The unOfficial Rodyk & Davidson Website
Rodyk & Davidson LLP is a full-service leading Singapore law firm with offices in Singapore and Shanghai and associated offices in Jakarta and New Delhi. Rodyk also has some very interesting connections in narco-states Myanmar, Afghanistan - and now Morocco!
Rodyk's International Crime and Narco Networks
Rodyk's Narco Connections
Center of it all (until Jan 1, 2011)!
James Riady, convicted in the USA and banned from the USA!
Now, he is the boss of Helen Rodyk's husband, Yeo Cheow Tong.
Yeo Cheow Tong fired as cabinet minister, fired from Singapore Parliament, fired from PAP, now Riady's boy!
He used is influence to ban Escape from Paradise from Singapore. Yeo's action was illegal since Escape from Paradise was NOT banned by the Singapore government.
We almost caught up with Yeo in London in 2003, as were were being followed by two Singapore intelligence officers.
Helen Yeo, wife of Yeo Cheow Tong.
Helen's "First Dude" is in the background. She lost all that money on property!
Now Helen will no longer be the managing partner of Rodyk - she is OUT!
We sued her in the United States District Court, District of Arizona, but she never dared appear.
If we catch her in America, she will be sued.
Helen's sister, spy Juliana Tan, with boyfriend and former mercenary for Israel, Dan de Mirmont ,in Myanmar.
Dan left Myanmar for Kabul Afghanistan - then to Fez Marocco.
After Dan de Mirmont dumped Juliana, she married another guy.
Her new husband is reported to be U Kyaw Win, a Kokang Chinese banker in Myanmar, and friend of Burma's narco-elite.
Dan de Mirmont in Afghanistan
Dan de Mirmont is cited by a major French news source, Le Point:
The Bistro is a unique institution in Kabul. And also is its owner. For 35 years Dan de Mirmont has been plying his trade in Asia, from China where he was selling arms to Burma, where he set up a French restaurant, to Taiwan where he taught French, or Cambodia, where he enjoyed the beauties Angkor.
In 1967 Dan traveled from the south of France to become a diplomat at the Quai d'Orsay, then he made a connection with Israel, where he became a mercenary for three years.
Now Dan is in Fez, Morocco.
Rodyk's New Tamil Terrorist Connections
|Tamils take over Rodyk as Helen Yeo is booted out!
She was just a little too "controversial," and the activities of her husband, Yeo Cheow Tong don't help.
Helen's karki (stooge), Philip Jeyaretnam, has replaced her at Rodyk. Helen Yeo, her husband and her sister had become involved to too many shady deals.
Philip Jeyaretnam has stated, "There are a number of things which Helen has built for the firm and which I would plan to continue, these include Rodyk's ... regional strategy - which includes China, Indonesia and to a lesser extent India."
Hey, Philip, why didn't you mention Myanmar, Morocco, the Tamils, and Afghanistan?
News Flash, March 19, 2011 - Escape from Paradise never banned - it was Helen Yeo's strong-arm tactics!
I received a message today from MDA, Singapore's Media Development Authority, regarding our book, Escape from Paradise. MDA is responsible for the difficult task of censoring books and other media in accordance with Singapore's values.
The message is below and shows that our book was not censored or banned by Singapore. It was removed from Singapore's National Library, and no longer sold in Singapore due to the strong-armed tactics and threats to bookstores from Helen Yeo, wife of former cabinet minister Yeo Cheow Tong.
Due to the actions of Helen Yeo, our book, Escape from Paradise, has been misrepresented to be a book against Singapore, when this is not the case.
Escape from Paradise is the story of a family starting with the Tiger Balm Kings, the Aw brothers in Burma, down to a present day member of that family, a young lady in Singapore.
Escape from Paradise has received all 5-star reviews on Amazon, and has been extremely well-reviewed by its readers - except for one person - Helen Yeo.
We send our sincere thanks to MDA for this clarification.
