註冊 登入



打印

Barrister Stanley Kilian Ma the Bra Thief (偷胸圍大狀馬浩輝)

Barrister Stanley Kilian Ma the Bra Thief (偷胸圍大狀馬浩輝) E-mail 此主題給朋友

[隱藏]
偷胸圍大狀馬浩輝 (Barrister Stanley Kilian Ma the Bra Thief)













前途盡毀





回覆 引用 TOP

佢應該偷錢
有了 money
可以買 daddy (bra bra)






tc

回覆 引用 TOP

引用:
原帖由 lindachung4ever 於 2017-6-21 12:45 AM 發表

偷胸圍大狀馬浩輝 (Barrister Stanley Kilian Ma the Bra Thief)

How can barrister Stanley Kilian H F Ma shamelessly attempt to stay in the legal profession and shamelessly attempt to practise law after he had been found guilty of stealing a woman's bra? Which solicitor or lay client would be insane and foolish enough to use a bra thief when there are so many other choices around? I find this puzzling. Does this dishonest and disgusting barrister Stanley Kilian H F Ma actually get any cases to do?






回覆 引用 TOP

[隱藏]
引用:
原帖由 lindachung4ever 於 2017-6-21 12:45 AM 發表

偷胸圍大狀馬浩輝 (Barrister Stanley Kilian Ma the Bra Thief)

偷胸圍大罪犯喎!係女人見到都濕晒啦即刻!



回覆 引用 TOP

多謝分享





回覆 引用 TOP

Who is worse?  Barrister Stanley Ma or Barrister George Chu?  Both of them had been disciplined by the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal!

2000 - 朱奉慈大律師被釘牌 Lawyer Barrister George Chu Suspended for Misconduct
http://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.hk/2013/12/lawyer-counsel-and-barrister-george-chu.html

South China Morning Post, 12 Feb 2000 (Cliff Buddle)
http://www.scmp.com/article/307891/barrister-barred-deceiving-university

Lawyer Counsel Barrister George Chu Barred for Deceiving University

Lawyer Counsel Barrister George Chu (朱奉慈大律師) has been suspended for six months after a disciplinary tribunal found he pretended to have a first class honours degree when applying for a scholarship at the University of Hong Kong.

George Chu Fung-chee, admitted to the Bar in 1994, also breached a promise to the university not to operate as a barrister once he became a post-graduate student, the Barristers' Disciplinary Tribunal found.

The suspension was the longest to be imposed since 1996, and the tribunal took the unusual step of ordering that its findings be sent to the Secretary for Justice, Director of Legal Aid, the Law Society and all barristers.

Bar Association chairman Ronny Tong Ka-wah SC, said it had recently started requesting the tribunal to order publication of this kind in appropriate cases.

'There is an educational element in the decisions themselves,' he said.

'There is also a need for an increase in transparency in the profession. Those of us who have unfortunately committed disciplinary offences should be made known to the public.' Referring to Mr Chu's suspension, Mr Tong said: 'This is a serious case. In these circumstances it is only right that it be made known.' Bar Association honorary secretary Ambrose Ho said further changes which would make disciplinary decisions more transparent were being considered, but they might require amending current laws.

'We hope that by publishing the details of a conviction it might help our own members in complying with our regulations,' he said.

Mr Chu, whose suspension began on February 1 2000, was found guilty in relation to five complaints of professional misconduct.

He was convicted of falsely stating that his degree in economics and political science, awarded by the University of Waterloo, in Canada, was a first class honours degree.

The misrepresentation was used to support an application for admission to the university in March 1997, for post-graduate studentship in early September 1997, and for a scholarship at the end of that month.

He was also found to have worked as a barrister in September and October 1997, despite promising the university he would not, and signing an eligibility document stating he was not engaged in paid employment.

Mr Chu has the right to appeal against the tribunal's decision in the Court of Appeal.

He could not be contacted for comment.
_________________

蘋果日報 2006 年5月21日
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20060521/5944835

前大狀朱奉慈嘗試以堂費扣稅敗訴

曾參選區議會落敗的前執業大律師朱奉慈,早年申請研究生獎學金時,虛報有一級榮譽學士學位,兼違反暫時放棄執業的承諾,被大律師公會裁定違反專業操守,被停牌半年,兼要承擔紀律聆訊的堂費,他指已付堂費可扣稅,獲稅務上訴委員會接納,稅務局長昨在高等法院上訴得直,推翻委員會的決定。

