Skip to main content

No kidding as Joe Augustin served lawyer's letters over a joke

Popular radio personality and funny man, Joe Augustin, was today served a lawyer's letter over a joke.

Although Joe has taken to his Facebook Page to explain the situation, he has requested that "And please under NO circumstances, try and guess in comments section below who this allegedly aggrieved party may be."

Wrote Joe Augustin,

"..One of my jokes (yes, JOKES) has resulted in a lawyer's letter being sent to me threatening that their instructions are to "proceed immediately to prosecute" their clients claims against me unless I complied with their demands by the end of business today. Significantly, this letter arrived this afternoon while I was sleeping. 

...But in the very final paragraph of their letter, they still expressly reserved "the right to seek substantial damages from me for defamation" amongst all other rights.

I am no lawyer, but I understand this to mean - We judge you have wronged us by our interpretation of the law. You must do such and such RIGHT NOW or we will start immediate legal proceedings against you. And *even* if you do what we ask of you we're not letting you off the hook. 

This sounds WAY too much like my mum when I was growing up.

So I wait, hitherto unnamed party, represented by your lawyers. I wait for your further details on your last demand, other expressly reserved rights not withstanding."

Joe has also assured his fans that the "allegedly aggrieved party" has nothing to do with a fellow ex-DJ Daniel Ong's written rant over his neighbour's recent renovation.

Taiwan’s Next Media Animation was recently taken to task by Cathay Pacific to take down the video titled "Cathay Pacific Business Class: designed for perverts?’ Cathay Pacific even resorted to asking Google to take the video down from YouTube because "under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, claiming NMA had violated Cathay’s copyright."






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why is Ramly Burger banned in Singapore?

Yahoo Singapore ran an article of the Ramly Burger by highlighting that it is ban in Singapore.

Yet, the writer from Makansutra failed to address the most important issue of why the Ramly meat patty is banned in Singapore.

A search online easily did highlight that the famous Malaysian meat patty is banned by the AVA but didn't go into details.

Wrote Arlina Arshad for The Straits Times in January 2004,

"But the importing of beef and beef products from Malaysia is not permitted, said theAgri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA).

Selling and supplying them without a permit is also an offence, and offenders can befined as much as $50,000 or jailed two years, or both, said the AVA."

In May of the same year, another article highlighted that a man was even charged in court for "smuggling" the Ramly burger in 2004.


"The AVA said that meat products processed in Malaysian food factories which it had notapproved were banned here.Suzali was yesterday jailed for four month…

Those Who Gamble Online Have Poorest Control - NCG Survey In 2012

Singapore will soon exempt local operators, Singapore Pools and Turf Club, from online gambling ban and the sites will be ready in November 2016.

Ministry of Home Affairs explained that a complete ban on remote gambling drives demand and activities underground, and may create larger incentives for criminal syndicates to target Singapore."

Yet in a 2012 survey by the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCG) found that those who gamble online have the poorest control.

 Source: https://app.msf.gov.sg/Portals/0/Summary/research/EDGD/Gambling%20participation%20survey%202011.pdf
For those who indulged in online gambling, 30.4% said they gambled for a longer period than they planned to, 33.3% gambled with more money than they planned and 29.2% gambled more frequently they planned to. 
Will launching the online gambling sites be like opening a Pandora Box that will create more issues in the future?

Did She Run Or Did She "Just Fake It" For Adidas?

Andrea Chong, a Adidas appointed influencer, posted a photo of herself in the middle of the Standard Chartered Singapore Marathon 2015 and captioned how she was "all smiles" during the run.

Unfortunately for Andrea or the PR agency, one of her readers checked her bib number #75148  at the Marathon's website only to find it to belonging to somebody else.

That somebody else is Kuvin Kuar, a intern at Edelman PR and the bib number had a status "DNF" or did not finished.

This raised the first red flag as one of the rules stated that "A Participants is strictly not allowed to transfer his or her race entry to another party".

This cascaded into perceptions that Andrea herself did not even start or complete the race and was only "planted" by Adidas or the PR agency, Edelman PR, to look pretty in the marathon.

Marketing Magazine noted that Adidas declined to comment about the incident which lead to further speculation that Andrea was possibly just …