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

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.