look like a loser.can u imagine if LKY was as hopeless,naive and gullible as Roy how he could have managed to lie his way to the top and dispose of his powerful enemies back in 1960.

 

[Reddog]

Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn

I am waiting to give money to Roy. My chance to 'slap' pinky as envisaged by the great gms.

 

[Cerebral]

That's what a loser says,u only care about the 10%,u only care about 60.1% while ur market share slowly erodes away and interest slowly fades.is this how u market to the masses and galvanize the people?how are u going to grow ur movement if forever remain small?how u going to effect change if ur support base forever remain the same or keeps shrinking?Roy has proven to be another sinkie dud like csj.give another 5 or 10 years he would be another broken mad dog like csj.Roy has shown that he could blow 100k while achieving absolutely nothing.waste of resources.pinky has played him like a fool using the absolute lamest attempt with no finesse or skill and Roy can do nothing except bend over and let him poke.and LHL still managed to make him look like a loser.can u imagine if LKY was as hopeless,naive and gullible as Roy how he could have managed to lie his way to the top and dispose of his powerful enemies back in 1960.

It doesn't matter whether he is made to look like a loser. At least he dare to stand behind what he believed in.

I may not have Roy's fortitude, but I am willing to chip in when he needs; a little something to make his journey a little easier. This is my silent protest.

 

[JohnTan]

Re: Shd the taxpayer be paying PM Lee's Press Secretary to assist him in his pte suit

The PM is LHL and LHL is the PM. So, the press secretary of the PM can help LHL in his lawsuit, which was about defamatory remarks made about the PM's integrity in handling our reserves and CPF monies.

 

[winnipegjets]

Re: Shd the taxpayer be paying PM Lee's Press Secretary to assist him in his pte suit

The PM is LHL and LHL is the PM. So, the press secretary of the PM can help LHL in his lawsuit, which was about defamatory remarks made about the PM's integrity in handling our reserves and CPF monies.

When LHL lines up to buy chicken wings, is he acting as a PM or a private citizen?

Since the PM's press secretary is claiming that the suit is PM versus ordinary Roy, one wonders why shouldn't the lawsuit be the Government of Sinkapore vs Roy? It is the integrity of the Government, not the PM, that is in question.

 

[winnipegjets]

Re: Shd the taxpayer be paying PM Lee's Press Secretary to assist him in his pte suit

This Chang Li-Lin is just a stupid cunt.

In response, Ms Chang said in her press statement: "He appears to have forgotten that, as the Court has found, Mr Ngerng falsely alleged that 'the plaintiff, the Prime Minister of Singapore… is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF'.

"It is therefore entirely proper for me to deal with this matter as the Prime Minister's Press Secretary."

Technically, There is no such thing as a Prime Minister. There is the Office of the Prime Minister, which is occupied by Lee Hsien Loong. At the gist of the matter, the individual Lee Hsien Loong and not The Office Of the Prime Minister of Singapore is suing Roy Ngerng. If the Office of the Prime Minister is launching the lawsuit, then govt lawyers and the Attorney General will be the ones launching legal action on behalf of the Office of the Prime Minister. But this is not the case here. The Individual citizen Lee Hsien Loong is the one launching the legal action. Therefore, any resources from the Office of the Prime Minister cannot be used to aid his private lawsuit. Ms Chang Cheebye seems not to understand this simple point. When Lee Hsien Loong sues as a private citizen, any use of govt resources to aid him is simply corruption and breach of trust on his part. He is doing his own personal affairs on the company time.

Right on. And he is using public money for that purpose. How cheap is LHL?

 

[winnipegjets]

Re: Shd the taxpayer be paying PM Lee's Press Secretary to assist him in his pte suit

If it is the PM suing Roy, then using outside lawyers is a waste of public money. Does the PM have no faith in the state lawyers?

Secondly, the payment by Roy should be going to state coffers ...but in the past, money won by LKY didn't go to state coffers.

 

[ginfreely]

Re: Shd the taxpayer be paying PM Lee's Press Secretary to assist him in his pte suit

This Chang Li-Lin is just a stupid cunt.

In response, Ms Chang said in her press statement: "He appears to have forgotten that, as the Court has found, Mr Ngerng falsely alleged that 'the plaintiff, the Prime Minister of Singapore… is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF'.

"It is therefore entirely proper for me to deal with this matter as the Prime Minister's Press Secretary."

Technically, There is no such thing as a Prime Minister. There is the Office of the Prime Minister, which is occupied by Lee Hsien Loong. At the gist of the matter, the individual Lee Hsien Loong and not The Office Of the Prime Minister of Singapore is suing Roy Ngerng. If the Office of the Prime Minister is launching the lawsuit, then govt lawyers and the Attorney General will be the ones launching legal action on behalf of the Office of the Prime Minister. But this is not the case here. The Individual citizen Lee Hsien Loong is the one launching the legal action. Therefore, any resources from the Office of the Prime Minister cannot be used to aid his private lawsuit. Ms Chang Cheebye seems not to understand this simple point. When Lee Hsien Loong sues as a private citizen, any use of govt resources to aid him is simply corruption and breach of trust on his part. He is doing his own personal affairs on the company time.