From: "Customer Service" <email@example.com>
To: "John Harding" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 19 May 2011 09:23:42 +0800
Subject:[F11016729] Content & Standards- Publications Content CRM:0085067
Dear John Harding,
I refer to your query on the book "Escape from Paradise". Publications are self regulated by the industry, with importers referring them to the MDA when they are in doubt. "Escape from Paradise" has not been submitted to the MDA.
Should you require further assistance, please reply to this email.
Kindly click here to rate this feedback, to better understand your needs.
|U.S. Senate moves against Singapore to protect Escape from Paradise
In response to Alan Shadrake's being arrested in Singapore over his book, Once a Jolly Hangman, and Helen Yeo's threats to sue for libel over Escape from Paradise, on July 19th, the US Senate passed a bill to shield US journalists, authors, and publishers from "libel tourists" who file suit in countries where they expect to get the most favorable ruling. The Senate approved the measure in a "unanimous consent" voice vote.
The popular legislation headed to the House of Representatives, which was expected to approve it and send the measure to US President Barack Obama to sign into law.
Backers of the bill have cited Singapore as the major country where weak libel safeguards attract lawsuits that unfairly harm US journalists, writers and publishers.
The measure would prevent US federal courts from recognizing or enforcing a foreign judgment for defamation that is inconsistent with the first amendment of the US Constitution and would bar foreign parties in such cases from targeting the US assets of an American author, journalist, or publisher as part of any damages.
Helen Yeo, ex-Managing Partner
From 3in1KOPITIAM - What people are saying about Helen Yeo
Yes. Another unspoken understanding is "You-know-what-to-do".
For example, Yong Pung How.LKY said,"My schoolmate buddy, I made you CJ, ok?"
YPH said,"Sure.. '.....'". '.....' is "I know what to do"
Another instance, Yeo Cheow Tong.
LKY said,"Your wife and you abused your influence and power, what's the meaning of this ?"
Helen Yeo, together with the IRAS, Singapore's property assessor, with the suspected help of her husband, then Cabinet Minister Yeo Cheow Tong, altered dates in the title deeds or some legal documents to help May Chu's father to hide his asset as May Chu's mum was seeking divorce.
The property was listed as sold, before it was was actually sold.
The official government document proving this assertion was subsequently taken down by IRA Singapore, but too late, it was posted at Escape from Paradise website. Helen Yeo was stupid enough to blow up the whole matter by taking the law into her own hand - misrepresenting.
Our condolences to Helen Yeo on the humiliating firing of her husband, Yeo Cheow Tong, from his position as Singapore Cabinet Minister. Now she must also live with the fact that her husband is has lost his ministerial job and even been thrown out of parliament.
We understand Mr. Yeo has made some bad investments, and hope the Yeos don't go broke.
(The infamous TT Durai formerly worked at Rodyk)
Rodyk is a full-service law firm with offices in Singapore, Shanghai and Hong Kong. Before its merger with Rodyk, Helen Yeo & Partners had a fake office in a dress shop in Rangoon. Click for the fake office. Go to the bottom of the page to "Yangon Office - check the address. It is the same as Helen's spy sister Juliana Tan's shop - J'S IRRAWADDY DREAM, 59, Taw Win Rd, shown on this site - the contact info is the same!!!
Rodyk represents a diverse clientele in a broad spectrum of industries and businesses, providing comprehensive representation across all major areas of the law and leveraging regional offices and international networks for global representation.
Rodyk lost the S$31,359.53 lawsuit to the author of the book, Escape from Paradise, for overcharging. Managing partner, Helen Yeo, and her husband, Singapore Cabinet Minister Yeo Cheow Tong, were able to get Escape from Paradise banned in Singapore. This shows how Rodyk can use its influence for YOUR case. (See sidebar for more information.
Rodyk's team of lawyers is ready to help you. Helen should be especially eager to work hard, as it has been reported that her husband, Cabinet Minster Yeo Cheow Tong, has run into financial difficulties. According to reports, he purchased apartments with only 10% down, and the rents no longer cover his mortgage payments. Any help you can give -- please!
