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.
Sunday, 19 December 2010
Child Abduction is NOT a Crime
Child Abduction is NOT a crime in Singapore and is treated as a domestic dispute. When will it become a crime?
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 05:53:38 -0800
Subject: Re: Interpol Red Notice for Wang
Dear Mr. Voo,
By way of introduction, I run the Bring Sean Home Foundation, a non-profit established to assist victims of international child abduction.
Let me just say in response to your email that part of the problem with how these cases are treated by law enforcement is that they are NOT "custody disputes," as you describe Mr. Ko's case. International parental child abduction is a crime and should be treated as such. The fact that the abductor happens to be a parent does not diminish the seriousness of the crime. The custody issues that arise from these abduction cases are meant to be dealt with in the country where the child habitually resided prior to the abduction -- in this case the United States.
Regards,
Mark DeAngelis
Co-Founder, Bring Sean Home Foundation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris VOO
Sent: Thu, November 11, 2010 8:35:06 AM
Subject: RE: Interpol Red Notice for Wang
Dear Sir
I refer to your emails dated 11 October 2010 and 25 October 2010.
2. Your case and those cases which you had mentioned in your latest email, including the case relating to the Romanian Dr Ionescu, are different.
3. The case relating to your ex-wife and yourself pertains to a custody dispute concerning her two children. We note that the Singapore High Court has since made an order for Ms Wang Yu Xin Mei to return to the U.S. to resolve the matter. You should therefore allow the court processes to run its course.
Regards,
Chris
Head Investigation
Ang Mo Kio Police Division
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 05:53:38 -0800
Subject: Re: Interpol Red Notice for Wang
Dear Mr. Voo,
By way of introduction, I run the Bring Sean Home Foundation, a non-profit established to assist victims of international child abduction.
Let me just say in response to your email that part of the problem with how these cases are treated by law enforcement is that they are NOT "custody disputes," as you describe Mr. Ko's case. International parental child abduction is a crime and should be treated as such. The fact that the abductor happens to be a parent does not diminish the seriousness of the crime. The custody issues that arise from these abduction cases are meant to be dealt with in the country where the child habitually resided prior to the abduction -- in this case the United States.
Regards,
Mark DeAngelis
Co-Founder, Bring Sean Home Foundation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris VOO
Sent: Thu, November 11, 2010 8:35:06 AM
Subject: RE: Interpol Red Notice for Wang
Dear Sir
I refer to your emails dated 11 October 2010 and 25 October 2010.
2. Your case and those cases which you had mentioned in your latest email, including the case relating to the Romanian Dr Ionescu, are different.
3. The case relating to your ex-wife and yourself pertains to a custody dispute concerning her two children. We note that the Singapore High Court has since made an order for Ms Wang Yu Xin Mei to return to the U.S. to resolve the matter. You should therefore allow the court processes to run its course.
Regards,
Chris
Head Investigation
Ang Mo Kio Police Division
www.bringthetwinshome.com
Finally, after 15 months father is able to visit the children. They certainly have grown and they are very different from the boys that were abducted by their mother on August 31, 2009. Please see www.bringthetwinshome.com
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
Ivan Chua Kim Boon is now the alledged father
In July 2009, Yuxin Mei Wang stated under oath that one "Ivan Ho" is the alledged biological father.
Now it seems there is another Ivan called Ivan CHUA Kim Boon with NRIC that ends in "J" is the alledged father.
How many more Ivan's are there? Can Wang please make up her mind?
Now it seems there is another Ivan called Ivan CHUA Kim Boon with NRIC that ends in "J" is the alledged father.
How many more Ivan's are there? Can Wang please make up her mind?
Saturday, 9 January 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)