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 Raymond?
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
Tuesday, 12 April 2011
Thursday, 24 March 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, 22 March 2011
What is Wrong with Raymond Yeo's Letter to the Family Court
How can Raymond Yeo write such a letter to the District Judge that contains so many inaccuracies?
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. Let's have the name of the attorney Raymond.
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.
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. Let's have the name of the attorney Raymond.
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.
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
Abduction of Christopher and William Ko to Singapore
Raymond Yeo represents the kidnapper who took the 10 year old twins from the US to Singapore on Aug31 2009.
The kidnapper Yuxin Mei Wang contravened an existing US custody order and fled to Singapore to deny the father Andrew Ko of his rights to be a part of his children's lives. She is wanted by Interpol, US FBI and the State of California.
Raymond Yeo's client Wang continues to defy the US court orders to return the children. Raymond Yeo also ignores the Registrar's deadlines for submissions and files Affidavits late. Is there no respect for orders of court?
The kidnapper Yuxin Mei Wang contravened an existing US custody order and fled to Singapore to deny the father Andrew Ko of his rights to be a part of his children's lives. She is wanted by Interpol, US FBI and the State of California.
Raymond Yeo's client Wang continues to defy the US court orders to return the children. Raymond Yeo also ignores the Registrar's deadlines for submissions and files Affidavits late. Is there no respect for orders of court?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)