The advantages of the Singapore's rogue legal system are:
Singapore has virtually no extradition treaties with neighboring countries. This makes Singapore an excellent haven for crooks from the region. If you are a crook, try Rodyk!
Singapore is not a signatory to the Hague Convention. If you are in Singapore this gives excellent protection from foreign law suits. It will be virtually impossible for foreign courts to effect legal service on you. A Singapore judge must serve the papers. Now would a Singapore judge serve Helen Yeo, wife of Singapore Cabinet Minister Yeo Cheow Tong, with a lawsuit coming from the authors of Escape from Paradise? Certainly not!
Rodyk has an Anglo-Saxon name, which may lead our clients to believe we are staffed with those familiar with expensive foreign talents, familiar with British and American law. In truth, both Rodyk & Davidson are long gone.
and Kenneth Jeyaretnam
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
C O N F I D E N T I A L SINGAPORE 001010
EAP/MTS FOR M. COPPOLA
SUBJECT: SINGAPORE COOPERATES ON EXTRADITION OF TAMIL TIGER SUPPORTER
Classified By: CDA Daniel Shields, reasons 1.4(b,d)
Singapore Acts to Extradite Tamil Tiger Supporter
¶1. (C) Singapore citizen Balraj Naidu Ragavan is under U.S. indictment for violating the Arms Export Control Act and committing other crimes in connection with attempts to broker weapons sales to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in 2006. The United States formally requested Naidu's extradition on July 9. Singapore authorities then arrested Naidu for violations of Singapore's Strategic Goods Control Act and released him on bail after seizing his passport. They rearrested him on September 22 on a warrant arising from the U.S. extradition request, and preliminary extradition proceedings began shortly thereafter. The court has not yet scheduled the final extradition hearing, but Embassy law enforcement officials who are following the proceeding expect the matter to move quickly.
Opposition Party Surprised by Arrest of Former Official
¶2. (C) Naidu was until recently on the central executive council of the Reform Party, a small political party founded in 2008 by the late opposition icon J.B. Jeyaretnam; Naidu remains a party member. J.B. Jeyaretnam's son Kenneth now heads the Reform Party after wrapping up a career in hedge fund management spent mostly in Hong Kong and London. When the news of Naidu's arrest and possible extradition broke, Kenneth Jeyaretnam was quoted by local media as saying that it came as a "complete surprise" to him. Jeyaretnam added that the allegations against Naidu pertained to a time before the Reform Party existed and the party had no knowledge of the case. Jeyaretnam also said the Reform Party would help Naidu find legal counsel in the United States, and he and another party official attended an October 5 court proceeding in the extradition case. Jeyaretnam declared he was confident that Naidu would receive a fair trial in the United States.
Local Press Highlights Naidu's Reform Party Connection
¶3. (SBU) Singapore's broadsheet newspaper, the government-linked Straits Times, has heavily emphasized Naidu's Reform Party connection in its reporting on the case. Its September 30 coverage ran under the title "Reform Party man wanted in U.S.: U.S. govt seeks extradition of businessman to face terror charges." The October 6 follow-up report also highlighted Naidu's opposition links with the headline "Reform Party backs man wanted in U.S." - though the article itself reported that Kenneth Jeyaretnam had simply cited the legal presumption of Naidu's innocence. Half of each article dwelled on Naidu's links to the Reform Party and the party's response to the allegations against him.
Helen Yeo, ex-Managing Partner of Rodyk takes revenge over author, because Rodyk lost a lawsuit to the author, had to pay damages, and Rodyk senior partner disbarred for misconduct.
Helen Yeo, takes out her revenge by having author's book banned in Singapore
Here is the proof. Rodyk's letter
Rodyk Senior Partner, Dennis Singham had overcharged one of Rodyk's clients, May Chu Harding.
Mrs. Harding successfully sued Rodyk and won S$31,359.53.
To revenge this loss, Helen Yeo then threatened a lawsuit against Mrs. Harding's book, Escape from Paradise.
