Search the Community

Hi..........I was involved in an accident this year and was diagnosed as whip lash but now my lawyer said i can only get about 2k plus only after taking away legal and medical cost........... and when asked them, they said must see doctor for reports and get treatments here n there but still not confirmed of any help............ all this while i have neen seeing the sinseh at the YISHUN the very big one as if i go doctor, would cost a bomb........... any1 knows any lawyers that can take over my case

The future of spore politics A family doctor just share with me that what's p8p trying to do recruiting so many military personnel A military control state after non military personnel for ex. mbt etc retire? Lucky that wp is a team of lawyers and with their influence now they can attract more elite lawyers joining them Sound scary... Correct me if u guys think otherwise...

Cops find remains believed to be of 20 people http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=...&sec=nation KUALA LANGAT: The Sungai Pan

Dear Brothers & Sisters, I have a buddy and he and his wife are planning for a divorce. They had ROM in 2008 and have no house, no kids and no share loans. Any recommendations on a cheap and good lawyer to handle such cases where mutual parties decided to split without and burdens/duties due to each other?

These are from a book called Disorder in the American Courts, and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters who had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place. ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active? WITNESS: No, I just lie there. ____________ _________ _________ ________ ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact? WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks. ____________ _________ _________ ________ ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all? WITNESS: Yes. ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory? WITNESS: I forget. ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot? ____________ _________ _________ _______ ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning? WITNESS: He said, 'Where am I, Cathy? ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you? WITNESS: My name is Susan! ____________ _________ _________ _______ ATTORNEY: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo? WITNESS: We both do. ATTORNEY: Voodoo? WITNESS: We do. ATTORNEY: You do? WITNESS: Yes, voodoo ____________ _________ _________ ________ ATTORNEY: Now doctor isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning? WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam? ____________ _________ _________ ______ ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year- old, how old is he? WITNESS: Uh, he's twenty-one. ____________ _________ _________ _________ _ ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken? WITNESS: Are you kidding' me? ____________ _________ _________ ________ ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th? WITNESS: Yes. ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time? WITNESS: Uh... I was getting' laid! ____________ _________ _________ ________ ATTORNEY: She had three children, right? WITNESS: Yes. ATTORNEY: How many were boys? WITNESS: None. ATTORNEY: Were there any girls? WITNESS: Are you shittin' me? Your Honour, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney? ____________ _________ _________ ________ ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated? WITNESS: By death. ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated? WITNESS: Now whose death do you suppose terminated it? ____________ _________ _________ ________ ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual? WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard. ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female? WITNESS: Guess. ____________ _________ _________ _______ ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice, which I sent to your attorney? WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work. ____________ ________ ______ ____________ ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people? WITNESS: All my autopsies are performed on dead people. Would you like to rephrase that? ____________ _________ _________ ________ ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to? WITNESS: Oral. ____________ _________ _________ ________ ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body? WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 pm. ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time? WITNESS: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy on him! ____________ _________ _________ _________ _____ ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample? WITNESS: Huh....are you qualified to ask that question? ____________ _________ _________ ________ And the best for last: ____________ _________ _________ _______ ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor? WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar. ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless? WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.

