Self-Litigant in Singapore: Addressing Flawed Logic and Contradictory Arguments

Self-Litigant Against Flawed Logic
Navigating Legal Disputes in Singapore:
Addressing Flawed Logic and
Contradictory Arguments
Legal disputes can be complex and frustrating, especially when you believe the opposing party
is deliberately employing tactics to delay or obstruct the process. This article aims to provide
you with information and strategies to address such situations, particularly when faced with
flawed logic and contradictory arguments in a Singaporean legal context.
Navigating Legal Disputes in Singapore: Addressing Flawed Logic and Contradictory Arguments
I. Executive Summary
1. Understanding the Core Idea: “Logical Fallacies” vs. “Legal Violations”
2. Key Legal Concepts & Possible Avenues in Singapore
A. Abuse of Process / Vexatious Litigation
B. “Frivolous” or “Vexatious” Arguments
C. Duty of Counsel to the Court & Professional Conduct
D. Estoppel & Inconsistent Positions
3. What About “Logical Fallacies” Themselves?
A. Courts Are Not “Logic Police”
B. Judicial Precedents Requiring an Opponent to “Withdraw or Prove” Contradictory
Arguments
C. Personal Liability of Lawyers
4. Practical Steps & Strategies
5. Is It Realistic to Expect a Court to Force “Logical Consistency”?
II. Recognizing Abuse of Process
III. Jurisdictional Considerations
IV. Abuse of Rights in Singaporean Law
V. Unmasking Logical Fallacies
VI. Holding Lawyers Accountable
VII. Learning from Precedents
VIII. Mastering Your Courtroom Communication
IX. Conclusion
Sources [23]
by Slava Solodkiy l https://www.linkedin.com/in/vsolodkiy/
I. Executive Summary
The court probably will not dismiss the entire case just for illogical arguments unless those
arguments cross the line into frivolous, vexatious, or abusive territory. However, pointing
out these contradictions systematically can help you gain a strategic
advantage—undermining the other side’s credibility and possibly leading to a more
favorable settlement or judgment.
1. Document: Show that you have repeatedly notified them (and the judge) of these
contradictions and that they have refused to address them.
2. Raise “Abuse of Process”: Argue that these contradictory positions across multiple
suits or stages amount to an abuse of process—especially if they hamper your right
to a fair hearing or multiply the suits unnecessarily.
3. Seek Cost Sanctions: Courts in Singapore do impose heavier costs on parties who
litigate in a contradictory or vexatious manner.
4. Consider Professional Conduct Complaints: show real, deliberate misconduct by
counsel.
Legal precedent in Singapore about “contradictory arguments” typically appears in
discussions of striking out, abuse of process, estoppel, or professional misconduct,
rather than in the guise of “pure logical fallacy.” You can find cases (see above references)
and cite them in submissions to show that the courts frown upon inconsistent pleadings
and frivolous or vexatious conduct. To push for personal liability against opposing counsel,
with evidence of a knowing and malicious attempt to mislead the court—mere
incompetence or “spinning arguments” generally isn’t enough.
1. Understanding the Core Idea: “Logical Fallacies” vs. “Legal
Violations”
You are highlighting what you perceive as a repeated, conscious, and deliberate use of contradictory
or logically flawed arguments by your opposing counsel (and possibly their client). In everyday
reasoning, it might indeed be outrageous if someone keeps shifting their positions and refuses to
address repeated contradictions. However, in law, what matters first is not merely logical purity but
legally cognizable issues such as:
1. Abuse of Process
2. Frivolous or Vexatious Proceedings
3. Breach of Counsel’s Duty to the Court
4. Estoppel (e.g., issue estoppel, res judicata, or taking inconsistent positions in different suits
or stages)
5. Bad Faith (Lack of Bona Fides)

2. Key Legal Concepts & Possible Avenues in Singapore
Contradictory arguments can become legally relevant if and when they indicate one of these
recognized grounds for sanction or relief.
A. Abuse of Process / Vexatious Litigation
● Definition:
Abuse of process broadly refers to using the court’s procedures in a manner not intended by
those procedures—such as pursuing contradictory or frivolous claims designed only to
harass or delay the other party.
● Where to find it in Singapore law:
○ Rules of Court (ROC): The 2021 edition (and prior editions) contain provisions
allowing courts to strike out or dismiss claims or defenses that are frivolous,
vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of the court’s process. Look particularly at Order 9
Rule 16(1)(a) of the ROC 2021 (or its equivalent in older versions), which covers
striking out pleadings for disclosing no reasonable cause of action/defence or being
otherwise an abuse of process.
If you believe the contradictory positions are so egregious that they render the entire proceeding
“abusive,” you could apply to strike out certain pleadings or to seek cost sanctions against the other
side.
B. “Frivolous” or “Vexatious” Arguments
● If the arguments are “frivolous” (lack serious legal merit) or “vexatious” (intended primarily
to harass or cause unnecessary delay or expense), the court has discretion to order cost
sanctions or even impose conditions on further litigation by the offending party.
● In exceptional scenarios, a party can be declared a “vexatious litigant,” but that’s typically
where there’s a long history of abusive litigation.
C. Duty of Counsel to the Court & Professional Conduct
● In Singapore, lawyers owe duties to the court as well as to their clients. They must not
mislead the court and should not pursue arguments that are knowingly baseless or
contradictory.
● Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules and the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161)
set out standards of integrity and candor. While these rules do not require lawyers to be
“perfectly logical philosophers,” they do prohibit conduct that is dishonest, misleading, or
plainly calculated to deceive the court.
● Breach of such duties could lead to professional disciplinary proceedings by the Law
Society of Singapore, separate from the original court case.
D. Estoppel & Inconsistent Positions
● Estoppel can prevent a party from asserting contradictory positions, if a court has
previously ruled on an issue or the party has accepted certain facts or legal positions to gain
advantage in one stage of proceedings, and then tries to reverse it later to gain advantage in
another.
● Issue estoppel or res judicata might be triggered if the very same issue has been finally
decided between the parties in an earlier proceeding.
● Approbate and reprobate: Common law disapproves of a party “approbating and
reprobating”—i.e., taking inconsistent positions to the detriment of the other side. Courts
may not let you “blow hot and cold” on the same facts.
Whether these doctrines apply depends heavily on factual and procedural specifics: Are the same
parties involved? The same subject matter? The same issues decided?
3. What About “Logical Fallacies” Themselves?
Courts typically do not strike out pleadings just because of logical inconsistencies alone, so sad.
Judges look for legal prejudice or abuse of process.
A. Courts Are Not “Logic Police” (For Sure)
However, you can use the contradictions to:
1. Undermine Credibility: If you can demonstrate that the opposing side (and/or their
counsel) has made contradictory statements, you can argue that they are unreliable or not
credible.
2. Highlight Bad Faith: Repeated contradictions may suggest that the other side is litigating in
bad faith or abusing procedure.
3. Support Estoppel Arguments: If they are contradicting earlier concessions or judgments,
that might be grounds for an estoppel.
4. Justify Consolidation or Case Management: If the disputes are closely connected, you
could apply to consolidate the suits or have them heard together, preventing the other side
from playing “hot and cold” in separate forums.
B. Judicial Precedents Requiring an Opponent to “Withdraw or Prove”
Contradictory Arguments
There is no single famous Singapore precedent that says, in a purely logical sense, “Either fix your
premises or withdraw your argument, or else you’re personally liable.” However:
● You may find references in judgments where courts reprimand parties (or counsel) for
“inconsistency,” “lack of candor,” or “abuse of process.”
● The principle that you can’t present contradictory pleas is embedded in the notion that
pleadings should be coherent and not confuse the issues at trial. For instance, if a Statement
of Claim or Defence contains plainly contradictory allegations, the court can order the party
to amend or face a striking out application.
● If the court sees that you’ve repeatedly pointed out contradictions and the other party
refuses to clarify or amend, that refusal could factor into adverse costs orders or findings of
fact.

C. Personal Liability of Lawyers
● Generally, lawyers are agents for their clients and do not assume personal liability for the
merits of the client’s case. They do, however, risk professional disciplinary action if they
knowingly mislead the court or act dishonestly.
● Personal liability (in the sense of monetary damages or direct legal responsibility to you) is
extremely rare unless there’s a separate tort (e.g., defamation by counsel, or malicious
prosecution, or abuse of process) where the lawyer personally acted outside the scope of
legitimate advocacy.
● Let’s argue that the lawyers themselves are responsible for consciously and deliberately
repeating contradictory arguments (and not merely following instructions), let’s show
evidence of misconduct (dishonesty, malice, or violation of professional rules).
● Courts are typically reluctant to penalize lawyers personally unless - there is very serious
misconduct. More often, the remedy is an adverse costs order (where the lawyer’s firm
might end up paying costs) or a complaint to the Law Society if there’s unethical behavior.
4. Practical Steps & Strategies
1. Consolidation or Joinder:
If the lawsuits share overlapping issues or parties, ask the court to consolidate them under
the relevant Rules of Court (Singapore’s rules do allow the consolidation or joint hearing of
related actions to avoid inconsistent rulings).
2. Striking Out / Summary Judgment Motions:
○ Apply to strike out contradictory or groundless parts of their pleadings if they are
truly abusive.
○ Or seek summary judgment if the contradictions show there is no real defense.
3. Costs Applications / Personal Costs Orders:
○ If the opposing counsel persists in contradictory arguments, request an order for
costs on an indemnity basis or even a personal costs order against the lawyers, if
the threshold of misconduct is met.
4. Use Contradictions to Impeach Credibility:
○ In open court or in submissions, systematically present (preferably in a table or
chart) the contradictory statements.
○ Show that they have been repeatedly pointed out and never explained.
○ Argue that this reveals a lack of good faith or reliability on the part of that party (or
counsel).
5. Professional Conduct Complaint (Last Resort):
○ If you have strong evidence that the lawyer is intentionally misleading the court or
breaching ethical duties, you (through your counsel) could lodge a complaint with
the Law Society of Singapore. This is separate from winning or losing the lawsuit
itself; it’s about professional discipline.
6. Analogy or Metaphor To Use:
○ Sometimes counsel will speak about the opposing side’s arguments as a
“Hydra,” sprouting new contradictory heads each time you lop off one.
○ Another metaphor is the “shell game,” where the lawyer moves positions around
hoping no one can keep track.
5. Is It Realistic to Expect a Court to Force “Logical Consistency”?
● Yes and no.
○ Yes: Courts do force parties to clarify contradictory statements, either by amending
pleadings, providing better particulars, or facing strike-out applications.
○ No: Courts are more concerned with the legal aspects—does the contradiction mean
the claim is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process? If not, they may simply let
the case proceed, leaving contradictions to be weighed as credibility issues at trial.
● Personal liability of lawyers purely for “bad logic” is exceedingly rare, for sure, but you can
demonstrate actual dishonesty or a breach of the lawyer’s duty to the court.
Legal Strategy Against Flawed Logic
II. Recognizing Abuse of Process
While the Singaporean legal system doesn't explicitly define "abuse of process," it does
recognize the court's inherent power to prevent the misuse of its procedures1
. This aligns with
principles in other common law jurisdictions where courts intervene when a party's actions,
while not technically violating procedural rules, are manifestly unfair or bring the administration
of justice into disrepute1
.
One framework for understanding abuse of process is the concept of "collateral abuse of
process," which involves using legal processes for an improper purpose, such as gaining a
collateral advantage outside the legitimate aims of the process2
. To establish collateral abuse of
process, you must demonstrate that the process was misused to obtain a benefit unrelated to
the legal action, that this misuse involved an overt act or threat, and that you suffered special
damage as a result2
.
Furthermore, it's important to recognize how contradictory arguments can impact the burden of
proof. In legal proceedings, the burden of proof typically lies with the party making a claim3
.
When faced with conflicting evidence or arguments, it becomes more challenging to meet this
burden, as the court may struggle to determine which version of events is more credible3
.
In your case against 'You-Know-Who', it's crucial to demonstrate how their flawed logic and
contradictory arguments, presented through their lawyers 'Who-Must-Not-Be-Named', constitute
an abuse of process. This involves:
● Identifying and highlighting inconsistencies: Meticulously document instances where
'You-Know-Who' and 'Who-Must-Not-Be-Named' have presented contradictory positions or
arguments. For example, in their initial defense submission, they claimed that the contract
was invalid due to a lack of consideration, but later argued that the contract was valid but that
you had breached its terms. (Cite specific examples from your case files.)
● Demonstrating intent: Provide evidence suggesting that these contradictions are not

unintentional errors but a deliberate strategy to prolong the proceedings or hinder your ability
to present your case effectively. This might include a pattern of shifting arguments, delays in
providing documentation, or a failure to respond to your queries in a timely manner.
● Illustrating the impact on the legal process: Explain how these tactics have caused
delays, increased costs, or otherwise prejudiced your position in the dispute. For instance,
you might argue that the contradictory arguments have made it more difficult to gather
evidence, prepare your case, or understand the opposing party's true position.
Key Insight: It's important to recognize the tension between a lawyer's duty to represent their
client zealously and the court's need to prevent abuse of process4
. While vigorous advocacy is
expected, it cannot come at the expense of fairness and justice. The court has a responsibility
to ensure that legal proceedings are conducted in a manner that allows for a fair and efficient
resolution of the dispute.
III. Jurisdictional Considerations
The concept of "jurisdiction-as-power" highlights the court's inherent authority to control its own
processes and prevent abuses of its power6
. This concept suggests that the court has the power
not only to decide cases based on existing legal rules but also to shape and enforce those rules
to ensure the proper administration of justice6
.
In the context of your dispute, the concept of jurisdiction-as-power can be used to argue that the
court has the inherent authority to prevent any actions that undermine its ability to function
effectively, including the use of flawed logic and contradictory arguments to obstruct or delay
proceedings. This reinforces the court's ability to intervene in your situation and sanction
'You-Know-Who' and 'Who-Must-Not-Be-Named' for their conduct.
IV. Abuse of Rights in Singaporean Law
While "abuse of rights" is not a codified legal doctrine in Singapore, the concept is reflected in
various laws and legal principles. For example, the Protection from Violence Act (POA)
addresses situations where individuals misuse their rights to inflict harm or control others7
. This
act defines "abuse" broadly to include physical, emotional, and psychological harm, as well as
controlling or dominating behavior that causes fear or restricts liberty7
.
Although your situation may not fall directly under the POA, it exemplifies how Singaporean law
recognizes the potential for rights to be exercised in an abusive manner. Another example is the
misuse of defamation laws to stifle legitimate criticism or public discourse8
. These examples
illustrate that Singaporean courts are sensitive to situations where individuals or entities exploit
legal processes or rights for improper purposes.
V. Unmasking Logical Fallacies
Logical fallacies are flaws in reasoning that can make arguments appear convincing but
ultimately lack validity. Identifying these fallacies in 'Who-Must-Not-Be-Named''s arguments can
be a powerful tool in dismantling their position. Here are some common examples:
● Straw man fallacy: This fallacy involves misrepresenting your opponent's argument to make
it easier to attack9
. For example, if you argue that a specific clause in your contract with
'You-Know-Who' should be interpreted in a particular way, 'Who-Must-Not-Be-Named' might
distort your position, claiming that you are advocating for an unreasonable or extreme
interpretation that was never your intention.
● Ad hominem fallacy: This fallacy involves attacking your character or motives instead of
addressing the merits of your argument10
. For instance, 'Who-Must-Not-Be-Named' might try
to discredit your claims by suggesting that you are motivated by personal gain or animosity
towards 'You-Know-Who', rather than focusing on the evidence and legal arguments you
present.
● Circular reasoning: This fallacy occurs when someone restates their argument as both a
premise and a conclusion11
. For example, 'Who-Must-Not-Be-Named' might claim that a
particular document is invalid simply because they assert it to be so, without providing any
supporting evidence or legal basis for their claim.
● False dilemma: This fallacy involves presenting only two options when more possibilities
exist12
. For instance, 'Who-Must-Not-Be-Named' might argue that you either accepted the
contract in its entirety or rejected it completely, ignoring the possibility that you might have
accepted some terms while rejecting others.
● Conjunctive fallacy: This fallacy occurs when someone assumes that the conjunction of two
events is more likely than one event alone13
. For example, 'Who-Must-Not-Be-Named' might
argue that because 'You-Know-Who' is a reputable company and their lawyers are
experienced professionals, it is highly probable that their arguments are sound and your
claims are unfounded.
● Commutation of conditionals: This fallacy involves switching the antecedent and
consequent in a conditional statement13
. For instance, 'Who-Must-Not-Be-Named' might
argue that if the court rules in your favor, it would set a dangerous precedent, implying that if
a dangerous precedent is set, the court must have ruled in your favor.
Key Insight: Logical fallacies can be particularly effective in legal arguments because they
often exploit common biases and cognitive shortcuts11
. By understanding these fallacies, you
can be more vigilant in identifying them and less susceptible to their persuasive power. To
effectively refute these fallacies:
● Clearly explain the fallacy: Articulate the specific flaw in their reasoning and provide a clear
definition of the fallacy, using plain language that the judge can easily understand.
● Provide concrete examples: Illustrate how 'Who-Must-Not-Be-Named''s arguments fit the
definition of the fallacy using specific examples from their submissions or statements. This will
help the judge see the fallacies in action and understand how they are being used to distort
the legal arguments.
● Reframe the argument: Present your own argument in a clear and logical manner, devoid of
fallacies, to contrast with their flawed reasoning. This will demonstrate to the judge that your
arguments are based on sound legal principles and evidence, rather than rhetorical tricks.