First case that qualified to be reported to the Corruption reporting centre that LHL wants to set up. Using public resources for personal use.

 

[ginfreely]

Re: Shd the taxpayer be paying PM Lee's Press Secretary to assist him in his pte suit

If LHL want a secretary or PR firm to speak on his behalf, then pay for it! Only company matters then can use company spokesman that is hired by the company. Since when individual matters can use company spokesman to talk?

 

[frenchbriefs]

Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn

It doesn't matter whether he is made to look like a loser. At least he dare to stand behind what he believed in.

I may not have Roy's fortitude, but I am willing to chip in when he needs; a little something to make his journey a little easier. This is my silent protest.

Useless...might as well go be Islamic terrorists,they have belief too.what's the point of having belief if u can't put together a plan,carry it out and win ur objectives and build an empire?where's ur organization? Where's ur army?even ISIS and charlie hedbo terrorist are more capable than Roy.if I donate 100k to charlie hedbo terrorists right now France will topple.

 

[wusangui]

Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn

Useless...might as well go be Islamic terrorists,they have belief too.what's the point of having belief if u can't put together a plan,carry it out and win ur objectives and build an empire?where's ur organization? Where's ur army?even ISIS and charlie hedbo terrorist are more capable than Roy.if I donate 100k to charlie hedbo terrorists right now France will topple.

you talk a lot, what did you do to assist the downfall of Lee dynasty?knn 老是见不得人好 pui

 

[eatshitndie]

Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn

the crowdsource funding is to pay off debts incurred in the lawsuit. if gayroy were to use it for something else such as getting bumfucked in bathhouses and boozing around with bum buddies, he would deserve to go bankrupt.

 

[Saisyu]

Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn



Press sec to PM Lee refutes allegations over her statement on blogger's case

Published on Jan 13, 2015 4:17 PM

Blogger Roy Ngerng (left) with his lawyer M. Ravi (right) leave the Supreme Court in Singapore on Jan 12, 2015. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's press secretary on Jan 13 refuted allegations that her comments in a statement to the media the day before over a closed-door defamation hearing against Mr Ngerng were "inaccurate". -- PHOTO: AFP

By Walter Sim

SINGAPORE - Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's press secretary today refuted allegations that her comments in a statement to the media on Monday over a closed-door defamation hearing against blogger Roy Ngerng were "inaccurate".

Ms Chang Li Lin had, on Monday, said Mr Ngerng's lawyer "indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined."

But lawyer M. Ravi, representing Mr Ngerng, said in a letter to Ms Chang - released to the media early on Tuesday - that she was "inaccurate" and "misinformed".

In a five-page media statement, Ms Chang cited notes taken by lawyers from Drew & Napier, who represent Mr Lee, at the closed-door session where Mr Ngerng, 33, was ordered to pay $29,000 in costs for legal fees and related expenses. Damages for defamation will be assessed in later hearings.

Mr Ravi said in his letter that based on his recollection, he did not tell the court that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined. Instead, what he said was that he had to take instructions from his client, which was a "common and normal practice".

He also said it would be "illogical" for the court to ask him to confirm whether Mr Ngerng would give evidence by Jan 30 had he already said Mr Ngerng would not.

But Ms Chang, citing transcripts, said there had been a "hasty U-turn" by Mr Ravi.

She wrote: "Mr Ravi had informed the Court that Mr Ngerng would rely on the affidavit filed by him in the earlier summary judgment application as his evidence for the purposes of the assessment of damages.

"Mr Davinder Singh (from Drew & Napier) then gave Mr Ravi notice that if Mr Ngerng was going to give evidence for the purposes of the assessment of damages, Mr Singh would be cross-examining Mr Ngerng.

"Whereupon Mr Ravi promptly changed his position, and informed the Court that Mr Ngerng would "Therefore" not be filing any evidence," she said.

"This was the clearest indication that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined," she added. "And even after he tried to end the discussion, the Court asked Mr Ravi to consider the matter and let the Court and Drew & Napier know by 30 Jan 2015 if Mr Ngerng would be giving evidence."

She also addressed a question Mr Ravi had asked, whether it was appropriate for the Prime Minister's press secretary to issue statements in connection with the case.

"He appears to have forgotten that, as the Court has found Mr Ngerng falsely alleged that 'the plaintiff, the Prime Minister of Singapore… is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF'.

"It is therefore entirely proper for me to deal with this matter as the Prime Minister's press secretary," she added.

[email protected]

 

[frenchbriefs]

Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn

the crowdsource funding is to pay off debts incurred in the lawsuit. if gayroy were to use it for something else such as getting bumfucked in bathhouses and boozing around with bum buddies, he would deserve to go bankrupt.

its not like he had any money in the first place.

 

[winnipegjets]

Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn

Who gives a damn. He chose the wrong country to make noise in. Millions in France and worldwide Je Suis Charlie. No one is going to Je Suis this guy with a skewed surname. Not Obama, not Ba Ki Moon not any world leader.

I still can't figure out why are you so hard on Ordinary Roy ...what has he done to you that you take his actions so personally?