參選區議會兩落敗

涉案堂費共75萬元,00至03年支付予大律師公會,稅務局長評估利得稅後,朱奉慈要求委員會覆核,委員會去年6月接納堂費是可扣除開支,推翻原本的評稅。

法官鍾安德昨頒布判詞,接納稅務局長上訴指,單純與納稅人業務有關的開支,並不足以視為可扣除開支,必須是「用作產生利潤」的開支才可扣稅,委員會犯了法律錯誤,遂恢復原本的評稅。

現年47歲的朱奉慈於94年成為執業大律師,97年向港大申請研究生獎學金時,虛報82年在加拿大一所大學所獲的學士學位屬一級榮譽,又違反向校方的承諾,一邊繼續執業做大律師,一邊領取兩個月約35,000元獎學金,00年經紀律聆訊,被裁定六項指控成立,朱曾於99年及03年參選區議會,均告落敗。
_______

Is this person, Lawyer Counsel Barrister George Chu, still practising law in Hong Kong after the Barristers' Disciplinary Tribunal convicted him of professional misconduct and (in the year 2000) suspended him for 6 months?










回覆 引用 TOP

唔錯, 謝謝分享





回覆 引用 TOP

引用:
原帖由 lindachung4ever 於 2017-6-21 12:45 AM 發表

偷胸圍大狀馬浩輝 (Barrister Stanley Kilian Ma the Bra Thief)

Who is worse? Barrister Stanley Killian Ma or Barrister George Chu? Both of them are disgusting lawyers who had been convicted of misconduct and suspended!

2000 - 朱奉慈大律師被釘牌 Lawyer Barrister George Chu Suspended for Misconduct
http://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.hk/2013/12/lawyer-counsel-and-barrister-george-chu.html

South China Morning Post, 12 Feb 2000 (Cliff Buddle)
http://www.scmp.com/article/307891/barrister-barred-deceiving-university

Lawyer Counsel Barrister George Chu Barred for Deceiving University

Lawyer Counsel Barrister George Chu (朱奉慈大律師) has been suspended for six months after a disciplinary tribunal found he pretended to have a first class honours degree when applying for a scholarship at the University of Hong Kong.

George Chu Fung-chee, admitted to the Bar in 1994, also breached a promise to the university not to operate as a barrister once he became a post-graduate student, the Barristers' Disciplinary Tribunal found.

The suspension was the longest to be imposed since 1996, and the tribunal took the unusual step of ordering that its findings be sent to the Secretary for Justice, Director of Legal Aid, the Law Society and all barristers.

Bar Association chairman Ronny Tong Ka-wah SC, said it had recently started requesting the tribunal to order publication of this kind in appropriate cases.

'There is an educational element in the decisions themselves,' he said.

'There is also a need for an increase in transparency in the profession. Those of us who have unfortunately committed disciplinary offences should be made known to the public.' Referring to Mr Chu's suspension, Mr Tong said: 'This is a serious case. In these circumstances it is only right that it be made known.' Bar Association honorary secretary Ambrose Ho said further changes which would make disciplinary decisions more transparent were being considered, but they might require amending current laws.

'We hope that by publishing the details of a conviction it might help our own members in complying with our regulations,' he said.

Mr Chu, whose suspension began on February 1 2000, was found guilty in relation to five complaints of professional misconduct.

He was convicted of falsely stating that his degree in economics and political science, awarded by the University of Waterloo, in Canada, was a first class honours degree.

The misrepresentation was used to support an application for admission to the university in March 1997, for post-graduate studentship in early September 1997, and for a scholarship at the end of that month.

He was also found to have worked as a barrister in September and October 1997, despite promising the university he would not, and signing an eligibility document stating he was not engaged in paid employment.

Mr Chu has the right to appeal against the tribunal's decision in the Court of Appeal.

He could not be contacted for comment.
_________________

蘋果日報 2006 年5月21日
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20060521/5944835

前大狀朱奉慈嘗試以堂費扣稅敗訴

曾參選區議會落敗的前執業大律師朱奉慈,早年申請研究生獎學金時,虛報有一級榮譽學士學位,兼違反暫時放棄執業的承諾,被大律師公會裁定違反專業操守,被停牌半年,兼要承擔紀律聆訊的堂費,他指已付堂費可扣稅,獲稅務上訴委員會接納,稅務局長昨在高等法院上訴得直,推翻委員會的決定。

參選區議會兩落敗

涉案堂費共75萬元,00至03年支付予大律師公會,稅務局長評估利得稅後,朱奉慈要求委員會覆核,委員會去年6月接納堂費是可扣除開支,推翻原本的評稅。

法官鍾安德昨頒布判詞,接納稅務局長上訴指,單純與納稅人業務有關的開支,並不足以視為可扣除開支,必須是「用作產生利潤」的開支才可扣稅,委員會犯了法律錯誤,遂恢復原本的評稅。

