Archive for the ‘AMAC’ Category

CHC Trial 20, September, 2016

CHC Trial 20, September, 2016 (2) CHC Trial 20, September, 2016 (1)

(credit goes to City News facebook)

http://www.citynews.sg/2016/09/city-harvest-appeal-judges-challenge-prosecutions-control-argument-mens-rea-revisited/

CHC Trial 16, September, 2016

CHC Trial 16, September, 2016 (1) CHC Trial 16, September, 2016 (2)

http://www.citynews.sg/2016/09/city-harvest-appeal-sharon-tans-lawyer-points-out-fatal-findings-of-trial-judgment/

(Photos taken From City News Facebook)

CHC Trial 15, September, 2016

 

CHC Trial 15, September, 2016

(credit to City News facebook)

http://www.citynews.sg/2016/09/city-harvest-trial-appeal-begins/

John Lam believed that investment into Xtron and Firna were genuine investment and redemption of bonds would be made via Ho’s album sales.
Lam’s involvement in the bond transaction were limited and episodic.
There was no intent to cause wrongful loss to the church.
Controlling the fund can be viewed managing the way the third party accessed church fund.

CHC Trial 20, November, 2015 Sentencing Day

http://www.citynews.sg/2015/11/city-harvest-trial-start-of-sentence-deferred-to-jan-2016/

And so, the leaders were convicted and sentenced.
I am still hoping they will appeal against the conviction and sentencing.
Anyway, my prayer is with them, their family and the church.

CHC Trial 21, October, 2015 (Day of Verdict)

IMG-20151021-WA0005

http://www.citynews.sg/2015/10/city-harvest-trial-church-will-forge-on-despite-verdict/

“For all the dreamers, our planet’s dream is not over yet.”
– Chrono Cross –

We lost the battle today.
But, it is not the last battle.
It is true that the current verdict is not favorable toward the leaders.
However, it is still not the end.
Remember the case of NUS professor who was involved in sex-for-grades case?
He was acquitted by the High Court.
I really think CHC leaders should appeal to High Court (assuming they have enough finance).
But for now, I guess they should really rest their mind and body.

Stay strong, CHC!

CHC Trial 15, September, 2015 (Oral Submission Day 3-Day 140)

City News 15 September 2015 Morning 1

City News 15 September 2015 Morning 2

City News 15 September 2015 Morning 3

City News 15 September 2015 Morning 4

City News 15 September 2015 Morning 5

City News 15 September 2015 Morning 6

Images taken from https://www.facebook.com/citynewssg?fref=ts

http://www.citynews.sg/2015/09/chc-trial-defense-burden-of-proof-lies-on-prosecution/

Somehow I have the impression one of the jobs of prosecution is to throw insults after insults at the accused.
These insults are then quoted by the mainstream media.
The readers then get the impression at the accused are “liars” as prosecution calls.
However, just because prosecution calls them “liars”, it does not mean the leaders are really “liars”.
In the end, I guess the leaders themselves are already immune with such characterization.
It is just not fair for the readers as they are led to believe these leaders are bad people.

Prosecution claimed the leaders misappropriated the building fund money.
In what way was it misappropriation when building fund was invested through bonds?

Victory and good news for the leaders are on the way.
21, October, 2015. The date of their vindication.
Stay tuned.

CHC Trial 14, September, 2015 (Oral Submission Day 2-Day 139)

City News 14 September 2015 Morning 1

City News 14 September 2015 Morning 2

City News 14 September 2015 Morning 3

Images taken from https://www.facebook.com/citynewssg?fref=ts

http://www.citynews.sg/2015/09/chc-trial-edwin-tong-kong-hees-testimony-is-consistent/

Prosecution claimed CHC was a victim of CBT.
Seriously, that’s a bizarre claim.
SC Sreenivasan pointed out before: none of the prosecution’s own witnesses even suspected church lost money.
In other words, is there a victim? None at all.
In fact, I absolutely am confident if any of  the church board members had been asked to testify, none would have claimed CHC was a victim.

CHC leaders are winning as the prosecution seriously have no direct evidence.
The best they do is simply to draw inference.
But really, how accurate is an inference?
Inference is like drawing a straight line between two points and insisting it must only be a straight line even though in reality these two points are part of a curve.

All the best, CHC leaders!