VI. Holding Lawyers Accountable
It's essential to emphasize that lawyers, as officers of the court, have a duty to uphold
the integrity of the legal process14
. While they are obligated to represent their clients
zealously, this does not give them license to employ deceptive or obstructive tactics15
.
Arguments to highlight lawyer accountability include:
● Ethical obligations: Remind the court of lawyers' professional responsibility to act with
honesty and integrity14
. This includes presenting arguments in good faith, avoiding
misrepresentations, and refraining from tactics that obstruct or delay justice.
● Rules of court: Cite specific rules or guidelines that prohibit the conduct you are challenging.
For example, you might refer to rules against frivolous litigation, abuse of process, or making
misleading statements to the court.
● Consequences for misconduct: Highlight the potential for disciplinary actions or cost orders
against lawyers who engage in abusive tactics16
. This can serve as a deterrent and
encourage lawyers to act with greater responsibility.
While lawyer-client confidentiality is important, it is not absolute and does not excuse the use of
flawed logic or contradictory arguments to obstruct justice17
. Lawyers have an ethical obligation
to uphold the integrity of the legal system, even when representing their clients' interests.
Furthermore, it's important to be aware of the potential influence of financial motivations on legal
arguments18
. In some cases, lawyers might be incentivized to prolong legal proceedings to
increase their fees or those of expert witnesses. While it's not appropriate to make accusations
without evidence, it's crucial to be mindful of this possibility and to scrutinize any actions by
'Who-Must-Not-Be-Named' that appear to be driven by financial gain rather than the pursuit of
justice.
VII. Learning from Precedents
Analyzing past cases can provide valuable insights into how evidence is presented and used in
legal proceedings. For example, the OJ Simpson trial highlighted the importance of DNA
evidence and expert testimony in criminal cases, while the Casey Anthony trial demonstrated
the impact of witness credibility and media attention on jury deliberations19
.
○ Case law example:
■ Lee Hsien Loong v Review Publishing Co Ltd and another [2007] 2 SLR(R) 453:
The court discusses striking out for abuse of process.
■ Ng Tai Tuan and Another v Chng Gim Huat Pte Ltd [1990] 1 SLR(R) 143:
Another reference on the principles surrounding striking out for abuse of
process.
By studying these and other precedents, you can gain a better understanding of how to
effectively present your own evidence and arguments in court. This includes:
● Understanding the rules of evidence: Familiarize yourself with the types of evidence that
are admissible in court and the procedures for introducing them.
● Developing cross-examination strategies: Learn how to effectively question witnesses to
expose inconsistencies or weaknesses in their testimony19
.
● Using technology to your advantage: Explore how technology can be used to present and
analyze evidence in a clear and compelling manner19
.
VIII. Mastering Your Courtroom Communication
Communicating complex legal arguments requires clarity and conciseness. To effectively
present your case to the judge:
● Organize your arguments logically: Use headings, subheadings, and bullet points to
structure your submissions20
. This will make it easier for the judge to follow your reasoning
and understand your key points.
● Use clear and concise language:21
Explain complex legal concepts in plain language that
the judge can easily understand.
● Support your claims with evidence: Provide specific examples and citations to relevant
legal authorities. This will demonstrate that your arguments are grounded in law and fact.
● Use persuasive language and metaphors: Analogies and metaphors can help illustrate
abstract concepts and make your arguments more memorable22
. For example, you might
compare 'Who-Must-Not-Be-Named''s contradictory arguments to a "house of cards" that will
collapse under scrutiny.
○ You can argue that the court should not allow the game to continue unchecked,
as it wastes judicial resources and prejudices your ability to conduct a proper
defense or claim.
● Anticipate counterarguments: Address potential objections to your position to demonstrate
a thorough understanding of the issues23
. This will show the judge that you have considered
all sides of the argument and that your position is well-reasoned.
IX. Conclusion
Dealing with flawed logic and contradictory arguments in a legal dispute can be challenging, but
it is not insurmountable. By understanding the principles of legal reasoning, identifying logical
fallacies, and presenting your arguments effectively, you can strengthen your position and
ensure the court has a clear picture of the opposing party's obstructive tactics.
Remember that the Singaporean legal system, while not explicitly defining "abuse of process,"
provides avenues for addressing such conduct. By demonstrating how 'You-Know-Who' and
'Who-Must-Not-Be-Named''s actions constitute an abuse of the court's processes, you can seek
remedies to mitigate the harm caused by their tactics.
Focus on highlighting the inconsistencies and contradictions in their arguments, providing
evidence of their intent to obstruct the process, and illustrating the impact their actions have had
on your case. By meticulously documenting these issues and presenting them in a clear and
concise manner, you can effectively counter their attempts to derail the proceedings.

Furthermore, emphasize the ethical obligations of lawyers to uphold the integrity of the legal
process. Remind the court that while zealous advocacy is expected, it cannot come at the
expense of fairness and justice. By holding 'Who-Must-Not-Be-Named' accountable for their
conduct, you can deter future abuses and contribute to maintaining the integrity of the
Singaporean legal system.
Finally, remember the power of effective communication. By organizing your arguments logically,
using clear and concise language, supporting your claims with evidence, and employing
persuasive language, you can ensure that your message is heard and understood by the court.
Navigating legal disputes requires resilience, knowledge, and a commitment to seeking a just
resolution. By equipping yourself with the information and strategies outlined in this article, you
can confidently face the challenges presented by flawed logic and contradictory arguments, and
effectively advocate for your rights within the Singaporean legal framework.
by Slava Solodkiy l https://www.linkedin.com/in/vsolodkiy/
Sources [23]
1. Abuse of Process in International Arbitration, last accessed: December 29, 2024,
https://arbitration-day.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Reading%20Materials/Panel%203/Gailla
rd%20-%20Abuse%20of%20Process%20in%20International%20Arbitration.pdf
2. THE TORT OF COLLATERAL ABUSE OF PROCESS I INTRODUCTION - UNSW Law Journal, last accessed:
December 29, 2024,
https://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Issue-442-PDF-9-Hynard-and-Lerch
.pdf
3. Conflicting Evidence: Legal Definition | Bar Prep Hero, last accessed: December 29, 2024,
https://barprephero.com/legal-terms/evidence/conflicting-evidence/
4. Due Process of Law :: Fourteenth Amendment -- Rights Guaranteed - Justia Law, last accessed: December 29,
2024, https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/04-due-process-of-law.html
5. World Report 2022: Singapore | Human Rights Watch, last accessed: December 29, 2024,
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2022/country-chapters/singapore
6. Jurisdiction as Power | The University of Chicago Law Review, last accessed: December 29, 2024,
https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/jurisdiction-power
7. Vulnerable Adults Act 2018 - Singapore Statutes Online, last accessed: December 29, 2024,
https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/VAA2018
8. Human rights in Singapore - Amnesty International, last accessed: December 29, 2024,
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/south-east-asia-and-the-pacific/singapore/report-s
ingapore/
9. Logical Fallacies | Definition, Types, List & Examples - Scribbr, last accessed: December 29, 2024,
https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/logical-fallacy/
10. 15 Logical Fallacies to Know, With Definitions and Examples - Grammarly, last accessed: December 29, 2024,
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/rhetorical-devices/logical-fallacies/
11. Spotting 10 Logical Fallacies | AAJ - American Association for Justice, last accessed: December 29, 2024,
https://www.justice.org/resources/publications/trial-magazine/2021-feb-spotting-10-logical-fallacies
12. Logical Fallacies, last accessed: December 29, 2024,
https://ethics.miami.edu/_assets/pdf/um-ethics-society/logical_fallacies.pdf
13. Say It Ain't So: Leading Logical Fallacies in Legal Argument - SelectedWorks - bepress, last accessed: December
29, 2024, https://works.bepress.com/gerald_lebovits/297/download/
14. Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Preamble & Scope - American Bar Association, last accessed: December
29, 2024,
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_
conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_preamble_scope/
15. Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, last accessed: December 29, 2024,
https://www.texasbar.com/AM/TemplateRedirect.cfm?Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=27271
16. Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions | Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, last accessed: December 29, 2024,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11
17. Law Firm Turns to Logical Fallacies to Defend Its Non-Compliance with Ethics-Related Subpoenas |
CityEthics.org, last accessed: December 29, 2024,
https://www.cityethics.org/content/law-firm-turns-logical-fallacies-defend-its-non-compliance-ethics-related-s
ubpoenas
18. “IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MONEY!”: A THEORY ON MISCONCEPTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' LITIGATION AIMS
Tamara Relis This Article exami* - University of Pittsburgh Law Review, last accessed: December 29, 2024,
https://lawreview.law.pitt.edu/ojs/lawreview/article/download/81/81/
19. Evidence Law Success: Unveiling the Best Tactics and Strategies | Leland, last accessed: December 29, 2024,
https://www.joinleland.com/library/a/evidence-law-success-unveiling-the-best-tactics-and-strategies
20. Communication Strategies for Lawyers: A Comprehensive Guide - RunSensible, last accessed: December 29,
2024, https://www.runsensible.com/blog/lawyer-client-relations/
21. Legal Writing 101: Essential Tips for Impressive Legal Documents - Getcone, last accessed: December 29, 2024,
https://www.getcone.io/blog/legal-writing-essential-tips-for-impressive-legal-documents
22. Resistance to metaphor in parliamentary debates - LOT Publications, last accessed: December 29, 2024,
https://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/591_fulltext.pdf
23. Mastering the Art of Legal Argumentation: A Guide for Law Students | Leland, last accessed: December 29,
2024,
https://www.joinleland.com/library/a/mastering-the-art-of-legal-argumentation-a-guide-for-law-students
Petition · Towards a Fairer Future: Calling for Transparency
and Ethics in Legal Proceedings - Singapore · Change.org
Sign, Share, & Speak Up! Your experiences and voices might just help bring about a
more future-ready legal landscape where justice is served piping hot—and well before
we all grow old waiting for final documents. I will be very thankful if you can sign this
petition itself here: https://chng.it/8R489dW2nd - and few more, if you don't mind:
● Petition · Uphold Justice & Ethics: Lawyer Accountability, Combat
Formalism & Abusive Litigation
● Petition · Recognize Self-Litigants
● Petition · Protect Free Speech: Combat SLAPP Suits and Level the Legal
Playing Field
● Petition · Modernize eLitigation System in Singapore for Self-Litigants
● Petition · Empower Self-Litigants: Improve eLitigation Access in Singapore
● Slava Solodkiy: Request for Legal Assistance&Representation
● You can read more (or listen on Spotify) about this problem - or here:
● Rethinking Justice in the Metastate Era: AI and Self-Litigation (paper)
● Rethinking Justice in the Metastate Era: AI and Self-Litigation (ebook)
● 블라디슬라프(슬라바) 솔로트키: 핀테크 선구자, 미래를 향한 도발적인 질주
● Download PDF here

Учился в SSE MBA
Учился в Saint Petersburg State University
Учился в СПБГУ
Учился в Stockholm School of Economics
Живет в г. Лондон
Из г. Москва
В браке с Софией Чуфеневой
Подписчики: 2 433 человека
linkedin.com/in/vsolodkiy
Редактировать информацию
Добавить в актуальное
Фото Все фото
Слава Солодкий
Публикация Слава Солодкий
2 дн. ·
Greetings fellow travelers on the sometimes bumpy road to justice!
I find myself in a peculiar predicament, caught in the crosshairs of a legal battle in Singapore that
seems to be less about right and wrong and more about "might makes right." Having successfully
navigated the initial skirmishes, I was optimistic about a swift resolution. Alas, my opponents, armed
with a phalanx of legal eagles, seem to have mastered the art of legal jiu-jitsu, expertly deflecting and
delaying every attempt to finalize the court's decisions.
Their tactics? A symphony of subtle maneuvers, stretching interpretations like a rubber band, and
conjuring obligations and fines with the flourish of a magician. It's a performance worthy of an Oscar,
except the drama is real, the costs are mounting, and my patience is wearing thinner than a
politician's promises.
Now, I'm a firm believer in everyone's right to a defense, but where's the line between zealous
advocacy and deliberate obstruction? Is it ethical to exploit legal loopholes, turning the pursuit of
justice into a war of attrition?
With the Law Society seemingly hesitant to intervene, I turn to the court of public opinion. Have you,
dear reader, encountered similar legal labyrinthine maneuvers in Singapore (or even across the pond
in London)? Did you manage to escape the legal quicksand? Any wisdom to share?
Perhaps, just perhaps, someone out there has faced the same legal maestros orchestrating my
opponent's defense. If so, do share your experiences! Let's shed some light on these tactics and
explore how to ensure that justice, while sometimes delayed, is not ultimately denied.
This petition is not about personal vendettas or "naming and shaming." It's about sparking a
conversation, seeking solidarity, and reminding ourselves that the law should serve justice, not just
those who can afford the most elaborate legal dance.
So, join me in this quest for ethical litigation! Let's ensure that the scales of justice are balanced, not
tilted by those who mistake legal prowess for ethical conduct.
With a hopeful heart, Slava
Комментировать как Слава Солодкий
1
29.12.2024, 11:20 Слава Солодкий - Greetings fellow travelers on the sometimes bumpy... | Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/vladislavsolodkiy/posts/pfbid02Uy34FdWfZaJSXT1VEqK8iq3JfcryNhdh52kpFWxiVzuTPw5K14mm9oW6nJ8feFU9l 1/1
https://www.facebook.com/vladislavsolodkiy/posts/pfbid02Uy34FdWfZaJSXT1VEqK8iq3JfcryNhdh
52kpFWxiVzuTPw5K14mm9oW6nJ8feFU9l
Congratulations on starting your petition!
Take steps to strengthen it.
Towards a Fairer Future: Calling for
Transparency and Ethics in Legal
Proceedings
Started 27 December 2024
9 10
Signatures Next Goal
Support now
Take the next step!
Why this petition matters
Petition details Comments Discover
29.12.2024, 11:23 Petition · Towards a Fairer Future: Calling for Transparency and Ethics in Legal Proceedings - Singapore · Change.org
https://www.change.org/p/towards-a-fairer-future-calling-for-transparency-and-ethics-in-legal-proceedings 1/17
https://l.Nansen.id/legalethic

Started by Slava Solodkiy
Hello everyone! My name is Slava, and I’m a firm believer in humanity’s capacity for
fairness, compassion, and cosmic-level creativity. I’ve always pictured the law—especially in
a forward-thinking country like Singapore—as an elegant means to uphold justice swiftly and
efficiently. But somewhere along the line, my personal legal journey took a surprising turn.
Instead of a tidy resolution, I encountered baffling detours, endless red tape, and enough
“fine print” to wallpaper a modest HDB flat. I’ve seen some of the most brilliant legal
minds (and the bills to match!) devote themselves to the art of strategic delay—“Out-of-
this-world lawyer fees” meets “Intergalactic stalling tactics.”
Why This Petition? A Quest for Ethical Litigation in the Lion City
My Story: Over the past 6 months (2 years in total!) I've been embroiled in
legal disputes that started out simply, I sought a straightforward
resolution, and I believed the court system would help me get it. Indeed,
yet… finalizing has become a prolonged odyssey.
Repeated Delays: the opposing side’s legal team has, in my experience,
dissected every phrase, comma, and nuance to impose demands that seem
beyond the scope of the process, claim or judgment. It’s like if you order
pizza, they send you a contract saying you must build the oven yourself,
grow the tomatoes, and do the dishes afterward—just to ensure
“compliance.”
Seeking Collective Wisdom: I’m not here to sling accusations or presume
guilt. Instead, I’m asking: Has anyone else—particularly in Singapore —felt
the gravitational pull of such “hyper-technical lawyering” that seems
designed to exhaust rather than resolve? (or London) How did you navigate
it, and what can we learn from your experiences?
A Futuristic Vision: Imagine a world where legal disputes are resolved as
swiftly as scanning your retina at an MRT turnstile—no labyrinthine fine
print, no endless reinterpretations of clear rulings, no budget-busting
“clarification meetings.” Picture a legal community that champions genuine
problem-solving: lawyers as partners in justice rather than cosmic wizards
conjuring infinite tangential disputes.
What I’m Asking For
Stories & Support: If you’ve encountered similar “endless-redraft syndrome”
or over-complicated negotiations (incl. post-judgment), please share your
insights. Did you discover a magical clause or a heroic ‘judge Hercules’ who
cut through the nonsense?
Support now
Take the next step!
Dialogue, Not Destruction: This isn’t about naming, shaming, or personal
vendettas. I respect the legal profession’s vital role. But I also believe it’s
time to ask: When does robust defense cross into overreach? Where’s the
line between “zealous advocacy” and “delaying justice so long that the
victory feels hollow?”
A Call to Action: Let’s discuss how we can streamline and humanize rights’
defense (and even final steps after a court’s ruling)—whether through new
mediation tools, improved judicial oversight of post-judgment negotiations,
or just good old-fashioned common sense. If you’re a lawyer, judge, law
student, or a wide-eyed dreamer for a better future, I invite your thoughts.
Why This Matters
The Human Cost: Court battles aren’t just about legal principles—they’re
about real people whose time, finances, and well-being can be stretched to
the breaking point.
Preserving Faith in Justice: A clear and timely final order is crucial. (If even
a win in court unravels through never-ending red lines and extraneous
demands, the system risks losing credibility, right?)
Positive Precedents: By gathering experiences, we may suggest ways to
refine best practices or highlight any potential gaps in professional ethics
oversight.
I’ll be the first to admit I’m no angel, and in my stress, I’ve probably had my own dramatic
moments (I once threatened to bury the other side in color-coded binders, then realized I’d
only be burying myself in printing costs). But hey, we can grow from these experiences,
right?
Final Word: Join Me
If you believe in a future where justice is swift, clear, and guided by genuine fairness, please
sign and share this petition. Tell your story if you’ve wrestled with a legal Hydra that keeps
sprouting new heads of fine print. Let’s open a friendly, constructive dialogue with the
broader legal community.
Sign, Share, & Speak Up! Your experiences and voices might just help bring about a more
future-ready legal landscape where justice is served piping hot—and well before we all
grow old waiting for final documents.
1. I will be very thankful if you can sign this petition itself - and few more, if
you don't mind:
Support now
Take the next step!