現年47歲的朱奉慈於94年成為執業大律師,97年向港大申請研究生獎學金時,虛報82年在加拿大一所大學所獲的學士學位屬一級榮譽,又違反向校方的承諾,一邊繼續執業做大律師,一邊領取兩個月約35,000元獎學金,00年經紀律聆訊,被裁定六項指控成立,朱曾於99年及03年參選區議會,均告落敗。
_______

Is this person, Lawyer Counsel Barrister George Chu, still practising law in Hong Kong after the Barristers' Disciplinary Tribunal convicted him of professional misconduct and (in the year 2000) suspended him for 6 months?







實用相關搜尋: Spa 大學 學位 稅務 法律 律師 blog

回覆 引用 TOP

[隱藏]

回覆 引用 TOP

怪癖






學海無涯,唯勤是岸

回覆 引用 TOP

樣撚衰


偷二手胸圍?






回覆 引用 TOP

偷M 巾刺激d






回覆 引用 TOP

[隱藏]
引用:
原帖由 hitara 於 2017-10-7 03:27 AM 發表

樣撚衰
Yes, but the worst lawyer in Hong Kong is actually Solicitor Au Wing Lun William, who had been disciplined by the Law Society of Hong Kong multiple times and had been criticized as flagrantly incompetent and abusing the legal process.
http://solicitorauwinglunwilliamisdisgusting.blogspot.hk/2017/07/solicitor-au-wing-lun-william-is-guilty.html?m=1

區穎麟律師經常俾香港律師會裁定違反專業操守佢自己知唔知醜㗎!自大冇撚用!Solicitor Au Wing Lun William is Guilty of Misconduct, Arrogant Ignorant Incompetent and Useless!

HKSAR v. LAI WAI [1998] HKCA 230; CACC 50/1998 (31 August 1998)

Power VP (giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal):

It is the contention of the appellant, argued by Mr. Phillip Ross, that there was a flagrant failure by Mr. William Au, who appeared for the applicant below properly to present the applicant's defence...

28. The defence accorded the applicant by Mr. Au was, we have no hesitation in saying, characterized by flagrant incompetence. He left matters to his clerk which were clearly his duty to undertake. He failed to ensure that full instructions were taken from the applicant and was, because of this, never in a position fully to put the defence.

AU WING LUN v. TAM MEI KAM AND OTHERS [2007] HKCFI 719; HCA 811/2007 (13 July 2007)

Before : Hon Poon J in Chambers

Plainly, the relationship between Mr Au and the Mother, together with the requisite trust and confidence which is essential to the relationship, has completely collapsed. In my view, the rent in the parties’ relationship is so deep that it is simply impossible for the Mother to continue to place any trust or confidence in Mr Au. When that very basis is gone, how can Mr Au continue to act for the Mother in the Probate Action? Mr Au suggested that he can do so and protect her interests without taking instructions from her and despite her objection. This is simply nonsensical. It defies common sense, rocks the very foundation of a solicitor-client relationship and destroys the very freedom that a client enjoys in choosing his own lawyer. It is indeed the most absurd submission that I have ever heard. It really appals me that such a suggestion could have come from the mouth of a practicing solicitor.

This is a wholly unmeritorious application. It is indeed an abuse of process. I will order costs against Mr Au on an indemnity basis, to be taxed if not agreed.













實用相關搜尋: 律師 香港 blog

回覆 引用 TOP

 16 12
 提示:支持鍵盤翻頁 ←左 右→
[按此隱藏 Google 建議的相符內容]
 





 

重要聲明:本討論區是以即時上載留言的方式運作,香港討論區對所有留言的真實性、完整性及立場等,不負任何法律責任。而一切留言之言論只代表留言者個人意 見,並非本網站之立場,讀者及用戶不應信賴內容,並應自行判斷內容之真實性。於有關情形下,讀者及用戶應尋求專業意見(如涉及醫療、法律或投資等問題)。 由於本討論區受到「即時上載留言」運作方式所規限,故不能完全監察所有留言,若讀者及用戶發現有留言出現問題,請聯絡我們。香港討論區有權刪除任何留言及拒絕任何人士上載留言 (刪除前或不會作事先警告及通知 ), 同時亦有不刪除留言的權利,如有任何爭議,管理員擁有最終的詮釋權 。用戶切勿撰寫粗言穢語、誹謗、渲染色情暴力或人身攻擊的言論,敬請自律。本網站保留一切法律權利。


Copyright©2003- Discuss.com.hk Limited. All Right Reserved.
版權所有,不得轉載。