She also had her husband, then Singapore Cabinet Minister Yeo Cheow Tong ban the book in Singapore.
Helen Yeo's husband, Singapore Cabinet Minister Yeo Cheow Tong, had all 25 copies of our book removed from Singapore's National Library.
Helen Yeo, the Managing Partner of Rodyk, also threatened to sue Kinokinuya Books and other Singapore bookstores over Escape from Paradise.
Helen was also concerned that Escape from Paradise might expose her in the following deal.
Helen Yeo Buys House for Fugitive
Wife of owner tricked into believing that the house was sold before it was sold.
Helen Yeo was involved in the sale of May Chu's parent's house at 69 Holland Road to Indonesian fugitive and crook, Liem Tek Siong (alias Sjamsul Nursalim, alias Liem Tjoen Ho). The proceeds of the sale (S$4 to 8 million) went to the client's father, Lee Teng Jin (grandson of Aw Boon Par), despite his ongoing divorce and a legal caveat.
The property was recorded as sold, before it was actually sold. This tricked May Chu's mother into believing the she could not claim the house as part of her divorce settlement. This enabled her husband, Lee Teng Jin, to flee Singapore with the proceeds.
See the documentary proof, here!
Bankruptcy Act Violated by Helen Yeo
Seller's family maintains that the sale was in contravention of the Bankruptcy Act, due to the time between the sale of the properties and the owner’s bankruptcy.
Seller of 69 Holland Road (now rebuilt as Holland Mews) Disappeared for 10 years, and has now reappeared!
May Chu Hardings father, Lee Teng Jin, subsequently disappeared with the funds from the sale of his house, and was hiding out for 10 years.
On July 9, 2005, he was again seen in Singapore, according to an email Mrs. Harding received from the Singapore police.
On October 20, 2005 he appeared in Singapore Family Court to face his former wife, Mabel Wee and was discharged from bankruptcy since returning to Singapore.
Subsequently, Lee attempted to sue his former girlfiend. Guess she got some of his money, what?
At present, he is back living happily in Singapore.
Helen Yeo Threatens to Sue Former Client's Husband
Helen Yeo, Rodyk's Managing Partner, later threatened to sue May Chu's husband to have his book banned in Singapore.
Helen Yeo's Husband Attacks Client
Helen Yeo dodges author's US Lawsuit
Helen Yeo never did sue, but we sued her in the US Federal District Court, Districtof Arizona over the banning of Escape from Paradise.
Our process server is on watch should Helen Yeo travel to the United States.
To defend ourselves against Rodyk's revenge, we have set up two websites to expose Helen Yeo, and her clients.
If you are a client of Rodyk & Davidson of Singapore you are putting yourself at risk!
If you become a client of Rodyk & Davidson, you may well wind up on one of our websites. The decision is yours.
The two websites are:
Here are some Rodyk Clients
Philip Jeyaretnam was Helen Yeo's favorite karki (stooge) until she was booted out of Rodyk.
Unlike his father, who has been sued and bankrupted by opposition politicians,
He is allegedly connected to terrorists wanted by the U.S. Government, through his connection with his brother, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, backer of Balldev Naidu, who was extradited from Singapore to the U.S. There he was and convicted and imprisoned as a terrorist.
Statement by Mr Lok Vi Ming, Senior Counsel and Partner of Rodyk & Davidson Advocates and Solicitors
"Right now, Singapore law as an entity is still largely unknown to many of the Chinese parties.
"Chinese companies coming out of China to this part of the world is slowly emerging. And as these companies continue to grow in terms of sophistication and financial investment, this is an issue that's going to be more and more crucial in the years to come."
Of course Singapore law as an entity is still unknown to the China. Like others, China has yet to learn that Singapore law is no law at all -- simply a collection of corrupt judges and lawyers.
Rodyk Partner Disbarred
Rodyk partner, Dennis Singham. was subseqently disbarred for having an affair with one of his female Rodyk clients! Singham disappeared, and all that was left was his calling card, which he gave to Mrs. Harding.