2. Petition · Uphold Justice & Ethics: Lawyer Accountability, Combat
Formalism & Abusive Litigation
3. Petition · Requesting Transparency Regarding ArivalBank.com’s Real
UBOs
4. Petition · Recognize Self-Litigants
5. Petition · Protect Free Speech: Combat SLAPP Suits and Level the Legal
Playing Field
6. Petition · Modernize eLitigation System in Singapore for Self-Litigants
7. Petition · Empower Self-Litigants: Improve eLitigation Access in
Singapore
8. Change.org · Slava Solodkiy: Request for Legal
Assistance&Representation, My Fight for Justice
You can read more (or listen on Spotify) about this problem in general and particular
case here:
Rethinking Justice in the Metastate Era: AI and Self-Litigation (paper)
Rethinking Justice in the Metastate Era: AI and Self-Litigation (ebook)
블라디슬라프(슬라바) 솔로트키: 핀테크선구자, 미래를향한도발적인질주
Download PDF here
To the fine folks on the other side of my own legal case (and their formidable lawyers):
this isn’t a personal crusade. I’m simply a curious, spirited individual shining a light on a
process that feels like it belongs to the 19th century, not the 21st—especially in a place as
innovative as Singapore. Together, let’s forge a path toward a system that is truly modern,
transparent, and empathetic. Thank you for reading—and may the force of fairness guide
us all!
Disclaimer: The statements in this petition reflect my personal experiences,
opinions, and understanding of the events. I am not making legal accusations
beyond what the court has decided, nor am I seeking to defame any person or
entity.
Share this petition in person or use the QR code for your own material.
Download QR Code
Report a policy violation
Support now
Take the next step!
Edit article
View stats
View post
A Fair Trial Is A Utopia? ‘Judge
Hercules’ from Law's Empire
Vladislav Solodkiy
November 21, 2024
Nansen.ID l Founder & ex-CEO @ ArivalBank.com, a.id,
SREDA.VC l Early investor in 5 digital banks
(Not about me, my claims and courts’ adventures.) ‘Judge Hercules’ is a
hypothetical figure introduced by legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin in his
1986 book Law's Empire. This idealized judge possesses superhuman
intellect, patience, and legal knowledge, enabling him to interpret and
apply the law with perfect consistency and moral integrity. Dworkin uses
Judge Hercules to illustrate his theory that judicial decisions should be
guided by coherent moral principles, rather than merely following legal
rules or precedents.
The Paradox of Self-Representation:
Advancing Fairness in Legal…
16 Landmark Cases on Legal Cost Compensation:
Insights from Five Jurisdictions
Medium
Very interesting piece by Margarita Bocharova in the Signal: a fair and
incorruptible democratic court, an independent court remains a symbol of
justice in the last instance. For many people, it is also a necessary
component of a good life. (At least, American presidents, British
politicians, representatives of famous political dynasties and historians
speak about it.)
FAIR TRIAL - this concept is inscribed in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. The UN Commission on Human Rights considers a fair trial
as one of the most important elements of democracy. Almost everyone
agrees that "young democracies" should first of all ensure an independent
fair trial (one, two). In "old democracies", in turn, the majority of
citizens believe that an independent court is more important than, say,
succession of power and fair elections.
Home My Network Jobs Messaging Notifications Me For Business
2
27.12.2024, 17:32 (2) A Fair Trial Is A Utopia? ‘Judge Hercules’ from Law's Empire | LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fair-trial-utopia-judge-hercules-from-laws-empire-vladislav-solodkiy-t0nte/?trackingId=2mloImTPQeWR1Zz2bOT5… 1/10

However, what is a "fair and independent court" is a philosophical
question: we all think we know the answer to it, but when we have to
formulate it rigorously, it turns out to be unexpectedly difficult.
Justice in Metastate Era: AI, Self-
Litigation & Legal Ethics
Justice in Metastate Era: AI, Self-Litigation & Legal
Ethics
amazon.co.uk
Mexico has decided to elect judges by popular vote in September 2024.
The president of the country, who proposed the innovation, stated that it
would serve to "strengthen the ideals and principles of humanism, justice,
fairness, austerity and democracy".
But exactly the same measure did not work in Bolivia. In theory, the
transfer of such a right to citizens should have ensured a belief in fair
justice, but in practice the opposite was true. The electability of Bolivian
judges led to their politicization, which ultimately undermined citizens'
already shaky faith in the rule of law and political stability.
Judicial reforms in Poland in 2019 and in Israel in 2022 were carried out
under the banner of judicial independence, and opponents in both cases
argued that the reforms actually made the courts more dependent on the
ruling parties.
In short, in political rhetoric, an "independent court" is generally a court
that doesn't depend on those you don't like; on those you do like, let it
depend.
sign it pls for me on change.org
This is not just about my individual case; it’s about
upholding the principles of justice and fairness. Sign
these relevant petitions on…
Medium
This campaign needs you now
Request for Legal Assistance & Representation: My
Fight for Justice Against ArivalBank . com
Change.org
IS THERE SUCH A THING AS A FAIR AND INDEPENDENT TRIBUNAL?
According to World Bank estimates for 2022, courts operated in a
completely non-interventionist environment in Australia. The situation
was close to ideal in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Portugal, Ireland, Iceland,
Estonia, Austria and the Netherlands.
As in all such indices (corruption, stability, freedom of speech, etc.), it is
possible to guess the leaders and outsiders without even looking at the
data: the best results will be in the rich Western countries, especially in the
Scandinavian countries, and the worst in the Global South. Secular courts
are also favored. And that's a big problem.
Independence may be granted individually to each judge or to the judiciary
as a whole - how do we know which is better? Or the local demand for
justice may at some point require greater government involvement (this
happens, for example, in disputes between overly powerful private
individuals) - is this good or bad? Finally, courts may balance the public
interest in different ways. Some may see this as a manifestation of
democracy, while others may see it as a threat to independence.
If judges are completely free from external pressure, how can they be
prevented from deciding cases on the basis of personal biases or media
publications they have read in their spare time? In the U.S., by the way, this
is a common situation: judges of left-wing and right-wing views make
different rulings in similar cases, citing different norms and precedents.
The whole system of independent courts is fragile even in the most
developed countries. Small mishaps can shake the balance and cause
unrest in society (here are a couple of examples: one, two). Each
country builds its own system of checks and balances: there are regular
public reports by representatives of the judiciary, mandatory interaction
with journalists, codes of judicial ethics, and so on.
The situation with the fairness of the courts is even more complicated
than with their independence. People find it difficult to define what justice
is, even in the most general sense. Almost 80% of Portuguese perceive
justice as an equal distribution of income and wealth among members of
society. But in Norway and the Netherlands, more than half of those
surveyed disagree with this view. In 2023, an Ipsos survey showed that
while in Peru two out of three people agreed that a just society is one of
equal opportunity, in India only one in five supported this view, and a
further 23% of respondents thought it was more important for justice that
all members of society have the same standard of living.
In the US in 2024, the Pew Research Center found that supporters of
Donald Trump were twice as likely to expect the justice system to impose
harsher sentences on criminals. Among Biden supporters, the majority
wanted to leave things as they are or reduce the severity of sentencing.
These results suggest very different perceptions of justice.
Back in the middle of the 18th century, the Italian philosopher Cesare
Beccaria insisted in his book "On Crimes and Punishments" that the
primary function of the justice system is not to restore justice in some
higher sense, but a much more modest one: to maintain order and balance
in society - most modern legal systems are based on this principle (we
have already talked more about it here and here).
This sometimes leads to results that are absurd from the point of view of
common sense. For example, stiffer penalties for economic crimes than
for violent crimes. The logic here is not quite humanistic: fraud and tax
evasion are dangerous not only for a particular person, but also for the
"system as a whole". And for a particular person to have a better life, first
of all, the smooth functioning of the "system as a whole" is necessary.
Bridging the Gap: Legal Cost
Compensation in the AI-powered…
The Equity of Legal Cost Compensation: Rethinking
Fairness in Justice https://l.Nansen.id/YoJZFv The
justice system serves as the cornerstone of a fair…
Spotify for Creators
A FAIR TRIAL IS A UTOPIA? Partly. But that doesn't mean the concept
should be abandoned. The American jurist Ronald Dworkin developed the
idea of an ideal infallible judge - a kind of "Hercules the Lawyer". He
considered his main strength to be his unlimited knowledge of the
principles of law. These principles have not only legal, but also moral
grounds - and "Hercules the Judge", being not only a jurist, but also a
moral philosopher, on the basis of these principles can decide cases even
if the law does not tell him what to do.

Say, a judge in an abstract country needs to decide whether a grandson
can receive the inheritance of his grandfather, whom he killed for the sake
of this fortune. Technically, there is no barrier to this in the law - after the
grandson has served time for murder, of course. But "Judge Hercules"
would not let it happen. He would have proceeded on the moral principle
that a criminal cannot profit from his crime.
Dworkin believed that a "moral reading" should always be applied to
existing law, and that centuries-old laws should be given current-day
meaning. In this way, these laws would better meet public demands for
justice - and maintain people's faith in their state.
The problem with such a view is clear: morality is fluid, and there are
hardly enough "Herculean judges". Nevertheless, society needs faith in
abstract, lofty formulas. It is on the basis of values that are sometimes
incompatible with reality that people create their identity and feel unity
with their colleagues, fellow believers and fellow citizens. But this belief in
high values needs something to back it up.
One of the main theorists of justice, the American philosopher John
Rawls, insisted: justice can exist in a modern legal system. It would simply
be expressed not in terms of balance or truth, but in the form of a correct
and impartial use of public rules. He called it ‘justice as rightness’.
(The most appropriate punishment for an autocrat would be a fair and
incorruptible democratic court - this idea, in general, is not new. In its time,
approximately the same demonstrative-democratic trial was organized for
the "architect of the Holocaust" Adolf Eichmann (although, beforehand, the
Israeli security services stole him from Argentina). The trial was
then covered by the correspondent of The New Yorker magazine,
philosopher Hannah Arendt. She told the world how Eichmann was
burdened and exhausted by the successive and demonstratively
independent trials and debates of the parties.)
First, the law should be written in such a way that people have an
opportunity to fulfill or not fulfill it. Second, the meaning of norms should
be precisely formulated. Third, similar decisions should be applied in
similar cases. And, fourth, courts should apply the law adequately, and
not drag outdated rules into a case just because it is customary.
Without the attainment of such formal justice, Rawls believed that the
principles of liberty and equality could not be realized.
How far the real world is from this theoretical construct - this gives rise to
public skepticism: people do not believe in justice, nor in a public morality
that is one for all. They arbitrarily divide the world into "their own" and
"others" - and do not see their fellow citizens as equal in rights and duties.
Perhaps it is the belief in "justice as rightness" that can overcome this
skepticism - and repoliticize citizens, that is, restore their confidence that
their participation matters.
It's tricky to pinpoint real-world judges and directly compare them to the
hypothetical Hercules, as he represents an ideal rather than a realistic
expectation. Judge Hercules is not a real person but rather a hypothetical
figure created by legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin. He is presented as an
idealized judge with superhuman intellectual ability and complete
knowledge of the law. Dworkin used Hercules to illustrate his theory of law
as integrity, arguing that there is always a single "right answer" to any legal
question, and Hercules is capable of finding it. However, we can look for
qualities that align with Dworkin's concept:
Deep legal knowledge and intellectual rigor: Judges known for their
profound understanding of legal principles, their ability to analyze
complex cases, and their contribution to legal scholarship might be
considered. In Singapore: Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon is highly
regarded for his intellectual depth and contributions to
jurisprudence. In the UK: Lord Sumption (now retired) was known for
his formidable intellect and scholarly approach to law.
Commitment to "law as integrity": This means striving for coherence
and principle within the legal system, looking for solutions that fit
with existing laws while upholding fairness and justice. This is
harder to assess objectively, as it's about judicial philosophy. Judges
who consistently demonstrate a commitment to upholding the rule
of law and seeking just outcomes, even in difficult cases, might be
seen as embodying this aspect of Hercules.
Impartiality and objectivity: Hercules is unbiased and free from
external influences. While no judge is perfectly objective, those with
reputations for fairness and independence are closer to this ideal.
It's important to remember that legal systems differ, and what constitutes
"Herculean" judgment in Singapore might not be the same as in the UK.
Even the most skilled and ethical judges are human, with limitations and
potential biases. Rather than seeking a perfect "Hercules" equivalent, it's
more fruitful to look for judges who exemplify key aspects of Dworkin's
ideal, contributing to a more just and principled legal system. While no
real-life judge can fully embody the idealized "Judge Hercules" concept
proposed by Ronald Dworkin, several more judges in Singapore and the
United Kingdom have been recognized for their intellectual rigor, moral
integrity, and commitment to justice.
Justice Philip Jeyaretnam (Singapore): Appointed as a Judicial
Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore in January 2021
and as a Judge in November 2021, Justice Jeyaretnam has been
noted for his expertise in arbitration, construction law, and litigation.
He received the C.C. Tan Award from the Law Society of Singapore in
2020, which honors lawyers who exemplify the Bar's traditions of
integrity, fairness, and gentlemanly conduct.
Justice Lai Kew Chai (Singapore): Serving as a High Court judge
from 1981 until his passing in 2006, Justice Lai was involved in
several landmark cases. He was known for his meticulous
judgments and dedication to upholding the rule of law.
Baroness Brenda Hale (United Kingdom): As the first female
President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Baroness
Hale has been celebrated for her contributions to family law and
human rights. Her judgments often reflect a deep commitment to
justice and equality.
Lord David Neuberger (United Kingdom): Serving as President of
the Supreme Court from 2012 to 2017, Lord Neuberger was
recognized for his intellectual depth and fair-mindedness. He has
also contributed to discussions on judicial ethics and the importance
of moral courage in the judiciary.

Vladislav Solodkiy on LinkedIn:
Wooooow! Who could explain it pls…
Wooooow! Who could explain it pls?! O_o zero
budget for advertising, SEO, context, social, etc - zero,
no money at all. The image&data provide analytics…
linkedin.com
These judges exemplify qualities akin to Dworkin's "Judge Hercules"
through their dedication to legal principles, moral reasoning, and the
pursuit of justice. Here are some notable cases involving Justice Philip
Jeyaretnam and Baroness Brenda Hale:
ByBit Fintech Ltd v Ho Kai Xin and others [2023] SGHC 199: In this
landmark decision, Justice Jeyaretnam addressed the legal status of
cryptocurrency assets. He ruled that crypto assets, such as the
stablecoin Tether, are considered "things in action," granting them
legally enforceable property rights. This judgment has significant
implications for the treatment of digital assets under Singaporean
law.
Mah Kiat Seng v Attorney-General [2022] SGHC 200: Justice
Jeyaretnam presided over a case where Mr. Mah sued the police for
unlawful arrest under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act.
The court found that the arresting officer fabricated observations to
justify the apprehension, leading to Mr. Mah being awarded $20,000
in damages. This case underscores the judiciary's role in upholding
individual rights against unlawful state actions.
R (Miller) v The Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41: In a historic ruling,
the UK Supreme Court, led by Baroness Hale, declared Prime
Minister Boris Johnson's advice to prorogue Parliament unlawful.
The court held that the suspension had the effect of frustrating or
preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional
functions without reasonable justification. This decision reinforced
the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the limits of executive
power.
Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17: Baroness Hale delivered a leading
judgment in this case concerning the division of property between
cohabiting partners. She emphasized that in the absence of explicit
agreements, courts should consider the entire course of conduct
between parties to determine their respective shares. This approach
marked a significant development in family property law, focusing on
fairness and the realities of modern relationships.
An AI Gavel of Justice in Every Hand
with ChatGPT&Gemini
Imagine a world where navigating the complexities of
the legal system is no longer a daunting task
reserved for lawyers and legal scholars…
Medium
These cases illustrate how both judges have shaped legal principles and
protected individual rights through their thoughtful and impactful
judgments. However, attributing judgments entirely to a judge's individual
"Herculean" qualities is difficult, as judgments are often shaped by legal
teams, precedents, and the specifics of the case. That said, here are few
more examples where judges demonstrated qualities reminiscent of
Judge Hercules:
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon in Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin
London Lucien and another (2017, Singapore): This case dealt with
complex questions about the law of trusts and fiduciary duties. CJ
Menon's judgment was praised for its clarity, rigorous analysis of
legal principles, and its effort to create a coherent framework for
understanding these complex areas of law. This aligns with
Hercules' ability to find the "right answer" through deep legal
understanding.
Lord Sumption in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and others (2013,
UK): This case involved intricate company law issues and the
"piercing the corporate veil" doctrine. Lord Sumption's judgment
provided a comprehensive analysis of this doctrine, clarifying its
scope and application. This demonstrates his intellectual rigor and
commitment to legal coherence, key traits of Dworkin's Hercules.
It's important to note that these examples highlight specific aspects of
"Herculean" judging, not a perfect embodiment. Finding a single judgment
that perfectly encapsulates all of Hercules' qualities is unlikely. It's
interesting to consider whether "Herculean" judging, as inspired by
Dworkin's ideal, might be more prevalent in certain legal systems. There
are factors that could influence this:
Factors that might favor "Herculean" judging in the USA:
Strong emphasis on individual rights: The US legal system places a
high value on individual rights and liberties, often leading to complex
legal arguments and a need for judges to balance competing
interests. This could encourage judges to delve deeply into legal
principles and strive for nuanced interpretations, similar to Hercules'
pursuit of the "right answer."
Common law system: The US, like the UK, relies on a common law
system where judicial precedent plays a crucial role. This requires
judges to engage in extensive analysis of past cases and legal
doctrines, potentially fostering a more "Herculean" approach.
Judicial review: The US Supreme Court's power of judicial review
allows it to strike down laws deemed unconstitutional. This places a
significant burden on judges to interpret the Constitution and weigh
fundamental principles, potentially demanding a high degree of
intellectual rigor.
Factors that might make "Herculean" judging less pronounced in
Singapore:
Emphasis on efficiency and pragmatism: Singapore's legal system,
while based on common law, also emphasizes efficiency and
pragmatism. This might sometimes prioritize clear and practical
solutions over highly nuanced or theoretical legal arguments.
Less adversarial system: While Singapore has an adversarial
system, it may be less adversarial than the US. This could lead to
less emphasis on elaborate legal arguments and a greater focus on
finding mutually agreeable solutions.
Stronger executive branch: The executive branch in Singapore
generally plays a more prominent role compared to the US.
This might lead to less emphasis on judicial activism and a more
restrained approach to judicial decision-making.
These are generalizations: Individual judges and specific cases can
vary greatly within any legal system.
Many other countries, such as those in Europe with strong civil law
traditions, could also exhibit "Herculean" judging in different ways. The
nature of judging is constantly evolving, and factors like globalization and
technological advancements can influence judicial approaches across
different countries.

