This is a present live case, I am helping my friend to punish his ex partner for lying to the Court and overall for being a very dishonest and bad person. We sued her, she defended, she lied to Court. We are initiating committal (crime basically) proceedings against her – and if successful, she faces jail sentence. We already started 2 very successful applications against her to prevent her from firing our friend.
Those thousands who have hurt us the last 3 years, I have stopped my previous businesses to totally focus my attention on hunting all of you down to sue you. That would include Police Officers from Singapore Police Force, officers from Ministry of Health, Singapore or the Ministry of Health, Singapore itself. And whatever news publication participating in attacking both me and my wife Iris Koh.
Actual Written Submission written now with intention to file into Supreme Court to ask for leave to begin Committal Proceedings against “Defendant Redacted”.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION WITH REGARDS TO PERJURY OF “Defendant Redacted” & NEGLIGENCE OF “Defence Counsel Redacted”
This written submission would argue rigorously the legal points concerning perjury and whether Court should grant leave to commence committal proceedings against “Defendant Redacted” for Perjury.
As a secondary point, how complicit “Defence Counsel Redacted” is, being the Defence Counsel, and whether any legal proceeding is to commence on “Defence Counsel Redacted”. The short conclusion to that question is no, not for perjury at least. “Defence Counsel Redacted” cannot be inferred to be responsible for any false statements made by “Defendant Redacted” under oath. However, depending on what we expect of lawyers to know as professionals conducting the lawsuit in the Supreme Court, “Defence Counsel Redacted” can be inferred to at least be negligent – “Defence Counsel Redacted” is cognizant of all the evidence present in “Supreme Court Case Number Redacted” and yet “Defence Counsel Redacted” either did one or two of the following profile fitting scenarios –
“Defence Counsel Redacted” may have induced “Defendant Redacted” to perjure in her Defence, Affidavits and Written Submission. The said perjury would be advantageous (if unchallenged or undiscovered) to “Defendant Redacted”’s upcoming Defence should “Supreme Court Case Number Redacted” go to trial. If “Defence Counsel Redacted” truly did that, “Defence Counsel Redacted” would be guilty of a criminal offence. However, we have no evidence of that – it cannot even pass either on a beyond reasonable doubt basis or on a balance of probabilities basis. The Claimant feels that the Court must discard this consideration in the absence of any sort of evidence.
“Defence Counsel Redacted” was negligent in considering the evidence present and did not notice “Defendant Redacted”’s perjurious statements. Claimant thinks this is more likely and can easily pass on a balance of probabilities basis. Upon further interview and discovery, the Claimant feels that it can even proceed to beyond a reasonable doubt basis. This scenario is considerably undeniable as there is no way to explain why “Defence Counsel Redacted” did not stop or advise “Defendant Redacted” otherwise from committing perjury. Thus in short, the Claimant feels that “Defence Counsel Redacted” is negligent and in the interest of justice “Defence Counsel Redacted” should be reprimanded by the Court. At the very least, “Defence Counsel Redacted” should be referred to the Law Society to face disciplinary proceedings.
Notwithstanding paragraph 2, the next legal point to explore is whether “Defendant Redacted” can be represented by “Defence Counsel Redacted” as the Defence Counsel. The Committal Proceeding is to establish beyond reasonable doubt that “Defendant Redacted” has committed perjury and that crime is intertwined with the fact that “Defence Counsel Redacted” has been “Defendant Redacted”’s defence counsel. In considering conflict of interest – “Defence Counsel Redacted” cannot be “Defendant Redacted”’s lawyer during the committal hearing. In the interest of justice, “Defence Counsel Redacted” must recuse himself from being the defence counsel of the committal hearings, and the Court should see fit to judicially interfere to require “Defence Counsel Redacted” to recuse himself from “Supreme Court Case Number Redacted”. The Court should also see fit to order “Defence Counsel Redacted” not even to provide any legal consulting or advisory in the case of “Supreme Court Case Number Redacted” in private or out of Court setting to prevent any intentional, potential, and accidental witness tampering. Whether “Defence Counsel Redacted” can still represent the Defendant in the main proceedings of “Supreme Court Case Number Redacted”, it would have to be left completely to the discretion of the Court.
It is imperative that “Defendant Redacted” secures alternative legal representation. This development underscores the necessity for “Defendant Redacted” to either appoint another lawyer who can provide the required legal counsel and representation in the committal hearings or opt to represent herself as a litigant in person.