Dennis Mahendran Singham has now resurfaced. He has a modest firm at:
151 Chin Swee Road #03-21
The case for which Dennis Singham of Rodyk was suspended from practice:
The Law Society of Singapore v Singham M Dennis SGDSC 7
Tribunal: Disciplinary Committee
1. Mr Dennis Mahendran Singham ("the Respondent") is an advocate and solicitor of some 25 years' standing. He is now a partner in the firm of Dennis Singham Teresa Chan & Partners.
2. It is alleged on the part of the Law Society that sexual encounters took place between the Respondent and Ms Leong while the Respondent stood in a professional relationship with her. In the event, the Respondent was charged before this Committee as follows (the alternative charge having been added after the commencement of the hearing):
4. Dennis is guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duties within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161,1997 Revised Edition) in that he did carry on a sexual relationship with one Angela Leong, in which firm he was a Partner sometime between 20th April 1995 and the 18th October 1995 during which period he was the solicitor having the conduct of divorce proceedings instituted in the High Court by the said Angela Leong .
5. Dennis is guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161,1997 Revised Edition) in that he did carry on a sexual relationship with one Angela Leong in which firm he was a Partner sometime between the 20th April 1995 and the 18th October 1995 during which period he was the solicitor having the conduct of divorce proceedings instituted in the High Court by the said Angela Leong.
10. The learned Judicial Commissioner's direction resulted in the appointment of this Disciplinary Committee, to hear and investigate the charges against the Respondent referred to above.
THE CASE FOR THE LAW SOCIETY
11. The Law Society's case was that the Respondent had conduct of the proceedings for the dissolution of Ms Leong's marriage, instituted by Rodyk & Davidson on her behalf, and that the Respondent carried on a sexual relationship with Ms Leong while a solicitor and client relationship was in existence between them.
THE ISSUES IN THIS INQUIRY
MS LEONG'S EVIDENCE
14. Ms Leong's evidence in chief was by way of an affidavit ("the second affidavit"). The exhibits referred to in this section are those annexed to the second affidavit. This, essentially, was Ms Leong's story:
15. She first met the Respondent on the 10th April, in his office. She retained him as her solicitor for the purposes of instituting divorce proceedings against Peter Yeo, and gave him instructions concerning the state of her marriage. A second meeting was held two days later, for the purposes of drafting the petition.
16. Following the meeting, the Respondent gave Ms Leong a lift back to her office, during the course of which he suggested that Ms Leong should use his chauffeur to drive her mother to hospital for twice weekly dialysis.
17. A second meeting took place between Ms Leong and the Respondent a few mornings later, for the purpose of drafting the petition. The Respondent invited Ms Leong to lunch. The Respondent was attentive, spoke about his own marital problems, and paid the bill for the lunch.
18. A third meeting was then held. All three meetings took place between the 10th and 19th April. The Respondent again invited Ms Leong to lunch, this time at an expensive Italian restaurant. The Respondent remarked that he would not have considered taking his wife to such a restaurant. He professed that he had been attracted to Ms Leong from the day she had first walked into his office. As they left the restaurant, the Respondent kissed Ms Leong on the cheek. Shortly after this meeting, the Respondent went to England for a brief visit. While there he telephoned Ms Leong, but she was out. After his return to Singapore the Respondent repeatedly invited Ms Leong out for drinks at the American Club. This became a daily routine.
47. Accordingly, this issue is answered in the affirmative.
Whether a sexual relationship between the Respondent and Ms Leong took place while the Respondent was Ms Leong's solicitor.
48. The Committee answers this issue in the affirmative. It concluded, on the basis of Ms Leong's evidence, which the Committee accepted, and exhibits AL-4 and AL-5 above, that the Respondent and Ms Leong had sex for the first time during their stay at the Shangri-la Hotel in Kuala Lumpur between the 12th and 15th May and again, at the same venue, from the 25th to 29th May. The Committee rejected, as wholly incredible, the Respondent's evidence that sexual relations only began after the decree nisi was pronounced on the 6th July.