Requesting Transparency Regarding ArivalBank .
com's Ownership and Real UBOs
Change.org
Ultimately, while certain legal systems might provide a more conducive
environment for "Herculean" judging, the individual qualities and
commitment of judges themselves remain the most crucial factor. It is fair
to say that judicial behavior resembling "Judge Hercules"—defined by a
commitment to broad moral reasoning, individual rights, and interpreting
law in ways that create significant societal impact—may be perceived as
more common in the United States compared to countries like Singapore
or the UK. This difference arises from distinct legal traditions, cultural
contexts, and institutional structure:
1.Judicial Philosophy and Role:
United States: Judges, particularly at the Supreme Court level, often
adopt activist roles where they are expected to interpret the
Constitution in ways that address broad societal issues (e.g., Roe v.
Wade, Brown v. Board of Education). This aligns with the idea of a
judge who integrates moral reasoning with legal interpretation.
Singapore and UK: Judges typically embrace a more restrained
approach, focusing on interpreting and applying existing laws
without venturing into activism. Singapore’s judiciary, in particular,
emphasizes pragmatic and technocratic approaches over
ideological debates.
2.Constitutional Framework:
United States: A written constitution and a strong emphasis on
judicial review provide greater scope for judges to address
fundamental rights and principles.
Singapore: Judicial review exists but is more narrowly defined, with
judges emphasizing the rule of law and deferring to legislative intent
unless clear violations of law occur. The UK, while having an
unwritten constitution, also leans towards judicial restraint, although
cases like Miller v. Prime Minister (led by Baroness Hale) show
moments of judicial assertiveness.
3.Cultural Context and Judicial Independence:
United States: A strong tradition of individualism and public scrutiny
encourages judges to take bold stances. Lifetime appointments for
Supreme Court justices further enable them to act with relative
independence.
Singapore: Judges operate within a framework that prioritizes
stability, economic development, and deference to the executive
branch. Judicial decisions tend to align with broader societal goals
rather than challenge them dramatically.
UK: Judges maintain independence but often navigate a balance
between deference to Parliament (sovereignty of Parliament is a
core principle) and upholding the rule of law.
4.Case Law and Precedent:
United States: Judges frequently create landmark rulings that set
new precedents, influencing law and society directly.
Singapore and UK: Precedent plays a key role, and significant
changes often emerge gradually or through legislative action rather
than judicial intervention.
The perception that "Herculean" judicial behavior is more common in the
U.S. is largely accurate, driven by the nation's constitutional framework,
cultural expectations, and judiciary's role in shaping public policy. In
contrast, Singapore and the UK lean towards judicial restraint, with
exceptions in cases of high public or constitutional significance.
In the U.S., cases with dramatic implications (e.g., civil rights,
abortion, gun laws) often receive extensive media coverage,
reinforcing the image of judicial boldness.
In Singapore, the judiciary is seen as an arbiter of disputes and a
stabilizing institution rather than a driver of social change.
The UK judiciary occasionally demonstrates activism (as in Miller), but it is
more restrained compared to its American counterpart.
Following the Money: A Journey Through Shadow Banking … l Unveiling
the Underworld of Global Finance l Unveiling the Underworld of Global
Finance l Slava Solodkiy l Slava Solodkiy Books & Audiobooks: Read Free
for 30 Days l Unveiling the Underworld of Global Finance|eBook l Slava
Solodkiy l Unveiling the Underworld of Global Finance — Slava Solodkiy
l Slava Solodkiy — Books by this author l Unveiling the Underworld of
Global Finance l Slava Solodkiy l Die Nächste Große Skandal: Von
Wirecard bis Tether l livres et ebooks de l’auteur Slava Solodkiy
l Unveiling the Underworld of Global Finance — Solodkiy, Slava l 出版社
名：?Slava Solodkiy の検索結果— 楽天ブックスl Unveiling the
Underworld of Global Finance — E-book — ePub l Få Following the Money
af Slava Solodkiy som Paperback … l 著者名：Slava Solodkiy の検索結果
— 楽天ブックスl El auge de la banca en la sombra | Slava Solodkiy
l Unveiling the Underworld of Global Finance(Kobo/電子書) l unveiling
the underworld of global finance (ebook) l von nansen bis navalny: von
wirecard bis tether (ebook) l Von Nansen bis Navalny: Von Wirecard bis
Tether — E-book … l Von Nansen bis Navalny: Von Wirecard bis Tether —
Slava … l Von Nansen bis Navalny: Von Wirecard bis Tether l livres et
ebooks de l’auteur Slava Solodkiy l Les livres de l’auteur : Slava Solodkiy
l Following the Money by Slava Solodkiy l Following the Money: A
Journey Through Shadow Banking … l Unveiling The Underworld Of
Global Finance Book … l Unveiling the Underworld of Global Finance —
Slava Solodkiy l El auge de la banca en la sombra | Slava Solodkiy
l Resumen Ejecutivo del libro “Following the Money: Un Viaje a Través de
la Banca en las Sombras y los Juegos de Poder [Compliance Cowboys: El
Mundo de Alto Riesgo y Alta Recompensa de ‘Ozark’]” l disponible
en inglés en Amazon
Comments
4
Julian Treasure and 3 others

Edit article
View stats
View post
Roy Cohn's Uknown Adventures in
Singapore
Vladislav Solodkiy
December 27, 2024
The SuperHero of Legal Cynicism vs ‘Judges-Herculeses’
In the pantheon of legal legends, Roy Cohn stands not as a beacon
of Hercules-like justice, but rather as its grotesque, cynical antithesis - the
kind of lawyer who'd sue his own shadow for being too close. Imagine if
Hercules, after cleaning out the Augean stables, decided to sell the
manure back to the king for profit; that's Roy Cohn in a nutshell.
Roy Cohn, The Most 'Innovative'
Anti-Hercules of Law, in Singapore
Podcast Episode · Chief Believer · 12/27/2024 · 17m
Apple Podcasts
Born with a silver spoon in one hand and a subpoena in the other, Cohn
was the kind of lawyer who made the term "ambulance chaser" seem
quaint. His career was a masterclass in how to bend, twist, and outright
strangle the law until it screamed for mercy. While the mythical Hercules
sought to uphold the law of gods and men, Cohn was busy making the law
his personal bitch, all while smirking from behind his designer glasses.
Roy Cohn: 'Psychopathy: It’s Not a
Bug - It’s A Feature Bro!' by Follow…
His legacy lives on in certain aggressive legal tactics,
but he's generally viewed as a cautionary tale rather
than a role model in legal ethics. [Read more here]…
2
29.12.2024, 11:18 (2) Roy Cohn's Uknown Adventures in Singapore | LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/roy-cohns-uknown-adventures-singapore-vladislav-solodkiy-tehme/?trackingId=UuINXGcmSuWkWWsnncuVIA%3… 1/9
https://l.Nansen.id/xajYiL
https://l.Nansen.id/BaO9wI
https://l.Nansen.id/vcm5YN
Let's talk about irony. Here was a man, a gay Jew, who in his professional
life, hunted down those of his own kind with the zeal of a crusader on a
bad acid trip. He was like a self-loathing shark in the waters of
McCarthyism, devouring his own kind to prove his loyalty to the straight,
white, and very, very paranoid powers that be. If there's a portrait of
hypocrisy, it's got Cohn's smug face on it, framed in the finest mahogany
hypocrisy could buy.
Ethics
amazon.sg
Jeremy Strong's portrayal? Brilliant, no doubt, capturing the essence of
Cohn's smarmy, manipulative nature to a T. But let's not confuse the art
with the artist here. In real life, Cohn was the embodiment of legal
cynicism, using his sexuality and heritage as both shield and sword in a
game where everyone else was just a pawn.
Cohn didn't just push the boundaries of legal ethics; he obliterated them,
then danced on their grave. He was the lawyer who, if he could, would have
sued God for malpractice on the sixth day, claiming He should have rested
earlier to avoid creating such human nuisances like Roy Cohn himself.
In an age where the law was supposed to be a beacon of justice, Roy Cohn
turned it into a dim, flickering neon sign in a seedy part of town,
advertising "Justice for Sale - Cheap!" His legacy? A testament to how one
can be both a legal genius and a moral void, a reminder that in the legal
world, sometimes the most unforgettable characters are those you'd least
want to meet in a dark alley - or a courtroom.
So here's to Roy Cohn, the anti-Hercules of law, whose name will forever
be synonymous with the grotesque, the cynical, and the utterly,
unabashedly corrupt. Bravo, Roy, you showed us the underbelly of the
American Dream - and what a nightmare it was.
Roy Cohn (1927-1986) was a controversial American
attorney
Served as chief counsel to Senator Joseph McCarthy during the
1950s Communist investigations
Played a central role in the Army-McCarthy hearings
Helped drive the anti-communist investigations and prosecutions
Known for aggressive, confrontational legal tactics
Represented high-profile clients including: Donald Trump (early in
Trump's career), Mafia figures, New York power brokers, etc
Known for his ruthless approach to law and politics
https://l.Nansen.id/SGjusticeAI

Developed a reputation for using media manipulation
Practiced what he called "attack-dog" legal strategies
Known for strong connections in political and media circles
Remained closeted despite being gay
Died of AIDS in 1986, though he publicly denied having the disease
Subject of various books, documentaries, and dramatic works
Mentored several prominent figures including Donald Trump
His methods and approach continue to influence certain styles of
legal and political strategy (I know, I know)
He's been portrayed in various media, including: ‘The Appretience’
(recent one), "Angels in America" (play and HBO series),
Documentary "Where's My Roy Cohn?", Various books and articles
examining his influence on American legal and political culture
Skip to next slide You can skip to the next slide in 3
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Roy Cohn's life and career are often discussed in the context of American
politics, law, and ethics, reflecting the darker sides of ambition and power
in the legal profession. His methods and morals have been subjects of
critique and analysis, particularly in discussions about legal ethics and
political influence. Here's a summary of key aspects of his career and life:
Early Career and McCarthyism: Born in 1927, Cohn became famous
in the 1950s as Senator Joseph McCarthy's chief counsel during the
Army-McCarthy hearings. His aggressive tactics and role in the anti-
communist witch hunts of the era made him a notable figure. Cohn
was instrumental in the legal proceedings that led to the conviction
of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for espionage, which resulted in their
execution in 1953.
Legal Practice: After his time with McCarthy, Cohn established a law
practice in New York, where he represented numerous high-profile
clients. He was known for his ruthless legal strategies and his ability
to manipulate the legal system to benefit his clients. His clientele
included celebrities, politicians, and mobsters, showcasing his wide-
ranging influence.
Donald Trump: One of his notable associations was with Donald
Trump, for whom he served as a legal advisor in the 1970s and
1980s. Cohn was instrumental in teaching Trump about real estate
and legal strategies, significantly influencing Trump's early business
practices.
Personal Life and Controversies: Cohn was also known for his
personal life controversies, including his sexuality. Despite being gay,
he lived part of his life in the closet due to the political climate and
stigma associated with homosexuality at the time. He was disbarred
https://l.Nansen.id/compliancecowboysSG
in New York in 1986 after being found guilty of unethical conduct,
including defrauding a client and lying on a bar application.
Death and Legacy: Cohn died in 1986 from complications related to
AIDS, a condition he denied having publicly until very close to his
death. His legacy is complex; he's remembered for his controversial
methods.
Towards a Fairer Future: Calling for Transparency and
Ethics in Legal Proceedings
Change.org
Roy Cohn's persona and legal practices have been subjects of significant
debate. Negative Perspectives:
Character and Ethics: Many accounts describe Cohn as ruthless,
manipulative, and devoid of ethical considerations. His approach to
law was often seen as one where ends justified the means, with little
regard for the spirit or intent of the law. He was known for tactics
that included intimidation, character assassination, and bending
legal ethics to serve his or his clients' interests. His disbarment in
1986 for unethical conduct, including defrauding a client and lying on
a bar application, underscores this view. Sources have described him
as having a "lack of ethics" and "lack of empathy", suggesting he
used the law as a tool for personal gain rather than justice.
Public Perception: describing him as embodying "real evil" or as
someone who used the Constitution "for toilet paper".
블라디슬라프(슬라바) 솔로트키: 핀테크
선구자, 미래를향한도발적인질주
“Rethinking Justice in the Metastate Era of AI”: 너무
앞서나갔나? 아직인공지능변호사는커녕제대로된인공
지능도없는세상인데…
Medium
While not often credited with defending the 'spirit of the law,' Cohn's
approach could be seen as (anti)innovative in how he pushed the
boundaries of legal practice. His methods, though controversial, were
effective (as fascism?) in achieving results for his clients, albeit one
focused on winning rather than justice.
The consensus leans towards the view of Cohn as someone who was
indeed an "asshole" in terms of personality, using the law pragmatically
for his goals, often at the expense of ethical considerations. His actions,
particularly during the McCarthy hearings and his later career, suggest a
focus on personal and client gain over the integrity of legal practice. His
legal strategies represent a form of (anti)innovation, albeit one that's
highly contentious and ethically questionable.
#FollowTheMoney: Trump, Russian
money & AML by Follow The Mone…
Trump, Russia, and the Real Estate Riddle: The
Secrets Behind the Skyscrapers" #FollowTheMoney:
Dive deep into Trump’s suspected ties to Russian…
https://l.Nansen.id/JusticeAIKorea

His legacy is a testament to how one can be both influential and morally
dubious in the legal field, illustrating the debate between ‘spirit of law’ and
ethical practice. From historical records and accounts, Roy Cohn was
indeed widely considered to be extremely unethical and manipulative,
using law as a weapon rather than an instrument of justice:
Ruthlessly destroyed lives during McCarthy era witch hunts while
being closeted himself
Known for outright lying in court and to the media
Would often not pay his bills or taxes while living luxuriously
Regularly threatened and intimidated opponents
Used blackmail as a standard tactic
Would represent mob figures while simultaneously informing on
them to the FBI
His "Innovations" (though ethically questionable): Developed "attack
the attacker" strategy; Perfected delay and counterattack strategies
(how familiar, lol); Developed ways to weaponize the legal process
itself.
Uphold Justice & Ethics: Lawyer Accountability,
Combat Formalism & Abusive Litigation
Change.org
His legacy lives on in certain aggressive legal tactics, but he's generally
viewed as a cautionary tale rather than a role model in legal ethics. His
Philosophy (besides famously told Trump: "Never settle, never surrender,
counterattack"):
"I don't want to know what the law is, I want to know who the judge
is" (hmmm?)
Viewed law not as a system of justice but as a tool for power
Believed in winning at any cost
Historical Judgment: Most historians and legal scholars view him as
someone who corrupted rather than defended the "spirit of law." He's often
cited as an example of how legal expertise can be used to subvert justice
rather than serve it. The irony is that his methods were as innovative as
sophisticated computer viruses are innovative. He found new ways to
exploit the legal system's vulnerabilities rather than strengthen its
foundations.
‘Houston, I’ve a Problem’: Request
for Legal Assistance
‘Ben, it’s Danila! I need help!’: Seeking Legal Support
in David vs. Goliath Battle re the ‘Claim-Who-Must-
Not-Be-Named’
Medium
Psychopathy: It’s Not a Bug - It’s A Feature Bro!
Based on the characteristics, which align with traits often associated with
psychopathy or Antisocial Personality Disorder (the contemporary clinical
term), Roy Cohn's behaviors and reputation could indeed suggest he
possessed some of these traits:
Ignoring Social Norms and Laws: Cohn was notorious for his
aggressive legal tactics, bending or breaking legal and ethical
https://l.Nansen.id/change-legalethic
https://l.Nansen.id/change.org
boundaries to achieve his goals. His disbarment for unethical
conduct is a clear example of this behavior.
Lying and Manipulation: Throughout his career, Cohn was known for
his ability to manipulate situations and people, often through deceit
or by leveraging his influence. His relationships with clients, from
mobsters to politicians, often involved some level of manipulation
for mutual benefit.
Irresponsibility: While Cohn was highly effective in his legal practice,
his personal life and some of his professional conduct showed a
disregard for responsibility, particularly in how he managed his
health (denying his AIDS diagnosis) and in the unethical actions that
led to his disbarment.
Lack of Empathy: Cohn's treatment of clients, adversaries, and even
friends often lacked warmth or genuine concern. His approach
during the McCarthy era, where he helped prosecute individuals with
little regard for their lives or the truth, suggests a profound lack of
empathy.
Superficial Charm: Cohn was known for his charisma and ability to
charm or intimidate, depending on what served him best. This charm
was more about manipulation than genuine likability, a trait often
seen in those with psychopathic tendencies.
However, psychopathy is a complex condition that requires a
comprehensive psychological evaluation, which we obviously can't
perform on Cohn now. What can be said is that Cohn exhibited behaviors
that align with characteristics of what might be colloquially or clinically
described as psychopathic traits. His actions, particularly his lack of
remorse, manipulation, and disregard for law and ethics, paint a picture of
a personality that thrived on power and control, often at the expense of
others' well-being or rights.
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad

Intentional Infliction of Bankruptcy? Seeking
Redress and Precedents
Slava Solodkiy · Following
10 min read · 17 hours ago
Listen Share More
A Courageous Quest Through Legal Avenues When the Debtor Tries to Turn the Tables
Specific Precedents in Singapore for “creditor forced into bankruptcy by debtor’s bad
faith” are rare. Because the typical scenario is “debtor tries to evade or defraud
creditors,” it is less common for a court to address a reversed situation (where the
creditor goes bankrupt first due to the debtor’s misconduct). Still, you can look (for
sure, together with me) for:
1. High Court judgments involving breach of contractual payment obligations where
the court discusses aggravating factors of bad faith or unlawful means conspiracy.
2. Cases referencing equitable principles or “unconscionable conduct” in contract
performance.
3. Tort of conspiracy decisions in Singapore, which sometimes revolve around
withholding funds to cause damage to a business or individual.
You can analogize from other jurisdictions’ principles (e.g., abuse of right in civil-law
countries, fraudulent transfer or intentional wrongful acts in US/UK law) to support the
notion that your opponents’ tactics are unconscionable and intended to harm you.
Victim Blaming? Lol, Never Heard
Get unlimited access to the best of Medium for less than $1/week. Become a member
Open in app
Search
29.12.2024, 11:24 Intentional Infliction of Bankruptcy? Seeking Redress and Precedents | by Slava Solodkiy | Dec, 2024 | Medium
https://medium.com/@slavasolodkiy_67243/intentional-infliction-of-bankruptcy-seeking-redress-and-precedents-73325b042d43 1/17
https://l.Nansen.id/G6WYLU
Absurd Metaphors & Analogies For My Dearest ‘Friends’ In
Singapore: The Essence of the Irony
medium.com
Setting the Stage: The Reverse Bankruptcy Twist
Let’s be real: it’s not every day you see a creditor — someone presumably owed
money — left begging for scraps in bankruptcy court because the debtor refuses to
honor obligations. If it feels Kafkaesque, it’s because it is: You’re the rightful payee
(the one who should be popping champagne upon receiving your check), and yet
you’re drowning in debts because of the debtor’s artful foot-dragging.
You might call it “intentional infliction of bankruptcy” or “How to Drive the Creditor
Nuts 101.” But hold your horses! Our beloved legal systems — particularly in
Singapore (the UK, and other common-law spots) — haven’t stamped this concept
onto statutes with a neat label. That said, we’ve got more than enough creative legal
doctrines and case law acrobatics to probe your opponents’ skulduggery.
Memorandum: Re: The Artful Dodger and the Insolvent Creditor -
A Modern Legal Tragedy (or Comedy?)
To: The Honorable Court (and anyone else who appreciates a good
legal brawl) From: A (Theoretically) Brilliant Legal…
l.nansen.id
The Hidden Gems of Common Law: Bad Faith, Unlawful Means, and
Conspiracy
Search for Precedents! Singapore keeps a fairly extensive record of High and State
Courts judgments. Even if you don’t find a perfect match, you might unearth seeds
of arguments that can be planted in your own case.
Bad Faith: While “good faith” in many common-law jurisdictions is that shy kid in
the corner — often recognized but not overly flamboyant — Singapore courts have
been known to dip their toe in implied duties of cooperation in contracts.
If your contract with these artful dodgeballs states they owe you Payment X by
Date Y, and they do everything but honor it (including sending you photos of
their new yacht?), you might argue they never intended to fulfill their obligations.
Insert references to “unconscionability,” “lack of cooperation,” or “breach of
implied terms.”
https://l.Nansen.id/a17vsH
https://l.Nansen.id/3wAEZU

