Lex Lies and Videotape ±
Enter more text here
20170331 Two Case Studies – Singapoor Advice from Attorneys
This must be the classic lawyer fraud. Whilst the e-mails are self-explanatory Doraslimey obtained SGD 15,000 from me. After a ridiculous delay, he claimed to have performed work. However work could have only been performed if he had accessed the correct files from one of our systems, which forensics demonstrates he did not!!
I knew there would be some type of issue as it relates to my freight which appears to be magical! I am not sure what is so interesting about beds, Shihara’s catpole, some chairs and some computery items!
A typical South Asian – ‘denying all allegations‘ – this statement is an automatic one which is usually false and completely meaningless against forensic evidence.
As such when various adversaries of mine have got themselves into a mess, their ‘false exculpatory statements confirm evidence of their intent and/or consciousness of guilt‘ – I prefer these to open confessions even!
In fact in the following response, if I were the lawyer I would have written ‘Your allegations are denied’ rather than ‘All your allegations are denied’ as it really ties him down and restricts his options. Same for ‘fully within our rights’ would have been better without the word ‘fully’. As it happens he is not within his rights to fraudulently charge for work that he has not performed and his garbage is just laughable!
And for some reason he decided to incur further costs for me with Hill Dickinson after being found out, and Chris Edwards incurred further costs wasting my time trying to justify that nothing improper had occurred. That was HD’s mistake. They simply should have cut Dork loose rather than cover for him (after endorsing him) and waste my time unnecessarily.
Sadly the Asian Culture is about justification after doing the wrong thing and it seems to have rubbed off on HD as well. However I spoke to Chris today who is an excellent lawyer and the Doraslimey incident is water under the bridge – HD will be re-engaged in due course.
Edward de Saram, Margaret Cunniffe and I had visited RHT Law on or around 06 March 2012. The meeting had gone well, and upon leaving we were informed that they would be able to assist with both matters and would phone to explain the minutiae of the next steps.
Margaret and I were having lunch and this is the call received from Amita Dutt. I expect lawyers to be able to communicate effectively rather than speak in riddles and attempt to sugar-coat bad news generally.
In this particular call the lawyer could simply have said ‘I spoke to my colleagues and we are unable to assist you with XYZ and ABC at this time‘.
Instead I received some rubbish about how RHT Law has ‘determined’ that which was in MY best interest. Surely I would be the person who knows what is in my best interest but once again the South Asian culture of ‘the community knows best’ and ‘don’t question anyone of authority’ prevails. It is apparent that Dudd’s phrase is that which is in THEIR interest but she prefers to package the lies as if she is doing me some favour!!
RHT Law were specifically told that KhattarWong had already been negligent – so for Dudd to tell me that I should stick with them because the following weeks were going to be important made no sense whatsoever. The bottom line is that RHT Law lacked confident to enter the transaction (around SGD 3.6 million) and make a decision as to whether to let it proceed and then rescind it on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentation by the vendors, or whether to rescind it immediately.
And even after Dudd can see that her dim statements are getting nowhere, her solution is merely to repeat them rather than take an alternative approach. I did not know that I had to explain such fundamental strategies.
In Japan they consider it a great shame if they cannot deliver on that which was promised. In South Asia they are so fragile that they need to protect that ‘image’ as much as possible. It is all about ‘looking good’ and being superficial rather than actually looking bad but being good. I ‘look’ bad all the time but that is due to my lack of marketing and the lies of the Melbourne Fraudsters!
Furthermore, because of the confusing way that Dudd was determining that which my best interest was, I was not sure if she was alluding to me providing a specific indemnity in favour of them so that they could undertake the work. People are simply not direct in this part of the world, as the culture is about complaisance – dutt-kissing!
This is the fundamental problem with attorneys in Singapore in which they prefer to lie, mislead and misrepresent and take a course of action which they know demonstrates a lack of duty of care. But it is absolutely fine because they can go around with their sad stories and get others who are similarly dense to buy into their GroupThink. This is just one call – I have thousands of calls and e-mails from these ‘artists’.
This slimey way of transacting business is something that I find incredibly irritating and then these fools self-victimise and say I am the one with the problem.
Perhaps if Dudd did not over-promise and blindly agree (and commit to undertaking work in South Asian fashion in the first place without properly considering the entirety of the facts and potential issues), then my expectations would not have been raised to be subsequently dashed. That is the other thing about South Asians – absolutely no prescience or logic.
In fact I found Dudd’s logical flaws the most irritating.
Remember kids, Just Say No.
Seriously if these lawyers are going to lie about me then I will simply tell the truth about them. I had thought that discretion is the better part of valour, but because these two-faced asians have been going around with a smear campaign, I will demonstrate far superior fire power.
I have to say once again I find it odd that recordings of lawyers (and often their negligence) have been erased from our systems. This further gives credibility to my assertion that disgruntled attorneys are producing self-serving affidavits to somehow ‘try and teach me a lesson’, and to further the fraud of David Brown / Margaret Cunniffe / Simon Thompson…
20170308 INITIAL – Just Say No
Attorneys should not accept briefs when there are obvious conflicts!
One of the most ridiculous issues since Rhodium Group and its associates (“Rhodium”) and I started litigating against the Melbourne Fraudsters is the level of Tortious Interference and Injurious Falsehoods that we have been on the receiving end of.
Furthermore, the attorneys in this part of the world are invariably mediocre, and the ‘Asian Culture’ means that they ‘don’t question the parents, don’t question the teacher, don’t question the police’.
Additionally ‘people are complaisant and are obsessed in their perception of other’s perception of them which drives their daily lives’. There is also the concept of ‘trying to get away with things without being caught’ as opposed to how UK people are ‘self-disciplined and act within the law’.
My fairly direct, hardcore personality type in which I really don’t care what people think, means that I am a ‘trouble-maker’ in an environment that suffers from GroupThink. Asians in Asia seem to be indirect, manipulative and two-faced to an incredible degree.
Ironically Asians in the UK and US do not have this problem and are some of the brightest people I know.
To be frank if the attorneys worked properly then there would be no issues – their continual failures and illogical thinking are responsible for their issues. Perhaps if they did not blindly agree to everything ‘Asian Style’ and were able to assess their own abilities correctly, then they would not over-promise and deliver garbage.
The other issue is that the Australian Courts are used to easy-learning documents, which have no detail and are summaries. If the summary does not correctly reflect the raw data then the existence of the summary is somehow more accurate than source materials.
My various attorneys have calls with me on the phone, and then the e-mail they produce afterwards does not reflect the discussions that just transpired. It then becomes a Quality Assurance exercise for me, and all these fools bombard me with lies, and my time pressure and visits to the Coronary Care Unit allows them to turn their lies into facts.
Time is the Enemy not Money
I have so many cases in which my own attorneys have messed up, committed frauds against me, perverted the course of justice and then have the audacity to lie afterwards and blame me.
Given the fact that I and Rhodium have access to significant asset positions (despite complex structures) we are not fazed by these issues. However we do need a bit of time to ascertain the root cause of the problem and especially when the Melbourne Fraudsters are inciting violence against me and they are instigating the destruction of our evidence against them.
Exposing the Attorney Fraud
Here are just two of the letters I sent to the fraudsters – note how I demonstrate experience of law enforcement tactics, which are the underlying reason that these lawyers are lying.
This article is still being written…
But do I take the attorneys apart first, and see which law enforcement agency they run to, or do I take the law enforcement agency apart first and watch the attorneys squirm as their lifeline is cut? Tricky 🙂
Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)