SINGAPORE (AFP) - - Despite its impressive economic development, Singapore fails to meet international standards for political and human rights and there are concerns about the independence of its judiciary, an association of lawyers said. The International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute identified a number of areas in which Singapore fell far short of international norms, said the association's executive director Mark Ellis. "In particular, democratic debate and media comment are extremely restricted and government officials have initiated numerous successful defamation suits against both political and media critics," he said in a statement released late Tuesday in London. The rights institute also issued 18 recommendations, which it said Singapore's government should implement urgently. The group has published a 72-page report on the issue, several months after the IBA held its annual convention in Singapore. The association represents 30,000 lawyers globally. "Singapore cannot continue to claim that civil and political rights must take a back seat to economic rights, as its economic development is now of the highest order," the report said, calling human rights universal and indivisible. The IBA's rights institute "strongly encourages Singapore to engage with the international community in a more constructive manner, and to take steps to implement international standards of human rights throughout Singapore." It called for Singapore to take its place as a regional leader on human rights, democracy and rule of law, as well as in business and economic development. Singapore holds the rotating chair of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations, whose new charter calls for establishment of a regional human rights body. The IBA report said the cases of opposition politicians J.B. Jeyaretnam and Chee Soon Juan illustrate concerns over the use of defamation laws to stifle political opposition and expression. J.B. Jeyaretnam, 82, a lawyer, was disbarred when declared bankrupt in 2001 after failing to pay libel damages to members of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP), including a former prime minister. Bankrupts are not allowed to run for political office, but last year he cleared his bankruptcy, and has since announced his involvement with a new political party. Chee, secretary general of the Singapore Democratic Party, was declared bankrupt after failing to pay libel damages to Singapore's founding father Lee Kuan Yew and another former prime minister over remarks made in 2001. Chee and his party are awaiting a judge's decision on damages against them in a separate defamation case, filed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, Lee Kuan Yew. "It certainly appears that Dr Chee has been made a target by the Singapore government, and that their criticism of him has gone far beyond a reasonable standard," the IBA wrote. It said the Singapore judiciary had a good international reputation when adjudicating commercial cases that did not involve the interests of PAP members or their associates. "However, in cases involving PAP litigants or PAP interests, there are concerns about an actual or apparent lack of impartiality and/or independence," it said. The report expressed concern about "limitations on free assembly" in the city-state, and said the Law Society was not fulfilling its mandate to speak out on law reform issues. Law Society president Michael Hwang told AFP his group could not yet comment because it had only just received the IBA report. Government spokesmen were also not immediately able to react. At the IBA convention last October, Lee Kuan Yew responded to allegations that his country ranked low in matters of press freedom, saying Singaporeans were free to read whatever they wanted. He also said Singapore was built on the rule of law and did not tolerate corruption. This meant defamation action may be taken against those who impute dishonesty to government officials, in order to clear any doubts, he said.

Question: Pertaining to non- compete agreements for employments in general, does singapore law has any contract act that stipulates that an agreement that restrains anyone from carrying on a lawful profession is void to that extent. The reasoning behind this is that agreements of restraint are unfair, as they impose an undue restriction on the personal freedom of a contracting party? What are the loopholes if any of non-compete agreement that allows one to work for a competitor ?

A simple case that erupts into a 'frolic by solicitors' School teacher Jonathan Lock, already saddled with legal bills of over $100,000, takes his case to the Appeals Court. By Selina Lum A SIMPLE traffic accident case landed in the highest court in Singapore - all because of a dispute over $60. The much-publicised case of primary school teacher Jonathan Lock, who was initially awarded $188 by the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre (PDRC) but ended up being saddled with legal bills of more than $100,000, was heard before a three-judge Court of Appeal on Tuesday. Mr Lock was unwittingly dragged into a long and costly court battle after his former lawyer issued a writ of seizure against NTUC Income. The insurance giant responded by appealing to the High Court. NTUC's lawyers argued that the PDRC was not a court of law, and, hence, had no authority to make enforcible orders. The PDRC was set up by the Subordinate Courts to deal with minor road accidents and mediation sessions are presided over by district judges wearing hats as mediators. During the hearing of Mr Lock's appeal case on Tuesday, one of the three judges, Judge of Appeal V. K. Rajah said that in appealing to the High Court on a point of law, NTUC's lawyers had 'used a sledgehammer to crack a peanut, when a nutcracker would do'. Without mincing his words, Justice Rajah added: 'This is a very simple case. Why has it conflagrated into a frolic by solicitors?' Mr Lock's new lawyer, Mr Joseph Chen, argued that the PDRC was indeed a court, but Mr Madan Asomull, lawyer for Ms Jessiline Goh, whose car collided with Mr Lock's motorcyle sparking off the long-drawn legal battle, supported the High Court decision. However, the judges lobbed many questions at Mr Asomull, pointing out that the PDRC was set up to save time and costs for insurers and the public. They pointed out that Mr Asomull was actually arguing to make the process more lengthy and costly. This is because following the High Court decision, all settlements reached through the PDRC had to be endorsed by another judge. The Court will give its decision on Wednesday. http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/...ory_163359.html look like ms Jessiline Goh or her lawyer is gg to get it.

News from the straits times today. http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/singapore...,166139,00.html? What will you do under similar circumstances?