Tort of Conspiracy: The tort of conspiracy (particularly “conspiracy by unlawful
means”) is like that secret legal sword you keep hidden behind the tapestry. If
multiple parties orchestrated a plan to starve you out — deliberately withholding
your rightful payments to bury you under debts — this tort might come in handy.
But the sword is heavy: you need to show a genuine agreement between
conspirators, an intention to harm, and some form of illegal or improper
conduct. The bar is high, but not unscalable.
Unlawful Interference with Economic Interests: Another potential arrow in your
quiver is “unlawful interference.” If they used illicit means (fraud, deceit,
intimidation, or some other brand of legal contraband) to hamper your ability to
collect or to flush your finances down the drain, you could argue they unlawfully
interfered with your economic interests.
Careful: not every cunning trick qualifies as “unlawful.” They need to have
crossed the red line into actual wrongdoing. Deviousness alone might not seal
the deal — sadly, legal systems often see cunning as “part of the game” unless it
tips into outright illegality.
Borrowing (With Gusto) from Other Jurisdictions
1. United States: Section 548 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code focuses on fraudulent
transfers by a debtor, not exactly your scenario. But it demonstrates a global legal
stance: courts dislike sneaky, backdoor maneuvers that sabotage creditors. Now,
simply flip the script — argue that your opponents are the ones engaging in
“transfer by non-transfer,” i.e., refusing to budge an inch on what they owe you.
The U.S. also has torts like tortious interference and civil conspiracy, which
sometimes come into play when a party knowingly wrecks another’s business or
contract rights. Not a perfect parallel, but it shows the principle is out there: the
law hates bullies who weaponize economics.
2. Other Civil Law Countries: A more robust principle of abuse of right flourishes
in places like France, Germany, or Italy. If a party exercises its contractual or
statutory rights in a way that is obviously contrived to hurt someone (instead of
achieve a legitimate aim), it can be deemed an “abuse of right.” This, my friend,
might be exactly the moral backbone you need to wave around in common-law
courts — just be mindful that it’s not recognized in the same explicit manner in
places like Singapore.
Relevant International Cases and Examples of Intentional Infliction of
Financial Harm
Let’s explore legal cases from jurisdictions with similar legal systems to Singapore,
such as the UK and the US, where courts have addressed situations involving
intentional infliction of financial harm, potentially leading to bankruptcy. While not
directly binding on Singaporean courts, these cases can provide persuasive
arguments and demonstrate how similar situations have been addressed in other
contexts, right?
“Spitting into the well you drink from.”
“Shooting yourself in the foot.”
“Sawing off the branch you’re sitting on.”
“Throwing a ‘lifebuoy’ made of lead.”
United Kingdom
Gostelow v Hussain [2021] EWHC 3276 (Ch) Demonstrates the court’s approach to
handling bankruptcy proceedings and the importance of following proper
procedures.
Summary: This case deals with the procedure for applying for possession and
sale of a bankrupt’s home. While not directly related to intentional infliction of
bankruptcy, it highlights the court’s consideration of various factors, including
exceptional circumstances, when dealing with bankruptcy proceedings. It also
clarifies the correct procedure for trustees in bankruptcy to apply for possession
and sale of a bankrupt’s home.
DGF v Bank Frick & Co AG [2022] EWHC 2208 (Comm) Highlights the legal concept
of unlawful means and the need to establish intention to harm in such cases.
Summary: This case discusses the concept of “unlawful means conspiracy” and
the importance of intention in establishing liability. It explores situations where
one party intentionally uses unlawful means to harm another’s business. The
case involved allegations of a complex fraud scheme where directors of a bank
incorporated debtor entities to misappropriate funds, potentially harming the
bank’s creditors.

Hhuman v Nicholson [2020] WL 1150001 (D. Ariz.) Illustrates the potential for
creditors to engage in actions that go beyond legitimate debt collection practices
and cause harm to the debtor.
Summary: This case involves a creditor obtaining a bankruptcy order against a
debtor in the UK and subsequently contacting the debtor’s family and business
associates. It touches upon the issue of harassment and potential emotional
distress caused by a creditor’s actions.
United States
In re Brown, 2022 WL 836787 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) Demonstrates that bankruptcy
may not absolve individuals from liability for certain types of harmful conduct.
Summary: This case examines the issue of nondischargeability of debt in
bankruptcy proceedings, particularly in relation to intentional infliction of
emotional distress. It highlights the elements required to establish a claim for
intentional infliction of emotional distress under California law.
Byrnes v Byrnes, 5 A.D.3d 714 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004) Highlights the intersection of
bankruptcy proceedings and tort claims, suggesting that bankruptcy may not shield
individuals from liability for certain types of harmful actions.
Summary: This case deals with tort claims of defamation and intentional
infliction of emotional distress in a bankruptcy context. It discusses the
standards for proving these claims and the potential impact of bankruptcy on
such liabilities.
Sicroff v Jett, 401 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2005) Illustrates how intentional actions can
lead to financial liability and the potential for such debts to be nondischargeable in
bankruptcy.
Summary: This case involves a defamatory letter published by a graduate
student that led to lawsuits for slander, libel, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress. It highlights how intentional actions can have legal
consequences, including financial liability. The court examined whether the
debt arising from the defamation judgment was dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Singapore:
Abuse of Process: Cases like Chee Siok Chin and others v Minister for Home Affairs
and another [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582 and Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee
Chong Jin [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 provide examples of how Singapore courts have
dealt with abuse of process claims, though not directly in the context of
“intentional infliction of bankruptcy.”
Economic Duress: The case of Tam Tak Chuen v Khairul bin Abdul Rahman [2009]
2 SLR(R) 840 and Sharon Global Solutions Pte Ltd v LG International (Singapore) Pte
Ltd [2001] 2 SLR(R) 233 illustrate the application of economic duress in
Singapore.
Directors’ Duties: the principle in cases like Walter Woon on Company Law
(discussing directors’ duties and liabilities for company debts) can be relevant by
analogy. The idea that those in control of a company (your ‘imaginary’
opponents, right?) should not act in a way that deliberately harms creditors
could be persuasive.
Roy Cohn, The Most 'Innovative' Anti-Hercules of Law, in
Singapore
In an age where the law was supposed to be a beacon of justice, Roy
Cohn turned it into a dim, flickering neon sign in…
l.nansen.id
Key Takeaways from These Cases:
Intentional Infliction of Harm: Courts in various jurisdictions recognize the
concept of intentional infliction of harm, whether it be emotional distress or
financial harm.
Unlawful Means: The use of unlawful means to achieve a desired outcome, such
as driving someone into bankruptcy, can be considered unlawful and give rise to
legal consequences.
Bankruptcy and Liability: Bankruptcy proceedings do not necessarily absolve
individuals from liability for tortious conduct or other unlawful actions that led
to the bankruptcy.
While these cases may not be directly applicable to your situation (or mine — in
Singapore), they demonstrate how courts in other common law jurisdictions have

addressed similar issues. You can use these examples to support your arguments
that:
Your opponents’ actions were intentional and aimed at causing you financial
harm.
Their conduct potentially constitutes an abuse of rights or bad faith conduct.
They should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions, even if
you have filed for bankruptcy.
Roy Cohn: 'Psychopathy: It's Not a Bug - It's A Feature Bro!' by
Follow The Money [Anti] Money…
His legacy lives on in certain aggressive legal tactics, but he's
generally viewed as a cautionary tale rather than a…
l.nansen.id
P.S. Relevance of International Cases and Examples:
UK (Persuasive in Singapore): Abuse of Rights: The concept of abuse of rights is
recognized in UK law, although it is applied cautiously. Cases involving unfair
prejudice petitions under the Companies Act might offer some analogies.
Economic Duress: UK case law on economic duress is well-developed and could
be persuasive in Singapore. Cases like DSND Subsea Ltd v Petroleum Geo Services
ASA [2000] BLR 530 and Carillion Construction Ltd v Felix (UK) Ltd [2001] BLR 1
are relevant.
US and Other Jurisdictions: The US Bankruptcy Code examples I cited are less
directly relevant because they focus on debtors hiding assets. However, they
demonstrate a general principle of preventing parties from manipulating the
insolvency process for their own gain.
Nonetheless, US courts do allow tort claims like tortious interference with contract,
civil conspiracy, and unfair competition if a party maliciously withholds payment
to cause harm. However, each state’s law differs on the scope and application of
these torts.
The US Bankruptcy Code (Section 548) (and even the Russian Criminal Code,
Article 196) illustrate how legal systems recognize and address intentional
actions that lead to insolvency.
Roy Cohn's Uknown Adventures in Singapore
The SuperHero of Legal Cynicism vs 'Judges-Herculeses' In the
pantheon of legal legends, Roy Cohn stands not as a…
l.nansen.id
While not directly binding on Singaporean courts, cases from other jurisdictions,
particularly those with similar legal systems like the UK, can provide persuasive
arguments and demonstrate how similar situations have been addressed in other
contexts.
Some civil-law jurisdictions have an express principle of “abuse of right” (abus de
droit, abuso del derecho, Rechtsmissbrauch) where a right is exercised in a way that
is manifestly contrary to good faith. This might penalize a party that deliberately
withholds payment to inflict insolvency on a creditor. In practice, you would need to
show clear evidence of malicious intent or an inexcusable refusal to fulfill
obligations. These examples can support your argument that your opponents’
actions should be viewed as unlawful and deserving of legal consequences.
Hello everyone! My name is Slava, and I'm a firm believer in
humanity's capacity for fairness, compassion, and…
l.nansen.id
Earthquake Victim: “Blaming the earthquake survivor for having a collapsed house.”
“Well, maybe if you’d built a better foundation, you wouldn’t be homeless right now.”
Car Crash: “Scolding an accident victim for having a broken leg.” “Clearly you didn’t
plan well enough to avoid that collision I caused.”
Cancer Patient: “Condemning a cancer patient for losing their hair after
chemotherapy.” “How dare you show the effects of the very poison we forced on you!”

Freezing You Out: “Leaving someone in the cold, then demanding proof they haven’t
frozen.” Withhold their money so they freeze to death, then ask them for a certificate of
perfect health.
Tied Hands: “Tying your hands behind your back, then demanding a brilliant dance
routine.” They block you financially, then require you to perform at top capacity or
face penalty.
Digging Your Own Pit: “They force you to dig a pit, then criticize you for falling into
it.” Every delay, every withheld payment, deeper and deeper… “Why’d you end up at
the bottom?”
Burning House, Fire Safety: “They set your house on fire and then demand you
produce a fire-safety certificate.” And if your house is ashes, that’s apparently your
own fault for not proving it was safe.
Victim-Blaming: “They tighten the noose around your neck, then complain when you
can’t breathe.” How dare you be short of oxygen when they’re the ones restricting your
airflow?
Blindfolded in a Maze: “They blindfold you, shove you into a maze, and then scoff at
how slowly you’re finding the exit.” Each labyrinthine debt trap they create becomes
your “personal failing.”
Offering Saltwater: “Making you drink saltwater and demanding you stay hydrated.”
They dangle partial (useless) solutions that only worsen the thirst, then mock you for
complaining.
Wolf and Lamb: “The wolf accuses the lamb of muddying the water, even though the
wolf stands upstream.” Classic blame-shifting: they cause the problem, but you get the
blame.
Intentional Infliction Infliction Of Bankruptcy Abuse Victim Blaming
Personal Bankruptcy
8 min read · 18 hours ago
Listen Share More
Absurd Metaphors & Analogies For My Dearest ‘Friends’ In Singapore:
The Essence of the Irony
Each of these grotesque analogies highlights the absurd and cynical nature of what’s
happening with me right now:
‘They-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named’ (who owe you money, hahah) orchestrate my
financial hardships.
“You-Know-Who” then accuse me… of being financially unstable — and demand
“guarantees” of not-being-bankrupt-ever-never-elsewhere (?!) from me.
Really?!:)
‘They’ twist the situation to blame me for the very problem… they created. Ok.
It’s like a self-fulfilling prophecy: they block my resources and then say, “Aha! See
how unstable you are!” — thus justifying further refusals or manipulations. In a
normal world, we call that gaslighting or financial sabotage, right?) In my world of
flourishing Justice, it’s become standard operating procedure.
May I ask you a question pls: “Is this a court, or is this Auschwitz?!” Seems like their
logic suggests that the victims of Auschwitz were simply ‘lazy’ and ‘didn’t want to
work.’ Are we sure we’re in a courtroom and not some twisted historical revisionism
seminar? If their arguments were any more detached from reality, we’d need to hold
this trial in a sensory deprivation tank. They’ve turned the legal process into such a
Get unlimited access to the best of Medium for less than $1/week. Become a member
Open in app
Search
29.12.2024, 11:25 Victim Blaming? Lol, Never Heard. Absurd Metaphors & Analogies For My… | by Слава Солодкий | Dec, 2024 | Medium
https://medium.com/@slavasolodkiy/victim-blaming-lol-never-heard-1c47556d352d 1/14

dehumanizing ordeal, I’m starting to think the Geneva Convention should apply to
civil litigation.
“The audacity is almost impressive, if it weren’t so destructive.”
“Their logic is so twisted, it’s practically a legal Möbius strip.”
“If hypocrisy were an Olympic sport, they’d be gold medalists.”
“They’ve turned gaslighting into an art form.”
“I didn’t realize we were playing legal Calvinball, where the rules are made up,
and the points don’t matter.”
“This isn’t just a legal battle; it’s a masterclass in how to be wrong at the highest
possible volume.”
Roy Cohn's Uknown Adventures in Singapore
The SuperHero of Legal Cynicism vs 'Judges-Herculeses' In the
pantheon of legal legends, Roy Cohn stands not as a…
l.nansen.id
“The killer demands the victim guarantee they won’t die.”
“It’s like a vampire demanding a blood bank guarantee its supply won’t run dry,
all while he’s got his fangs sunk into your jugular.”
“They’re demanding I perform a financial resurrection while they’re still
holding the murder weapon — unpaid invoices.”
“It’s as if they are throwing me to the lions and demanding I send them back a
selfie with a thumbs up, proving that I am not eaten yet”.
“Starve someone and demand they don’t lose weight.”
“They’ve put me on a forced ‘financial fast,’ but insist I maintain the physique of
a sumo wrestler in court.”
“They’re basically asking a marathon runner to win the race after they’ve broken
his legs, and what is more, they are holding his sport shoes themselves”
“They want me to be as thin as a supermodel but are shocked when I faint from
hunger during their endless cross-examination.”
“Deprive someone of sleep and demand they be energetic.”
“They’re running me through a legal decathlon after keeping me awake for 72
hours straight with frivolous motions. Apparently, I’m supposed to be as sharp as
a tack while sleepwalking through their legal circus. It’s as if they want me to
win the case in a dream — because they definitely don’t want me winning it
awake!”
“They expect me to be a legal Olympian, but they’ve replaced my sleep with a
steady drip of anxiety and legal bills.”
“The killer insists on an autopsy, claiming the victim died of a heart attack, not
stab wounds.”
“They’re so committed to their version of events, they’d probably argue the
Titanic sank because the iceberg was in the wrong place.”
“It’s like a surgeon removing your kidney and then blaming your subsequent
health problems on a pre-existing condition of ‘being alive’.”
“The killer demands compensation from the victim’s family for the emotional
distress of having to defend himself in court.”

“Next, they’ll be billing me for the wear and tear on their lawyer’s expensive
shoes from all the pacing they’re doing while denying responsibility.”
“It’s like a mugger suing his victim for the inconvenience of having to run away
from the police.”
“They want me to apologize for bleeding on their knife. It is their favorite knife
after all!”
The Arsonist and the Firefighter:
“They’re like an arsonist complaining that the fire department is taking too long
to put out the blaze, all while they’re still splashing gasoline around.”
“They are complaining about firefighter’s lack of water, while they were the one
who emptied the pool”.
Intentional Infliction of Bankruptcy? Seeking Redress and Precedents
A Courageous Quest Through Legal Avenues When the Debtor Tries to Turn the Tables
medium.com
The Wolf and the Lamb: “This is Aesop’s fable on steroids. The wolf isn’t just
muddying the water; he’s damming the entire river and then blaming the lamb
for the drought.”
The Thief and the Police: “They’ve picked my pockets clean and then have the
gall to complain that I can’t afford a decent lawyer to defend myself against their
accusations of… having empty pockets.”
The Jailer and the Prisoner: “They’ve put me in solitary confinement, starved
me half to death, and now they’re criticizing my performance in the prison
talent show. Apparently, I’m not singing on key.”
The Doctor and the Patient: “They’re like a doctor who gave me a disease and is
now refusing to treat me because I ‘clearly have a weak immune system.’ It’s a
novel approach to malpractice, I’ll give them that.”
“Demanding a drowning man not to drown.”: “They’ve thrown me into the deep
end of the pool, tied weights to my ankles, and now they’re yelling at me for
making a splash.”
“Accusing a victim of their house being destroyed.”: “They’ve caused the
financial earthquake that leveled my life, and now they’re blaming me for not
having earthquake insurance.”
“Chastising someone in an accident for having a broken leg.”” “They
engineered the car crash that is my current financial state, and now they’re
criticizing my limp.”
“Blaming a cancer patient for hair loss after chemotherapy.”: “They are
administering the financial chemo, and are shocked, SHOCKED, that my bank
account is losing its hair!”
“To add insult to injury” — They are not only injuring me, but adding insult on
top of it.
“To kick a man when he is down” — They are attacking me when I am already in a
vulnerable position.
“The Bank Robber Who Sues the Bank for Not Having Enough Cash: They are
literally robbing me blind and then complaining that the vault wasn’t full
enough to satisfy their greed. They probably want a refund for their efforts.”
“The Parasite Complaining About the Host’s Health: They are feeding off my
resources, weakening me in the process, and then having the audacity to
complain that I am not a more robust host. Perhaps I should apologize for not
being a better buffet?”
“Setting a Trap and Then Blaming the Prey for Falling In: They engineered this
financial trap with the precision of a Swiss watchmaker, and now they are
feigning surprise that I have fallen victim to their machinations. It is like setting
a bear trap and then blaming the bear for not being more careful.”
“Force-Feeding Salt Water and Then Demanding Hydration: They are force-
feeding me the financial equivalent of salt water (unfulfilled obligations), and
then demanding that I be a picture of financial health and hydration. My thirst
for justice is apparently quite inconvenient for them.”
“Tying Hands and Demanding to Paint and Dance: It is like tying someone’s
hands behind their back and then demanding they paint the Sistine Chapel
while simultaneously performing Swan Lake. And if they fail? Well, that is
clearly their fault for not being more talented.”

