Friday, 19 August 2011

Singapore Consulate SFO Mr. Chin

On July 20th, Yuxin Mei Wang was released from jail in Los Angeles. She immediately went to the hearing in Family Court. Accompanying her was a Singapore consular officer named Chin who flew down from San Francisco. He introduced himself to the Minor's Counsel and my attorney. I reminded Mr. Chin that if the Singapore Consulate had better controls over passport issuance, we would not be here today. He walked away. I guess I would have too if I were him. How embarrassing that Lea Chan from the Consulate did not know for 5 days that her office had issued passports for my children back in July 2009.

I also want to remind Mr. Chin that back in 1994, US-Singapore relations was at its lowest point because Singapore rejected President Clinton's and 24 US Senators' appeal to spare the caning Michael Faye. At that time, which was very well reported in the Straits Times, Singapore asked the US to respect the laws of Singapore. The US does not have to agree with the laws of Singapore but it should respect it. Prof Chan should know this well.

Fast forward 15 years to 2009, same can be said the other way around Mr. Chin. Singapore does not have to agree with the US that kidnapping of a child is a crime, but it should respect the US law that it is a crime. Wang was arrested and sentenced to jail because kidnapping is a crime in the US. No need to agree, but please respect our laws and not provide safe-haven to an internationally wanted criminal.

Now, Wang's sister June Wong is complaining about court judgement issued in Singapore. Go figure.

Singapore Court to June Wong



Monday, 8 August 2011

Monday, 6 June 2011

Singapore Citizen Yuxin Mei Wang Arrested at LAX

Easy Singapore Document of Identity

Monday, 9 May 2011

Dateline NBC May9 2011

See the similarities between the Sean Goldman kidnapping to Brazil and the Christopher and William Ko kidnapping to Singapore on Dateline NBC May9 2011

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42956156#42956156

1) The father David Goldman was denied visitation with his son repeatedly. Yuxin Mei Wang denied visitation 5 times.
2) Sean's mother and her family poisoned Sean to hurt David.
3) After the return of Sean, legal actions continue without regard to the welfare and best interests of the child.

A new twist, Yuxin Mei Wang is now trying to get her US Permanent Residency back. She would not have lost her US PR if she did not kidnap the boys in the first place.

Sunday, 1 May 2011

Why Did Yuxin Mei Wang Kidnap Her Children?

According to Dr. Dierdre C. Rand, there could be a few reasons. She wrote in her paper titled "The Spectrum of Parental Alienation" published in the American Journal of Forensic Psychology, Volume 15, Number 1, 1997:

1) "Need to Conceal Parental Deficits." "...the campaign to alienate the child from the other parent is sometimes used to deflect unwanted scrutiny of the programming parent's personal problems.... Sometimes parents engage in PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome) behavior out of fear that they will be found wanting when compared to the more loving and capable target."

2) Parental Child Abductors. "An abducting parent views the child's needs as secondary to the parental agenda which is to provoke, agitate, control, attack or psychologically torture the other parent. It should come as not suprise, then, that post-divorce parental abduction is considered a serious form of child abuse."

3) "Need for Control and Domination." Some alienating parents are driven by overriding needs for power, influence, dominatoin and control. Engaging in PAS may provide the dual gratification of maintaining power, influence, and control over the child and vicariously over the ex-spouse whose visitation and relationship with the child is frustrated by the alienating parent's control maneuvers."

4) Personality Characteristics of Parents Making False Accusations of Abuse in Disputes. Mothers tend to present as "fearful victim," "justified vindicator...." "The fearful victim presenation involves manipulation of social image around a specific theme to which others respond with sympathy and support, such as child abuse or spousal abuse."

This is certainly true. Her entire family believed the abuse story. So did the teachers at Sembawang Primary School.

"When abuse is alleged, anyone in a position of authority can act as a "validator," including therapists, police, child protecton workers, ....Validators are professionsls who, when presented with allegations of abuse, assume that abuse occured. They see their role as validating the alleged abuse rather than conducting an objective investigation." This is a good description of the dumbo-heads at the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services. They had to re-investigate and paid me over US$3200 for damages for their error. I guess teachers and journalists are not far behind.

"Validators are relatively easy to find, especially when sought out by a parent seeking to strengthen their position in legal proceedings." And to gain sympathy.

5) The Delusional Parent. The children were subject to undue influence to get them to accept the accusing parent's psychotic belief and concomitant rejection of the other parent....

Tuesday, 12 April 2011

Another Work of Fiction

Raymond Yeo sent the letter below, claiming "our client had made the necessary arrangements for the children to travel to the US on their Singapore passports...." If this was true, why didn't Singapore Airlines check the children onto the flight on Tue March 15th at Changi Airport?

