Dear Derek / Lynette,
1. I refer to your letter dated 19th June 2014.
2. You state, in point 2, that it is “inappropriate to engage in correspondence” with me as investigations are underway, but you go on to “engage in correspondence” with me from points 3 to 7. I take it to mean that your statements are contradictory.
3. In the meantime, I wholly deny and refute your plain accusatory statements that whatever I have written in my emails and on my blog (not a website!) are “plainly defamatory in nature”. Please prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that my statements are defamatory. I maintain that they are not.
4. Please note that in my emails, I have made reference to other parties not to justify my actions, but to point out that you have not done your due diligence in checking that certain terms used, such as “fake entity”, did not originate from me, but is from The Straits Times article published on 19 Nov 2013. PLEASE read it here: http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/acra-warns-fake-entity-asking-companies-verify-their-details-20131119
5. If as you say, that “Whatever other parties may have done is not relevant to the issue of culpability for (my) own actions”, I maintain that I have every right to quote from an article published in 2013, and which is accessible to all. If you and your client did not take issue with the term “fake entity” used in 2013, accessible till today on a vastly more visible platform than my blog, it means it is firstly, non-defamatory, and secondly, permitted for public consumption on virtual platforms.
6. In my emails, I have not “denied that the statements in (my) website are defamatory” because my instruction to you was to do your due diligence and not to wrongfully accuse me of coming up with the term “fake entity”. It has not been alleged as being “defamatory” in its original source, by you or your client, so I did not feel the need to insult your intelligence by stating the obvious. Was I wrong?
7. I further note that you have blatantly disregarded certain crucial portions of my email dated 17 June 2014, in which I clearly state that your law firm has “caused me unnecessary distress, loss of income and sleep in awaiting your response on 16 June 2014” with regard to your issuance of the statement “We are presently taking our client’s instructions on the contents of your various emails and we will respond to you in due course later today” in an email sent to me on 16 June 2014, 12:35pm. I note that you would be willing to plead guilty to this charge, without even the decency of sending me an apology.
8. Separately, you allege that I have made “various written threats” in my email of 17 June 2014. Those do not constitute threats and your allegation that these constitute threats has no basis in fact or in law.
9. I have no defamatory statements to make about your client here. It is, simply, unfortunate that:
(i) The company is now “facing a total of 104 charges in court” brought against it by ACRA (https://www.facebook.com/Official938LIVE/posts/731321466924467)
(ii) The Commercial Affairs Department has “seized the monies from the company’s bank account” (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/police-confirm-data/1175052.html)
(iii) ACRA has seen the need to issue a total of 4 public alerts about Data Register (http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/premium/singapore/acra-issues-4th-public-alert-data-register-20140619)
10. I have never intended to defame your client, because there was never any need to.
11. All my rights are expressly reserved, including my right to not receive letters of harassment from legal firms. I advise you to cease and desist.
[To read the blogpost that somehow got me the first legal letter, click here]
*Here’s what I advise people to do when they receive those letters / emails / bills -> What To Do…