“Making Someone Dig a Hole and Then Demanding Not to Fall In: They are
handing me the shovel, so to speak, forcing me to dig my own financial grave,
and then expressing shock and disappointment when I inevitably fall in. And of
course, my falling in is further proof of my irresponsibility.”
“Setting a House on Fire and Then Demanding a Certificate of Fire Safety: The
hypocrisy is truly breathtaking. They are torching my financial stability and
then demanding I produce a certificate proving everything is fireproof. And if
the house burns down? Clearly, I did not follow the proper fire safety protocols.”
“Blaming the Victim for Not Surviving the Attack:” They are attacking my
financial stability, and then they have the audacity to demand that I not only
survive their onslaught but also provide them with assurances of my continued
well-being. It is like being stabbed and then criticized for bleeding too much.”
Freezing Someone and Blaming for Hypothermia: “They have put my finances
on ice, and now they are expressing concern that I might be suffering from
hypothermia. It is like locking someone in a freezer and then blaming them for
shivering.”
“They’ve not only stolen my ladder but also set the building on fire, and now
they’re critiquing my escape plan from the inferno they created. It’s like being
mugged and then criticized for not having cab fare to get home.”
“They are like financial arsonists who’ve torched my resources and are now
complaining about the smoke getting in their eyes. They want me to apologize
for the inconvenience of the fire they started.”
Edit article
View stats
View post
An Online-Court in Singapore, or
Justice-as-a-Service: A New
Paradigm?
My experience of engaging with Singapore’s legal system, especially through self-litigation, and my
broader thoughts on "justice-as-a-service"
Vladislav Solodkiy
August 18, 2024
Whenever people talk about network states, or better, metastates, or
chartered cities, Estonia is often mentioned, but I more often use
Singapore as an example. If you separate politics (discussions about
values and strategies) from functions (specific services) within a state,
you can perfect each "toothbrush" (to use Silicon Valley parlance) and
make it scalable far beyond a single state.
Too often, there's too much debate – does the service simply work or not,
is it expensive or cheap, fast or slow? Debates about the eternal are
certainly important, but both sides will only benefit if politics are uprooted
and separated from the services provided by the state (security, elections,
healthcare, education, monetary and fiscal policy, etc).
I have many wonderful stories about the efficiency of various Singaporean
government services - like the IRS tax authority, the MAS financial
regulator, health support through nutrition, and quality of life through
domestic helpers... I could list examples for a very long time - and often
raise the question that Singapore does some things so well that: why
shouldn't it become more and more government-as-a-service? Scale and
export individual services to other countries - such as the SingPass
digital identity project, or Justice-as-a-Service?
I recently filed a number of lawsuits in SG Courts - Magistrate Court
(MC/OCs 5885/2024 and 5886/2024), District Court (DC/OCs 1063/2024
and 1072/2024), and High or Supreme Court (HC/OC 618/2024). Once
again, I was surprised at how, when faced with another government
service in Singapore, you feel like a client! Yes, a client - you can directly
see how important it is for the state not only for you to have access to
justice, but also for it to be clear and convenient for you.
2
27.12.2024, 17:28 (2) An Online-Court in Singapore, or Justice-as-a-Service: A New Paradigm? | LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/online-court-singapore-justice-as-a-service-new-vladislav-solodkiy-my6je/ 1/14

Just imagine - claims can be filed independently (without expensive
lawyers - everything is quite clear and logical), and online (both document
flow and hearings are often remote!). I write emails to the court myself
with questions or explanations - and the court representatives politely and
quickly (often within 2-3 days!) respond, in accessible language, and
delving into what you wrote.
When you first file lawsuits, the CrimsonLogic Pte Ltd employees who help
those who have chosen the self-litigation route in the State Courts of
Singapore or Supreme Court not only help you figure out how and what to
file, but also, in my case, personally provide moral support. Really! People
see that you are not a lawyer, you are nervous, you don't always know and
understand everything - and then I hear: "Hey, what are you doing, relax,
you're already here, you came, you prepared well, now we will help you fill
everything out correctly. Don't worry, no one will chase you away from here
until we help you." Can you imagine that? I don't know how it is in your
country - but I've lived in several countries, and everywhere this would
simply be a miracle or a fairy tale, no one would believe it!
Like in a good mobile app - I not only receive all sorts of auto-reminders,
but also all sorts of nice thank-yous, for example, "thank you for preparing
well for self-submission, we appreciate that you care about our work too."
I have seen several times when people with disabilities approached - and
they were immediately accepted not only without a queue, but also a
special person came to them, listened, understood, helped formulate
thoughts and the problem.
It is clear that a good attitude should not be confused with an already won
your case - but no matter how my lawsuits in Singapore end, whether I
win or lose, I am already very grateful to everyone who constantly helps
me offline and online to protect my rights: CrimsonLogic dreamteam,
registrars and other employees of the State Courts and the Supreme
Court. Any legal process is such a stress, but here specific people, with the
help of new technologies, are constantly thinking (not only about the
process of legal proceedings and justice itself, but also) about you
personally: so that it is clear, convenient, and cheap (yes, yes, very
affordable for everyone!) for you.
And most importantly - on the merits! I feel it every time - that they hear
me. Yes, sometimes they agree, sometimes they don't: but definitely any of
my requests did not go unnoticed or rejected simply on a formal basis.
The use of AI and ML algorithms in judicial decisions presents both
opportunities and challenges. While they have the potential to enhance
fairness and efficiency, significant concerns about transparency, bias, and
ethics must be addressed. Moving forward, it will be crucial to strike a
balance between leveraging the strengths of machine learning and
maintaining the essential human elements of justice and accountability.
Robust oversight, ethical considerations, and legal safeguards will be key
to ensuring that algorithms are used in a way that enhances rather than
undermines the principles of justice.
Government Support for Self-Represented Litigants in
Singapore (Against Powerful Opponents)
The creation of the self-litigation or litigation-in-person option in Singapore
(and in several other jurisdictions) is not specifically designed as a tool to
"defend" ordinary people from wealthier opponents with more resources,
such as large companies or individuals who can afford expensive lawyers,
however, it does play a role in leveling the playing field to some extent by
ensuring that everyone has access to justice, regardless of their financial
means.
The government, through the Community Justice Centre (CJC) and other
initiatives, provides resources to help self-represented litigants navigate
the legal process. This includes access to pro bono legal advice, simplified
forms, and online guides.
1. Access to Justice: This right is fundamental to the legal system and
is intended to prevent justice from being available only to those who
can afford legal representation.
2. Cost Savings: Self-representation can help individuals save on legal
fees, which can be prohibitively expensive, especially in complex
cases. This is particularly important in situations where the potential
cost of hiring a lawyer might deter someone from pursuing a
legitimate legal claim.
While self-litigation is designed to provide access to the courts, it does
trying to protect against the challenges posed when facing a well-
resourced opponent, such as a large company or a wealthy individual:
1. Resource Disparity: Wealthier opponents can often afford to hire
experienced legal teams, engage in extensive legal research, and
pursue strategies that can be time-consuming and costly for a self-
represented litigant to counter (self-represented litigant may struggle
to navigate the procedures, legal arguments, and evidentiary
requirements needed to effectively argue their case).
2. Potential for Strategic Use of Resources: There is a risk that
wealthier parties might use their resources to exhaust the self-
represented litigant, for example, by filing numerous motions,
engaging in extensive discovery, or dragging out the legal process,
which could lead the self-represented litigant to give up due to time
and financial constraints.
While self-representation is an option, Singapore also provides legal aid
and various forms of assistance for those who qualify. This can include
free or subsidized legal representation, access to legal clinics, and
resources provided by the Community Justice Centre (CJC). To address
some of these challenges, the Singaporean government and judiciary have
implemented several measures regarding self-litigation route:
Purpose of Self-Litigation in Singapore:

1. Simplified Procedures: In certain types of cases, such as small
claims or certain matters, procedures have been simplified to make
it easier for self-represented litigants to manage their cases.
2. Judicial Discretion: Judges in Singaporean courts are aware of the
challenges faced by self-represented litigants and quite often may
exercise discretion to ensure that cases are handled fairly, although
they must remain impartial and cannot provide legal advice.
While the option for self-litigation in Singapore is not specifically intended
to protect individuals from powerful opponents, it does provide a crucial
means of access to justice for those who cannot afford expensive legal
representation. However, the challenges of self-representation, particularly
when facing a well-resourced opponent, remain significant, and the
inherent complexities and potential for strategic resource use by wealthier
parties can still pose difficulties for self-represented litigants.
History and Advantages of Self-Litigation in Terms of Civil
Rights
Self-litigation, or litigation-in-person, has a significant history tied to civil
rights and access to justice. This approach has played a key role in
ensuring that individuals, regardless of their financial means or ability to
secure legal representation, can still access the legal system and defend
their rights.
1. Historical Origins: The right to self-representation has roots in the
common law tradition, where courts recognized that every individual
should have the opportunity to present their case, whether or not
they could afford a lawyer. This principle was established to ensure
fairness and prevent the legal system from being accessible only to
those with resources.
2. Civil Rights Movements: During various civil rights movements,
particularly in the 20th century, self-litigation became a vital tool for
individuals, especially who were marginalized or disenfranchised. In
many instances, individuals representing themselves were able to
bring attention to issues of discrimination, injustice, and inequality,
which might otherwise have been ignored if they were unable to
secure legal representation.
3. International Recognition: The right to self-representation has been
recognized in various international legal frameworks and human
rights conventions, emphasizing its importance as a fundamental
aspect of access to justice.
4. Empowerment of Individuals: One of the primary achievements of
self-litigation is that it provides access to justice for individuals who
cannot afford an expensive lawyer. This ensures that economic
barriers do not prevent people from seeking redress or defending
themselves in court. Self-litigation empowers individuals by allowing
them to take control of their legal matters. This can be particularly
significant in civil rights cases, where the individual may feel that the
legal system is biased or unresponsive to their needs. Representing
oneself can be a powerful assertion of autonomy and rights.
5. Highlighting Systemic Issues: Cases where individuals have
represented themselves have sometimes brought attention to
broader systemic issues within the legal system or society. By
navigating the system on their own, self-represented litigants may
expose barriers, biases, or unfair practices that might not be as
apparent when cases are handled by lawyers. There have been
instances where self-represented litigants have succeeded in setting
legal precedents or contributing to legal reforms. For example,
landmark cases in various jurisdictions have been brought by
individuals acting without lawyers, leading to significant changes in
the law, particularly in areas of civil rights and liberties.
6. Increased Legal Literacy: The self-litigation process often leads to a
better understanding of legal rights and the legal system among the
general public. As more individuals engage directly with the law,
there is a broader dissemination of legal knowledge, which can
contribute to a more informed and engaged citizenry.
The history and achievements of self-litigation are deeply intertwined with
the broader struggle for civil rights and access to justice. By allowing
individuals to represent themselves, the legal system upholds a
fundamental principle that justice should be accessible to all, not just to
those who can afford legal representation. While self-litigation presents
challenges, it remains a crucial aspect of ensuring fairness and equity in
the legal system.
Private and public organizations
about digital identity, govtech,…
Here are 18 public organizations and conferences
where you can discuss digital identity, govtech,
metastates and network states, and chartered cities:
linkedin.com
Encouragement of Simplified Procedures in Singapore
The prevalence of self-litigation has sometimes driven courts to simplify
procedures and make legal processes more accessible. This can include
the development of plain-language forms, the provision of legal aid
resources, and the establishment of self-help centers, all of which
contribute to a more accessible justice system.
In Singapore, while the courts provide certain accommodations and
guidance to self-represented litigants (litigants-in-person), it's not entirely
accurate to say that the government allows them to bypass all formal
obligations, however, the courts do make efforts to ensure that the
process is fair and that justice is not delayed unnecessarily by opponents
with more resources. Here’s a clearer understanding of how this works:
Flexibility for Self-Represented Litigants: The Singapore courts
understand that self-represented litigants may not have the same
legal expertise as lawyers. As a result, the courts may offer some
flexibility in procedural matters, particularly in lower courts like the
State Courts or for less complex cases. Judges may provide
guidance on procedural aspects and may be more lenient with
procedural errors, as long as the core substance of the case is clear.
Focus on the Essence: While self-represented litigants are still
required to follow the rules of court, there is an emphasis on
ensuring that the essence of the claim is not lost due to
technicalities. Judges may help focus the proceedings on the key
issues at hand rather than getting bogged down in procedural
minutiae. However, this does not mean that all formal obligations
can be ignored; fundamental rules, such as those related to evidence
and legal argumentation, must still be followed.
Preventing Abuse of Process by Opposing Parties via Judicial
Management of the Case: Singaporean judges play an active role in
managing cases to ensure that they are conducted efficiently and
fairly. If a party with more resources tries to delay proceedings
through excessive objections, re-applications, or other tactics, the
judge has the discretion to intervene. This includes setting timelines
for submissions, limiting the number of procedural motions, and
ensuring that the case progresses without unnecessary delays.
Case Conferences and Pre-Trial Management: In civil cases,
especially in the High Court, judges often hold case conferences to
streamline the issues, set deadlines, and address any procedural
matters early in the process. This helps prevent one party from
dragging out the proceedings unnecessarily.

Summary Judgment and Strike-Out Applications: If a defense is
deemed to be without merit, the court can grant a summary
judgment or strike out the defense without going through a full trial.
This mechanism prevents frivolous or vexatious actions from being
used to delay justice.
Costs Implications: The court may also impose costs orders on
parties who engage in tactics designed to delay proceedings. This
serves as a deterrent against using procedural tactics to wear down
an opponent.
Simplified Trials for Certain Cases: For certain types of cases, such
as small claims, the process is deliberately simplified to make it
more accessible for self-represented litigants. These simplified trials
focus on the substance of the dispute without getting overly
technical.
While the Singaporean legal system does provide some leniency and
support to self-represented litigants, the courts do make efforts to ensure
that the essence of a claim is not lost due to technicalities and that
wealthier opponents cannot unduly delay proceedings. The overall aim is
to ensure fairness, efficiency, and access to justice for all parties involved.
CrimsonLogic, through its eLitigation system and other technological
services, plays a critical role in enabling and supporting self-litigation in
Singapore. By providing an accessible, user-friendly platform for filing and
managing legal cases, CrimsonLogic helps self-represented litigants
navigate the complexities of the legal system more efficiently and
effectively. This support is crucial in ensuring that individuals, regardless
of their legal expertise or financial means, can pursue justice in the
Singaporean courts.
Support for Self-Represented Litigants in Singapore
In Singapore, "self-litigation" or "litigation-in-person" refers to the legal
process where an individual represents themselves in court without the
assistance of an expensive lawyer. This can occur in both the State Courts
and the High Court.
1. No Legal Representation: The litigant acts as their own lawyer,
taking on all responsibilities typically handled by legal counsel, such
as preparing legal documents, filing court papers, and arguing the
case in court.
2. Legal Rights: Individuals have the right to represent themselves in all
types of cases, whether civil or criminal, and in any level of court,
including the State Courts and the High Court.
3. Court's Role: The courts may exercise a degree of leniency towards
self-represented litigants in terms of procedural matters, but this is
limited. Singapore provides some resources to help self-represented
litigants, such as online guides, court forms, and legal clinics where
individuals can receive free legal advice. The Community Justice
Centre (CJC) is one such resource that offers support.
In the State Courts, self-litigation is more common, particularly in cases
involving small claims, the procedures are generally more straightforward
compared to the High Court. While self-litigation is allowed in the High
Court, it is less common due to the complexity of the cases typically
handled at this level, such as large civil claims, and appeals.
CrimsonLogic plays an essential role in supporting self-litigation in
Singapore by providing the technological infrastructure and platforms that
facilitate access to the legal system. Here’s how CrimsonLogic contributes
to self-litigation:
eLitigation System: CrimsonLogic developed and manages
the eLitigation system, which is an electronic filing and case
management system used by the Singapore courts. This platform is
crucial for self-represented litigants (litigants-in-person) because it
allows them to file legal documents online, manage their cases, and
access court records without needing to visit the court physically.
User-Friendly Interface: The eLitigation platform is designed to be
user-friendly, which helps self-represented litigants navigate the legal
process more easily. The system provides step-by-step guidance on
how to file documents, pay court fees, and comply with procedural
requirements, which is particularly valuable for those without legal
training.
Access to Information: Through CrimsonLogic's platforms, self-
represented litigants can access a wealth of legal information,
including procedural guides, templates, and FAQs that help them
understand how to prepare and present their cases.
Document Generation: Some CrimsonLogic services offer
automated document generation tools that assist litigants in
creating the necessary legal documents by filling out forms with
relevant details. This reduces the likelihood of procedural errors and
helps ensure that the documents are in the correct format.
Legal Assistance Integration: CrimsonLogic’s platforms are often
integrated with other legal support services, such as those provided
by the Community Justice Centre (CJC) or Legal Aid Bureau. This
integration allows self-represented litigants to access additional help
if they need legal advice or assistance with complex issues.
Streamlining Processes: By enabling online filings and case
management, CrimsonLogic helps streamline the legal process,
reducing the need for multiple court visits and minimizing delays.
This is particularly beneficial for self-represented litigants, who
might otherwise be overwhelmed by the procedural aspects of their
cases.
Timely Notifications: The eLitigation system also ensures that
litigants receive timely notifications about court dates, deadlines,
and other important developments in their cases, helping them stay
on track and avoid missing critical steps.
Reduced Costs: By providing an electronic platform for litigation,
CrimsonLogic helps reduce the costs associated with self-
representation, such as printing, courier fees, and time spent
traveling to court. This makes the litigation process more accessible
to individuals who might not have the financial resources to engage
in traditional litigation.
Remote Access: The ability to access court documents and manage
cases remotely is particularly valuable for those who may have
difficulty attending court in person due to work, health, or other
constraints.
Using Hamilton’s Example as an Illustration, Hamilton's
Role and the Nature of Self-Litigation: Essence Over
Formalities
Alexander Hamilton's role in the case of People v. Croswell and its
implications provides a fascinating and rich illustration. The case
of People v. Croswell and Hamilton’s involvement is indeed an apt
illustration of the importance of focusing on the essence of legal claims
over formalities. It also shows how significant legal principles, like
freedom of the press, can emerge from cases where the underdog is
supported in their fight against more powerful adversaries. However, it’s
important to note that this example isn’t one of pure self-litigation but
rather one where the intervention of a skilled lawyer was crucial in
achieving a just outcome.
Not Purely Self-Litigation: In the case of People v. Croswell, Harry
Croswell initially faced the challenges of self-representation, largely
because he lacked the resources to afford a lawyer. However,
Alexander Hamilton, a prominent lawyer and former Secretary of the