The actual truth is as follows which is documented in the SQ system and witnessed by many who were at the SQ Check-In Counter at Changi Airport:

1) Yeo's client Yuxin Mei Wang purchased 1 way tickets for the children to the US

2) An invalid US Passport number was provided to the travel agent and entered into the Singapore Airlines system

3) Wang did not obtain approval via ESTA (Electronic System for Travel Authorization) that is required when entering the US from Visa Waiver countries such as Singapore. Here is the link to ESTA: http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_1990.html

4) Singapore Airlines could not check the children onto the flight because the children only had one-way tickets and did not have ESTA approval to enter the US on Singapore passports.

Raymond, I ask you, how is this considered "made the necessary arrangements for the children to travel to the US on their Singapore passports?" Please answer this question.

If the "necessary arrangements" were made, the children would have been allowed to board the flight. Wouldn't you agree?

Wang would probably not have been able to purchase one-way tickets from the Singapore Airlines Service Center if she only showed a Singapore passports. SQ would know the rules better than the "imaginery" immigration attorney Wang consulted. That is how an invalid US passport number was provided to SQ and was in fact in the SQ system at Changi Airport.


Work of Fiction from Raymond Yeo Apr12 2011

Sunday, 10 April 2011

Why did Yuxin Mei Wang abduct her children?

One psychologist offered that "An abducting parent views the child's needs as secondary to the parental agenda which is to provoke, agitate, control, attack or psychologically torture the other parent. It should come as no surprise, then, that post-divorce parental abduction is considered a serious form of child abuse." according to Dr. Deirdre C Rand: The Spectrum of Parental Alienation Syndrome, American Journal of Forensic Psychology 1997: Volume 15, Number 3 and Number 4. Wang recently filed an Affidavit in the US where she said the divorce dragged on for 3 years. It did indeed because she and her attorney refused to settle. Three (3) offers of settlement was offered so that we can focus on the wellbeing of the children but she refused. It was discovered in February 2008 that Wang was not divorced from her previous husband. In August 2008, the final offer of settlement was made which included a sum of money to be paid to her. Similar to the recent case in Singapore, a bigamous marriage is void from day-1 and there is no community property. Yet Wang still refused to settle where she could walk away with a sum of money. Her "parental agenda" came first.

Thursday, 24 March 2011

Defamation: Telling the Truth is NOT Defamation Raymond

My lawyer received a call: Raymond Yeo called me at 2.30pm today. He said that you had defamed him in your blog, and that he wants you to remove all defamatory references about him today.

In Paragraph 5, Raymond states in his letter to the District Judge "...our client does not have the children's US passports in her possession as these have always been retained by the Plaintiff (me)." Without fear of defamation, I can safely say this is an outright LIE. Singapore Straits Times Law Correspondent K.C. Vijayan also wrote in his July 2010 article "...the children's US passports were held by the court..." So how in the world can the children's US passports "have always been retained by the Plaintiff?"

Raymond Yeo spoke at the May 2010 Legal Practice Skills Development Series on Family Law. It is surprising that he can make such an inaccurate statement in a letter to a District Judge. Raymond should withdraw his letter and submit one that is closer to reality.

Tuesday, 22 March 2011

Solicitor Raymond Yeo Letter Full of Inaccuracies

How can a letter like this be written to a District Judge? Yeo Letter to DJ Hing Mar17

Here is the Order of Court dated 3 March 2011 Official Order of Court 3 March 2011

First, the Court Order of 3 Mar ordered the twins returned to Dept 88 of the Los Angeles Superior Court by "close of business 14 March 2011" and Raymond Yeo tells the Judge in paragraph 3 that the children were in Singapore and ready for travel on morning 15 March 2011. Do you see the breach of the Judge's order? At least he informed the Judge "respectfully." Second, in paragraph 4, what is the name of the Immigration attorney? No immigration attorney worth his or her salt would advise anyone to break US laws on US passports. A US citizen (dual nationality included) is required by the 1952 Immigration Act to enter and exit the United States using a valid US passport. Raymond, let's have the name of the immigration attorney. There are 2 problems in paragarph 5. It is NOT true that the children's US passports "have always been retained by the Plaintiff." The children's US passports were retained or confiscated by the California Superior Court in November 2006 because of flight risk, i.e. the mother might abduct the children. Then, Raymond Yeo says his client was in communication with the US Embassy. A copy of Yeo's letter was sent to the US Embassy to ask about the statement in paragraph 5. In her email reply, the Consular Officer says: "No, she did not communicate with us prior to March 15. It is also not our responsibility to inform her of the children's passport requirements. That being said if she had asked we would have told her." Paragraph 6 is another example of another breach of the Judge's orders. The Order was very clear that copies of tickets were to be provided by 7 March 2011. Yeo's letter states the letter of 10 March 2011 provided the copies of the tickets. March 10 is AFTER March 7 so it is LATE. Paragraph 7 is a good one Raymond. The US passports were not in your client's control because they were retained - confiscated by the California Superior Court in 2006 because she was deemed a flight risk, i.e. she might abduct the children (See comment about paragraph 5 above). You are representing an internationally wanted Felon who kidnapped her children! There is a 4-count Felony arrest warrant from the State of California and a Federal warrant for "Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution" from the FBI out on your client. KYC: Know Your Client.