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.
Thursday, 24 March 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)