Treasury, took on Croswell’s defense pro bono (without charge).
While Croswell's situation started as self-litigation due to financial
constraints, it shifted when Hamilton stepped in as his advocate. So,
while this case involved aspects of self-representation, it ultimately
became a significant example of legal advocacy rather than pure
self-litigation.
Hamilton's Argument: Hamilton’s defense was indeed a powerful
example of focusing on the essence of the case over mere
formalities. He argued that the truth of the statements made by
Croswell in The Wasp should be a valid defense against libel
charges, challenging the then-prevailing British legal standards.
Hamilton emphasized the fundamental principle that if the
statements were true and made with good intentions, they should not
be considered libelous, even if they offended those in power.
Impact on Legal Doctrine: This argument was revolutionary because
it shifted the focus from procedural technicalities to the substantive
truth and intent behind the action. Although the New York Supreme
Court did not overturn Croswell’s conviction at the time due to a split
decision, Hamilton’s arguments influenced the New York Legislature
to change the law in 1805. This change allowed truth as a defense in
libel cases if it was published with good motives, significantly
advancing freedom of the speech.
Public vs. Private Libel: Hamilton’s distinction between public and
private libel further advanced the argument that public figures and
businessmen should be subject to greater scrutiny, laying the
groundwork for modern understandings of freedom of speech.
Hamilton’s defense of Croswell is an excellent example of how the core of
a legal claim (the truth and the protection of civil rights) can prevail over
strict adherence to formalities. This principle resonates with the idea that
in modern legal systems, especially those with provisions for self-
representation, courts should focus on the substance of a claim rather
than allowing procedural technicalities to obscure justice. While Croswell’s
case demonstrates that even individuals with limited resources can bring
important cases to court, it also highlights the challenges of self-
representation. Without Hamilton’s intervention, Croswell might not have
been able to effectively argue his case, illustrating both the potential and
the limitations of self-litigation.
Three books to understand the
future being built by Worldcoin
Digital identity isn't merely about "digitizing"
documents or moving governmental services online.
How we'll "consume" our (digital) passports (and st
linkedin.com
Back to Basics: Singapore as a Model for Government-as-
a-Service
My experience and example paints a picture of a legal system that goes
beyond mere functionality, aiming to deliver justice in a way that is
humane, accessible, and efficient. The broader idea of "government-as-a-
service" could revolutionize how public services are delivered globally,
making them more responsive, user-friendly, and scalable. Singapore, with
its track record of innovation and efficiency, is well-positioned to lead this
transformation, potentially setting a new standard for governance as
‘metastate’.
Singapore is often cited as a model for efficient and effective governance,
particularly in the way it delivers public services. The idea of "government-
as-a-service" or "justice-as-a-service" builds on this reputation by
suggesting that government functions can be separated from political
debate and optimized as scalable, exportable services. Here's how
Singapore exemplifies this concept:
1. User-Centric Approach: As you've experienced firsthand, Singapore's
legal system is designed with the user in mind. The focus on making
justice accessible, clear, and convenient—especially for self-
represented litigants—demonstrates a commitment to treating
citizens as clients who deserve high-quality service. This approach
reflects a broader trend in Singapore's public sector, where
government agencies strive to deliver services with the efficiency
and customer focus typically associated with the private sector.
2. Digital Integration and Accessibility: Singapore's embrace of digital
tools like the eLitigation system, managed by CrimsonLogic, is a
cornerstone of this user-centric approach. By allowing online filings,
remote hearings, and direct communication with court staff, the
system not only makes the legal process more efficient but also
more accessible. This is particularly beneficial for individuals who
might otherwise be overwhelmed by the complexity of legal
procedures.
3. Empathy and Support: The support you received—from
CrimsonLogic employees to court registrars—highlights the human
element that underpins Singapore’s legal system. It’s not just about
providing a service; it’s about ensuring that the service is delivered
with empathy, understanding, and a genuine desire to help people
navigate what can be a stressful and intimidating process.
4. Scalability and Exportability: The idea of scaling Singapore’s
government services, such as SingPass (the digital identity system)
or the justice system, to other countries is a compelling one. These
services could potentially be offered to other states or entities as a
"government-as-a-service" model, much like software-as-a-service
(SaaS) in the tech industry. This could allow other nations or regions
to benefit from Singapore’s expertise in creating efficient,
transparent, and citizen-focused public services without having to
build these systems from scratch.
My experience suggests that justice in Singapore is not just about legal
outcomes, but about the entire experience of seeking justice. The concept
of "justice-as-a-service" would involve:
Efficient and Accessible Legal Processes: Ensuring that legal
services are as straightforward and accessible as possible,
particularly for those who might not have the resources to hire
lawyers.
Personalized Support: Offering tailored assistance to individuals
based on their needs, including moral support, clear guidance, and
special accommodations for those with disabilities.
Digital Platforms and Automation: Utilizing technology to streamline
legal processes, reduce costs, and improve the user experience, all
while maintaining the integrity of the legal system.
Exportable Legal Services: Developing models where other
countries or regions could adopt these systems, benefiting from
Singapore’s experience and infrastructure.
The Russian Spy Embedded in the
World of Embedded Finance
Exactly 24 years ago, the Kursk submarine sank with
sailors on board, and in response to a journalist's
question to Putin, "What really happened to th
linkedin.com

Potential Benefits of Using AI in Judicial Decisions
Even now, algorithms are making decisions about loans, and in the future,
they want to entrust them with even court cases. We are talking about the
very idea of using algorithms to predict people's actions and outcomes.
For several years now, the academic community has been actively
discussing the use of machine learning to assess and predict this
behavior and make very important decisions about their fate based on it.
This practice could have far-reaching implications, given how widely
machine learning is used today - algorithms based on it are even being
proposed for use in courts.
One of the most famous (and radical) examples is a 2017 paper published
by a group of scientists led by renowned neural network specialist Jon
Kleinberg. According to the authors' calculations, if the decision on
whether to release defendants on bail or keep them behind bars until trial
were made by algorithms rather than judges, it could reduce the
"population" of detention centers by almost 40% without increasing crime
rates.
As Kleinberg and his colleagues insisted, this is possible precisely
because machine learning is better than a live judge at assessing the
personality of the accused and predicting whether they will commit new
crimes if their freedom is not restricted before trial. As Kleinberg insisted
in one of his many interviews, algorithms can remove the human factor
from important decisions and thus make them fairer.
These ideas are still extremely popular among machine learning
specialists. Thus, in the last six months alone, several articles have been
published on the use of machine learning in assessing the risk of
recidivism of convicted criminals, including when making decisions about
their possible parole (for example, one and two).
A study by German criminologists led by Sonja Etzler found no significant
advantages to using algorithms when trying to understand whether a
convicted sex offender would re-offend. Machine learning almost always
involves creating models that work on the "black box" principle, where a
large set of parameters is fed in and a decision comes out. This is
fundamentally different from a human.
When it comes to things like imprisonment - this is a very big problem.
After all, we more or less understand what a human judge relies on, but we
don't understand what AI is guided by. We simply throw a person into a
trained model and get a result. The same models that are trained on
human decisions (whether they are about granting loans or assessing the
propensity for domestic violence) will inevitably absorb human errors and
biases.
The debate surrounding the use of AI algorithms and machine learning in
the judicial system and other critical areas of decision-making is both
complex and highly consequential. While the potential benefits are
significant, so are the risks and ethical concerns.
Consistency and Objectivity: One of the most compelling arguments
for using algorithms in judicial decisions is the potential to eliminate
human biases and inconsistencies. Unlike human judges, who may
be influenced by emotions, fatigue, or unconscious biases,
algorithms can apply the same criteria uniformly across all cases.
Efficiency and Scale: Algorithms can process vast amounts of data
quickly, making them potentially more efficient than humans in
evaluating factors like the risk of re-offending. This could lead to
quicker, more data-driven decisions, such as in bail hearings or
parole evaluations, possibly reducing overcrowding in prisons.
Predictive Accuracy: Research like that of Jon Kleinberg suggests
that algorithms could be better at predicting outcomes, such as
whether a defendant will re-offend, by analyzing patterns that may
not be obvious to humans. This could lead to better-informed
decisions that balance public safety with fairness to the accused.
Lack of Transparency (Black Box Problem): A major concern with
machine learning models, especially deep learning models, is their
lack of transparency. These models often operate as "black boxes,"
where the decision-making process is not easily interpretable by
humans. This is problematic in judicial settings, where
understanding the rationale behind a decision is crucial for fairness
and accountability.
Bias in Data: Machine learning algorithms are only as good as the
data they are trained on. If the training data includes historical
biases—such as racial or socioeconomic disparities in past judicial
decisions—the algorithm may perpetuate or even exacerbate these
biases. This has been a significant issue in existing predictive
policing and criminal justice algorithms, which have sometimes
reinforced discriminatory practices.
Ethical Concerns: There are deep ethical implications in entrusting
decisions about human freedom to algorithms. Questions arise
about the fairness of delegating such responsibility to machines,
especially when it comes to high-stakes decisions like sentencing or
parole. The use of algorithms could lead to situations where
individuals are deprived of liberty based on predictions rather than
proven actions.
Human Oversight: One of the most important safeguards against the
potential pitfalls of algorithmic decision-making is ensuring that
human judges retain oversight. Algorithms should assist, not
replace, human judgment, providing recommendations or insights
that judges can use in conjunction with their own reasoning.
Support and Caution: While many in the machine learning
community advocate for the use of algorithms in judicial settings,
there is also a strong voice urging caution. Studies like those by
Sonja Etzler indicate that algorithms do not always outperform
human judgment and that their effectiveness can vary depending on
the context.
Hybrid Approaches: Some suggest that the best way forward may be
hybrid systems where algorithms provide recommendations, but
human judges make the final decisions. This could combine the
strengths of both human intuition and data-driven analysis while
mitigating the risks associated with each.
Legal and Regulatory Frameworks: As the use of algorithms in
judicial decision-making expands, there will be a growing need for
robust legal and regulatory frameworks to ensure transparency,
fairness, and accountability. This includes the possibility of requiring
explainability in algorithmic decisions and establishing clear
standards for their use.
Trust in the Legal System: The introduction of algorithms into the
judicial process could affect public trust in the legal system. While
some might see it as a move towards more impartial and scientific
decision-making, others may view it as dehumanizing or as a loss of
accountability.
The Role of Technology in Governance: The debate over algorithms
in the courtroom is part of a larger discussion about the role of
technology in governance. As governments increasingly rely on
technology to make decisions, there will be ongoing tension between
efficiency and fairness, between innovation and the preservation of
fundamental rights.

Ukraine's Next Big Export: Fedorov's
DIIA Pioneers Government-as-a-…
Estonia’s digital society offers a compelling vision of
the future, one in which the constraints of physical
geography are transcended by the boundles
linkedin.com
The Future of Network States: Pragmatic Optimism and
the Art of the Possible
The evolving concepts of network states, as discussed by thought
leaders like Balaji Srinivasan (and cool thoughts of Nikolai Chikishev
and Stepan Gershuni ), delve into some of the most provocative ideas in
the intersection of technology, governance, and society. The synthesis of
these ideas with historical and philosophical perspectives, such as
Thomas More's "Utopia," offers a compelling lens through which to view
the potential and challenges of these emerging digital and decentralized
forms of governance.
Network states, as proposed by Srinivasan, represent a radical shift in how
communities and governance might function in the future. They are, at
their core, communities that form around shared values or goals, initially in
digital spaces, but with the potential to transition into physical
settlements. This model challenges the traditional nation-state, which is
often defined by geography, politics, and historical ties, by suggesting that
in a digitally connected world, shared beliefs and objectives could be the
primary uniting factor.
The idea of "pragmatic optimism" is crucial in this discourse. Unlike
utopian idealists or passive pessimists, pragmatic optimists recognize the
limitations of current systems but actively work towards incremental
improvements. The process of negotiating with governments, drafting
policies, and working with various institutions to create new forms of
governance is indeed complex and requires a deep understanding of both
the possibilities and the constraints of the present systems.
Balaji Srinivasan's argument that technologies like AI and blockchain can
both challenge and enhance traditional state functions is particularly
relevant. AI’s potential to create digital abundance contrasts sharply with
blockchain’s role in ensuring digital scarcity and authenticity. This
dichotomy illustrates how these technologies can be both empowering
and destabilizing, depending on how they are implemented and governed.
For instance, AI's ability to democratize services—providing access to
virtual lawyers, doctors, and artists—could revolutionize access to basic
needs, making them more affordable and widespread. However, this same
technology could also create significant challenges in verifying the
authenticity of information, a problem that cryptocurrencies and
blockchain technology are uniquely positioned to address through
decentralized verification systems.
Digital identity and reputation management are key components of the
emerging network state infrastructure. These tools are essential for
establishing trust and accountability in communities that are not bound by
physical proximity or traditional legal frameworks. The development of
these technologies could also enable more sophisticated forms of on-
chain governance, where decisions are made transparently and
democratically, with real-time accountability.
Despite the promise of network states, there are significant challenges
and criticisms to consider:
1. Centralization vs. Decentralization: Vitalik Buterin's critique of
Srinivasan's model highlights a fundamental tension in the concept
of network states. While the idea is to decentralize power and create
more democratic forms of governance, there is a risk that these
communities could replicate the same power structures they seek to
escape, with leadership becoming centralized around a few
influential figures or entities.
2. Economic Sustainability: The financial sustainability of network
states remains an open question. Traditional states rely on taxation
and other revenue mechanisms to fund public services and
infrastructure. Network states will need to develop alternative
economic models that can support their communities without
relying on traditional state structures.
3. Legitimacy and Recognition: Achieving diplomatic recognition is a
significant hurdle for network states. Without recognition from
existing nation-states, these entities may struggle to establish
themselves as legitimate actors in the international arena. This
creates a paradox where network states, which seek to transcend
traditional governance, must still engage with it to some degree.
4. Human Psychology and Community Dynamics: The concept of a
network state assumes a level of cohesion and commitment to a
shared "one commandment." However, human psychology is
complex, and maintaining unity in such communities may prove
difficult, especially as they grow larger and more diverse.
As these ideas continue to develop, it will be crucial to monitor how they
evolve in practice. The next few years could see the rise of experimental
communities that test the boundaries of what is possible with digital
governance. These experiments will provide valuable insights into the
viability of network states and their potential to offer a real alternative to
traditional forms of governance.
The ongoing discussions and projects by figures like Srinivasan, Buterin,
and others in the tech and crypto communities are laying the groundwork
for these new forms of social organization. Whether these network states
can overcome the challenges they face and provide a sustainable,
scalable model of governance remains to be seen, but the conversation
they have sparked is already influencing how we think about the future of
society, technology, and governance.
My own experiences and reflections on Singapore's approach to
government services provide a fascinating real-world counterpoint to
these theoretical discussions. Singapore's model of efficient, client-
oriented public service delivery could offer valuable lessons for the
development of network states, particularly in how to balance innovation
with practicality and human-centered design.
Medium
Comments
Like
21 · 2 comments
Comment Share
Add a comment…
Most relevant

Edit article
View stats
View post
The Unexpected Harmony of Order:
My Life as an Unlikely Self-Litigant
Vladislav Solodkiy
November 28, 2024
Vladislav Solodkiy on LinkedIn:
Wooooow! Who could explain it pls…
Wooooow! Who could explain it pls?! O_o zero
budget for advertising, SEO, context, social, etc - zero,
no money at all. The image&data provide analytics…
linkedin.com
When I moved to Singapore in May 2015, friends who knew my inclination
to support various opposition movements asked me, "How will you live
there? There's no opposition!" And you know what? There isn't—and
perhaps that's okay.
Ethics
amazon.co.uk
What's the point of opposition if the state actively seeks your feedback at
every step, asking what can be improved and how to make things more
convenient for you? Protesting for the sake of protest seems unnecessary
in such a context. If there is criticism—or better yet, practical suggestions
—the Singaporean government doesn't take offense. Instead, it embraces
feedback as new ideas for improvements and growth opportunities.
2
27.12.2024, 17:31 (2) The Unexpected Harmony of Order: My Life as an Unlikely Self-Litigant | LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/unexpected-harmony-order-my-life-unlikely-vladislav-solodkiy-9cyte/?trackingId=2mloImTPQeWR1Zz2bOT5kA%3… 1/9
‘Houston, I’ve a Problem’: Request
for Legal Assistance
‘Ben, it’s Danila! I need help!’: Seeking Legal Support
in David vs. Goliath Battle re the ‘Claim-Who-Must-
Not-Be-Named’
Medium
State as a Service
In Singapore, the state as a service is meticulously separated from the
state as a policy—and that's excellent. Some things either work or they
don't; they're either good or bad, expensive or cheap, fast or slow, efficient
or not. In Singapore, you primarily feel like a customer. The state doesn't
grant you an arrogant, condescending right to leech off its great history
and generations of achievements. Instead, it clearly states: the state lives
on taxes (and investments). To collect more taxes, people and companies
need to earn more. For them to earn more, they must be comfortable. So
the government asks, "How can we make you comfortable?" It sounds
simple, but you start to feel it deeply after just a few months of living here.
Medium
Request for Legal Assistance & Representation: My
Fight for Justice Against ArivalBank . com
Change.org
Requesting Transparency Regarding ArivalBank .
com's Ownership and Real UBOs
Change.org
Yes, Singaporeans are known for their adherence to rules and procedures.
But these same people openly admit that rules are always written about
yesterday. Development and prosperity are about tomorrow, which doesn't
exist yet and shouldn't be stifled prematurely. Despite this love for rules,
you don't see it taken to absurdity. On the contrary, the state tells you,
"Rules are good, but they are assumptions made under certain conditions.
If you see that conditions have changed and the rules need to be updated
—change them."
An AI Gavel of Justice in Every Hand
with ChatGPT&Gemini
Imagine a world where navigating the complexities of
the legal system is no longer a daunting task
reserved for lawyers and legal scholars…
Medium