49. Furthermore, the Committee accepted Ms Leong's evidence that, following the move to No. 53 Jalan Puteh Jemah, she and the Respondent had sexual relations on numerous occasions at that address and, both before and after the move, in the Respondent's parked car in the Botanical Gardens.
50. The Respondent admits to having had sexual relations with Ms Leong after the 6th July, but claims that the relationship at this level only began after the solicitor and client relationship had ceased to subsist. The Committee rejects that assertion.
51. The Committee finds as a fact that sexual relations took place between the Respondent and Ms Leong on a regular basis between Decree Nisi and Decree Absolute, in Singapore, Pangkor Laut, Paris and London. The Committee concludes, as a matter of law, that a relationship of solicitor and client subsisted between the Respondent and Ms Leong throughout this period.
55. The Committee was left in no doubt, as a matter of fact, that sexual relations took place between the Respondent and Ms Leong while the Respondent was Ms Leong's solicitor and incidentally but importantly, that as a matter of law and fact, the relationship occurred while Ms Leong's marriage to Peter Yeo continued to subsist.
56. Issue 2 is accordingly answered in the affirmative.
Whether the Respondent's conduct, in engaging in a sexual relationship with Ms Leong while he was her solicitor, amounted to grossly improper conduct within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the Act; alternatively, whether by reason of such conduct the Respondent was guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor, within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the Act.
63. While it is true to say that the sexual relations which took place between the Respondent and Ms Leong were consensual, the Committee accepted Ms Leong's evidence to the effect that the Respondent lavished attention and blandishments on her at a time when she was emotionally vulnerable. The Committee does not regard it as necessary or proper to determine whether the Respondent deliberately stood in the way of a reconciliation between Ms Leong and her then husband, since this factor does not constitute an element of the charge, or of the amended charge.
64. Suffice it to say that it was open to Ms Leong, at anytime after she caused proceedings to be commenced against her husband, to change her mind, relent and take him back. The Respondent compromised Ms Leong's freedom to exercise her mind in this way. He may have concluded that Ms Leong had shut the door to reconciliation (she had, for example, made a police report against Peter Yeo), but that was not a judgment it was proper for the Respondent to make. Having made it, he set about wooing Ms Leong to the point of declaring, at a time when her marriage to Peter Yeo still subsisted, that she would one day become his wife. That, in the view of this Committee, amounted to conduct on the part of the Respondent which was wholly unacceptable of an advocate and solicitor, in that he placed his personal interests in direct conflict with the possible interests or wishes of Ms Leong. After all, she had once before been reconciled with Peter Yeo. Up until the day before the Decree Nisi was pronounced, Peter Yeo was begging for a reconciliation. Had it not been for the Respondent's all-pervading presence, a reconciliation might have come about again. After all, Ms Leong had no children, and that her closest relative was a seriously ailing mother.
65. Accordingly, we had no hesitation in concluding that the Respondent was guilty of a disciplinable offence. The question which exercised our minds was whether his behaviour should rightly be described as "grossly improper', in the sense of flagrantly wrong; or whether his conduct might more aptly be represented as "unbecoming", in the sense of being unsuitable or inappropriate.
66. After considerable deliberation, we took the view that, in all the circumstances, the Respondent's conduct was grossly improper. In so concluding we took into account the fact that, in our assessment, Ms Leong is an intelligent, articulate and resourceful woman who ultimately turned her unfortunate experience with the Respondent to her financial advantage. We were nevertheless left in no doubt that the Respondent deliberately set out to seduce Ms Leong at a time when she was relatively defenceless, and that he did so while she remained married, and thus in a position to effect a reconciliation with Peter Yeo, if she was so minded. As a senior lawyer of some 25 years' standing, the Respondent would have been aware that his professional duty throughout this period was to act solely in Ms Leong's interests. He manifestly failed to do so.
67. In the event, we answer the third issue in the affirmative and determine that the Respondent is guilty of the charge of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duties under section 83(2)(b) of the Act.