My Legal Journey
I've been going through (and continue to go through) an intensive legal
process as both defendant and plaintiff in various court formats and
instances. I've already written a lot about the pros—for example, here.
Today, I'll tell you about the cons—not as criticism, but as feedback and
suggestions on how it could be even more convenient and efficient. And
yes, I'm not a lawyer and don't understand much about law and court
proceedings, but I'm well-versed in new technologies, UX, digitalization of
offline services, and compliance.
Embark on a captivating journey through the world of
legal battles, artificial intelligence, and the fight for
justice. A lone warrior armed with AI takes on a…
Smashwords
The Most Pressing Issue—Access to eLitigation
It's extremely inconvenient that, as a self-litigant, you don't have access to
the eLitigation system. It feels like a restriction of means and rights—a
push to "hire a lawyer after all." I assume this is done to prevent non-
professionals from spamming the system with unstructured, chaotic
content, which is reasonable. But if pre-submission checks are needed,
why not allow law firms to act as proxies for self-litigants?
All the lawyers I contacted in Singapore said they could either represent a
party entirely or couldn't assist at all—even for pre-checks and
submissions. But no one explained the logic behind this "no"—it's just not
the way it's done. "No one has ever done it that way before" shouldn't stop
us from improving and progressing, right?
Despite numerous requests to the court for access—direct or otherwise—
they were ignored. Frankly, it's easier for me to hear a "no" than to face the
uncertainty of being ignored. I've repeatedly emphasized during my trials
that I'm not asking the court to take my side; all I ask is not to let my
opponents delay and formalize the process to the point of abstraction and
absurdity. Just make a decision—one way or another—but take a position.
Litigation & Legal Ethics von Slava…
Über 2.000.000 eBooks bei Thalia ✔»Justice in
Metastate Era: AI, Self-Litigation & Legal Ethics« von
Slava Solodkiy & weitere eBooks online kaufen &…
thalia.de
Absurd Situations
This leads to absurd situations in my case:
Court: You didn't respond to your opponents and the court.
Me: I did. I wrote detailed replies the next day and expressed my
readiness to provide any additional information.
Court: Yes, I saw your email, but it's not in eLitigation yet—I haven't
officially read it.
Me: Okay, to be formal, I uploaded the same answers (without any
changes) to eLitigation.
Court: Yes, but you did it only yesterday—that's late. And anyway, it's
your own decision to be a self-litigant; you could have hired a lawyer.
Me: It's not by choice—as a result of my opponents' actions, I'm left
without means and have to defend myself. I was physically unable to
do it earlier. I immediately asked you to grant me access to
eLitigation.
Court: Well, that's a separate request. You'll need to file it separately.
Adjourned.
Litigation & Legal Ethics Ebook au…
Téléchargez le livre Justice in Metastate Era: AI, Self-
Litigation & Legal Ethics de Slava Solodkiy en Ebook
au format ePub sur Vivlio et retrouvez le sur votre lis
Vivlio
About CrimsonLogic Service Bureau
The overall approach is amazing, and the staff are particularly helpful. I
can't thank them enough for their work and support. However, interactions
with them could be made more efficient and convenient:
I understand the need for KYC (Know Your Customer) procedures,
but why do it every time? There could be a profile or personal
account system.
The system isn't integrated with the SingPass app (the court has one
too). Public services in Singapore are among the most convenient,
and you can verify your identity via the app almost everywhere—but
not in court.
Every time I file a document (and even a request to file a document),
I have to repeatedly provide my name, case number, address,
plaintiff-defendant details. Data parsing and dataset export-import
could streamline this process.
You can't authorize someone else to submit documents on your
behalf, even though their role is just to deliver them, wait for them to
be entered into the system, pay the fee, and leave.
Litigation & Legal Ethics ebook by…
Read "Justice in Metastate Era: AI, Self-Litigation &
Legal Ethics" by Slava Solodkiy available from
Rakuten Kobo. Rethinking Justice in the Age of AI,…
Rakuten Kobo
Court Session Formats
No one prohibits you from requesting the court to change the format of
court sessions (I haven't tried it, but I'm sure it's allowed and won't be
negatively received). I'm all for live, personal communication. But when
sessions are absolutely formal and never actually discuss the case, why
waste so much time and resources?
Singapore was one of the first nations to legalize and universally
implement e-documents like DocuSign and HelloSign. Yet, every affidavit,
every piece of paper, has to be certified by a lawyer or notary offline. There
aren't enough services like Notarize.com, which are prevalent in places like
the U.S. (I'm not necessarily praising the U.S.; Singapore is much better).

Available now at your favorite digital
store!
Ethics by Slava Solodkiy
books2read.com
Lack of a Personal Account System
There's no personal account or profile on the court website, eLitigation, or
CrimsonLogic (law firms have one—"but unfortunately you have chosen to
be self-litigant"), where you, as a participant in the process, can see the
progress of the case, all documents, important dates (and can
immediately add them to your calendar with one click), and links. This
wouldn't be so bad if all discussions stayed focused on substance and
content. But if your opponents deliberately drag everything out with
formalism, bureaucracy, and distracting details, you, as a self-litigant,
might just go crazy.
I've lost all sense of why and what's going on in the processes. Why is this
happening? Because it can and is allowed to happen. Okay, but when will
we get to the point and conclude? Everything will happen as it should, and
that's what will lead us to a decision. Will we be led to a decision by a
series of processes or by an understanding of justice based on the
details? We're on the side of the justice processes.
Bridging the Gap: Legal Cost
Compensation in the AI-powered…
The Equity of Legal Cost Compensation: Rethinking
Fairness in Justice https://l.Nansen.id/YoJZFv The
justice system serves as the cornerstone of a fair…
Personal Reflections
I didn't mean for this to happen; it just did. I feel like a student being
reprimanded. If you're sick, not only do you need to be ill, but you also need
a certificate stating you're too ill to attend a specific hearing in a particular
court. Thank goodness the court didn't support my opponents' stream of
consciousness.
Regarding online interactions, it's long been standard in forums and online
communities to ban those who disrupt discussions. I've gently hinted to
the court that I don't mind responding to my opponents' comments and
objections, but it feels like they're just causing unnecessary disruptions.
Yet, they are professional lawyers, and they have the right to defend
themselves.
Compliance Cowboys on Amazon by
Follow The Money [Anti] Money…
My brand-spanking-new book, Compliance Cowboys:
The High-Risk, High-Reward World of Shadow
Banking and Digital Identity,…
Reimbursement for Self-Defense
For some reason, if you call yourself a lawyer, then no matter how useful
or not your input is, if you lose, you pay all the opponent's legal bills. If you
win, can you get reimbursed for your time and effort for self-defense?
Well, you chose to be a self-litigant, and you could have hired a lawyer.
Litigation & Legal Ethics by Slava…
Rethinking Justice in the Age of AI, Self-Litigation,
and Legal Power PlaysWhat happens when a lone
self-litigant faces off against corporate titans arm...
Fable
My Relationship with AI as a Self-Litigant
I wouldn't have known or been able to do anything without the emergence
of ChatGPT and the rapid development of Gemini AI tools. Every time I
dive into the new world of justice and fairness with them, I'm reminded of
a line from Jodie Foster's character in the last season of "True Detective":
"You're not asking the right question—ask the right question!" Indeed, when
you can't find the answer to something with AI, it's often because you need
to ask the right question.
In Conclusion: Don't be afraid; don't let yourself be silenced—ask
questions!
A Fair Trial Is A Utopia? ‘Judge
Hercules’ from Law's Empire
(Not about me, my claims and courts’ adventures.)
‘Judge Hercules’ is a hypothetical figure introduced
by legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin in his 1986
linkedin.com
To the exceptional lawyers of Singapore, champions of justice and ethics,
who embody the true spirit of the law. Your dedication and
professionalism inspire.

Edit article
View stats
View post
Memorandum: Re: The Artful
Dodger and the Insolvent Creditor –
A Modern Legal Tragedy (or
Comedy?)
Vladislav Solodkiy
December 28, 2024
To: The Honorable Court (and anyone else who appreciates a good legal
brawl) From: A (Theoretically) Brilliant Legal Mind (with apologies to
Dickens) Date: Today (because justice delayed is justice denied, and
frankly, I'm impatient) Re: Opponent's Machiavellian Maneuvers: A Case of
"Bankruptcy by Design"?
Murderer and Victim: “The murderer demands that the victim stay
alive.” Like someone stabbing you, then complaining that you’re
making it difficult for them by bleeding out. “The murderer insists on
an autopsy to prove the victim died of a heart attack rather than
multiple stab wounds.” Imagine your opponents claiming your
financial ruin is your own doing, ignoring the gaping holes they
inflicted in your accounts. “The murderer sues the victim’s family for
emotional distress caused by having to defend himself in court.” As if
they’re saying, “You’re making me look bad by dying—how
inconsiderate!”
Executive Summary:
We find ourselves embroiled in a legal drama that would make
Shakespeare himself reach for a stronger quill. Our client, a hapless
individual creditor (let's call him "Our Hero," shall we?), stands on the
precipice of bankruptcy, not through his own financial misadventures, but
due to the machinations of a corporate entity that seems to have
perfected the art of the legal two-step – let's call them "The Artful Dodger."
The Dodger, owing Our Hero a substantial sum, has engaged in a series of
maneuvers so exquisitely evasive, so masterfully dilatory, that one might
almost admire their audacity, if it weren't so utterly infuriating.
2
29.12.2024, 11:14 (2) Memorandum: Re: The Artful Dodger and the Insolvent Creditor – A Modern Legal Tragedy (or Comedy?) | LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/memorandum-re-artful-dodger-insolvent-creditor-modern-solodkiy-6aa4e/?trackingId=UuINXGcmSuWkWWsnncu… 1/5
https://l.Nansen.id/3wAEZU
Towards a Fairer Future: Calling for Transparency and
Ethics in Legal Proceedings
Change.org
The question before us, esteemed jurists, is not merely whether The
Dodger owes Our Hero money (they do, and quite a lot, thank you very
much). The question is whether The Dodger has weaponized the legal
system itself, turning the hallowed halls of justice into an obstacle course
designed to financially cripple Our Hero and force him into the cold
embrace of insolvency. Have they, in essence, engineered a bespoke
bankruptcy, a "Bankruptcy by Design," if you will? And if so, is this not a
perversion of the very principles upon which our legal system stands?
Forced Bankruptcy = Forced Starvation: “Starve someone to the brink,
then demand they prove they’re well-fed.” They create the perfect
storm by withholding payments, then insist you show financial
stability. “Refuse to let you sleep and then scold you for being tired.”
They block every chance you have to recover, yet blame you for not
being energetic enough.
The Dodger's Dance: A Symphony of Delay
The Dodger's tactics are a masterclass in legal obfuscation. We have the
classic "delay, deny, and deflect" – a three-act play familiar to any
seasoned litigator. Requests for extensions that would make a sloth blush,
contractual interpretations that defy both logic and common sense, and a
blizzard of motions that seem designed to bury Our Hero (and this court,
perhaps?) under a mountain of paperwork.
Roy Cohn's Uknown Adventures in
Singapore
The SuperHero of Legal Cynicism vs ‘Judges-
Herculeses’ In the pantheon of legal legends, Roy
Cohn stands not as a beacon of Hercules-like justic…
linkedin.com
One might, with a generous dose of naiveté, attribute this to a zealous
defense. But the pattern, dear friends, the pattern is undeniable. The
Dodger's dance is not a pursuit of truth; it is a carefully choreographed
ballet of attrition. They are, to borrow a phrase from the boxing ring, "rope-
a-doping" their way to victory, not by landing a knockout blow, but by
letting Our Hero exhaust himself swinging at shadows. It's as if Sun Tzu
himself had taken up residence in their legal department, whispering
sweet nothings about the art of war by exhaustion.
Concentration Camp Comparison: “Is this a court proceeding, or are
we back in a historical atrocity?”The level of twisted logic sometimes
feels akin to saying: “If you really wanted to survive, you would have—
so it’s your own fault that you didn’t.”
Beyond Breach of Contract: A Conspiracy of Circumstances?
We are not merely alleging a simple breach of contract. Oh no, this is far
more intriguing. We are suggesting that The Dodger's actions, when
viewed in their totality, constitute a concerted effort to drive Our Hero to
the poorhouse. We are talking about, dare I say it, a conspiracy of
circumstances, a carefully constructed legal labyrinth designed to lead to
one inevitable outcome: Our Hero's financial demise.

Roy Cohn: 'Psychopathy: It’s Not a
Bug - It’s A Feature Bro!' by Follow…
His legacy lives on in certain aggressive legal tactics,
but he's generally viewed as a cautionary tale rather
than a role model in legal ethics. [Read more here]…
Is this "intentional infliction of bankruptcy"? Perhaps not in the traditional
sense. There's no neat label for this kind of legal gamesmanship. But does
that make it any less insidious? I posit that it does not. We are witnessing
the weaponization of financial disparity, a legal ju-jitsu where the deeper
pockets win, not by merit, but by endurance.
Arsonist and Firefighter: “The arsonist sets your house on fire, then
complains you didn’t have enough water to douse the flames.”They
sabotage your finances and ask, “Why didn’t you solve your own
liquidity crisis?”
Abuse of Rights: When "Having Rights" Goes Wrong
The Dodger will undoubtedly cloak themselves in the sanctity of their legal
rights. They have the right to defend themselves, to dispute claims, to
utilize every legal avenue available. And they are correct, in the abstract.
But here's where things get interesting. At what point does the exercise of
one's rights become an abuse of those rights? When does zealous
advocacy morph into a scorched-earth policy designed to obliterate the
opponent, not in the courtroom, but in the bank account?
Roy Cohn, The Most 'Innovative'
Anti-Hercules of Law, in Singapore
Podcast Episode · Chief Believer · 12/27/2024 · 17m
Apple Podcasts
Singapore law, like many enlightened legal systems, recognizes the
concept of "abuse of rights." It's a subtle doctrine, a legal scalpel rather
than a sledgehammer. But it is precisely the tool we need here. We must
demonstrate that The Dodger's actions, while appearing superficially
legitimate, are, in their essence, a perversion of the legal process. Their
motive, we argue, is not to seek justice but to inflict financial ruin. They are
not playing by the rules; they are gaming the rules. They are not exercising
rights; they are abusing rights.
Thief and Police: “A thief robs you blind, then berates you for not
being able to afford a lawyer.”They take away your resources and then
shame you for not fighting back effectively.
Economic Duress: The Invisible Hand (or Fist?)
And what of the pressure being exerted on Our Hero? He's being squeezed,
slowly but surely, like a grape in a wine press. The Dodger is using his
precarious financial state, a state they engineered, to force concessions.
"Settle for pennies on the dollar," they whisper, "or face oblivion."
This, my friends, is the very definition of economic duress. It's a subtle
form of coercion, where the threat is not physical violence but financial
annihilation. It's the invisible hand of the market, transformed into a fist,
pounding on Our Hero's door, demanding surrender.
Jailer and Prisoner: “The jailer starves the inmate, then scolds the
inmate for looking weak.” Their actions destroy your financial health,
and they scold you for collapsing.
A Vision for a More Just Future (or at Least a Less Frustrating One)
So, where do we go from here? Are we doomed to watch as the Artful
Dodgers of the world dance their way through the courts, leaving a trail of
bankruptcies in their wake?
I think not. I envision a future where the legal system is not just technically
sound but also morally sound. Where the pursuit of justice is not a
privilege reserved for the wealthy and the resilient. Where the spirit of the
law triumphs over its letter, when the letter is being used as a weapon.
We can start by recognizing that "intentional infliction of bankruptcy," even
if not a codified offense, is a real phenomenon. We can refine the doctrine
of abuse of rights, giving it sharper teeth to combat these subtle forms of
legal warfare. We can empower our judges to take a more proactive role in
managing litigation, sniffing out delaying tactics and ensuring a level
playing field.
Perhaps we can even dream of a day when legal tech, instead of being
used to generate endless reams of paperwork, is employed to streamline
the process, making justice swifter and more accessible. A bit utopian,
perhaps? But then again, isn't the pursuit of a more perfect legal system a
worthy, if slightly quixotic, endeavor?
Drowning Victim: “Demanding a drowning person not choke on
water.”They’re effectively pulling you under and then criticizing your
lack of Olympic-swimmer prowess.
Intentional Infliction of Bankruptcy?
Seeking Redress and Precedents
A Courageous Quest Through Legal Avenues When
the Debtor Tries to Turn the Tables
Medium
Conclusion: A Call to Arms (or at Least to a Thorough Legal Review)
We are not merely seeking a remedy for Our Hero, although he desperately
needs one. We are seeking to expose a flaw in the system, a vulnerability
that allows the powerful to manipulate the legal process to their
advantage.
We are asking the court to send a message, a message that echoes
through the hallowed halls of justice and into the boardrooms of every
corporation that thinks they can play by their own rules. The message is
simple: The law is not a toy. Justice is not a game. And bankruptcy
should not be a weapon.
Let us, together, ensure that the pursuit of justice remains a noble quest,
not a cynical game of attrition. Let us remind ourselves that the law, at its
best, is not just a set of rules, but a reflection of our shared values, our
commitment to fairness, and our belief in a just society. And perhaps, just
perhaps, let us hope that The Dodger learns a valuable lesson: that even
the most artful dodger cannot outrun justice forever.
Absurd Metaphors & Analogies For My Dearest
‘Friends’ In Singapore: The Essence of the Irony
Medium
Doctor and Patient: “A doctor infects the patient with a dangerous
disease, then refuses to treat them, claiming it’s all the patient’s fault.”

Self-Litigant in Singapore: Addressing Flawed Logic and Contradictory Arguments

More Related Content

More from Vladislav Solodkiy (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Self-Litigant in Singapore: Addressing Flawed Logic and Contradictory Arguments