RA 104 - David Lee's Crimes - Singapore Supreme Court Lawsuit

 Stamped Summons

Written Submission

Written Submission for Appeal

HC/RA 104/2026

Table of Contents

• Cover – Page 1

• Table of Contents – Page 2

• Relevant Individuals – Page 2

• Introduction – Page 2

• Chronological Account of Events – Pages 3-5

• David’s Bias – Pages 5-6

• David’ Crimes – Pages 6-7

• In Summary – Page 7

• How to move forward – Pages 7-8

• Appendices – Page 9-24

Relevant Individuals

1) I, Frank Lee. I am the Claimant in HC/OC 324/2026, and the appellant of HC/RA 104/2026.

2) David Lee. A Registrar at the Supreme Court.

3) Lay Peng Toh. An employee at the Supreme Court Registry.

4) Dominic Kwok. A lawyer at Legal Clinic in charge of defending the Institute of Mental Health, the first Defendant in this lawsuit.

Introduction

5) Although on paper this appeal is against three decisions of David Lee, it’s true purpose is threefold:

• 5a) To point out to the Supreme Court that David is a criminal.

• 5b) To demand that an unbiased, non-criminal employee is assigned to manage HC/OC 324/2026.

• 5c) To strongly recommend that the Court dismisses David and reports him to the police / the AGC for criminal prosecution.

Chronological Account of Events

6) First filing of HC/SUM 1144/2026

• 6a) On March 16^th, I filed a summons for an injunction against the IMH in a previous case, numbered HC/OC 122/2026.

• 6b) A 41-page affidavit was attached to this summons, in which I put up SGD10M of my own money, and made an urgent plea to the Supreme Court asking it to order the IMH to stop confining individuals, unless clear and concise evidence exists that an individual is likely to end its life in the near future, in order to reduce the amount of harm psychiatry is causing Singapore Citizens.

• 6c) The affidavit also clearly outlined the severe harm psychiatry is causing Singapore Citizens.

7) David’s Response

• 7a) Over the next 10 days, David did not act at all, and neither accepted nor rejected the summons.

• 7b) During the case conference on March 26^th, I made the decision to discontinue HC/OC 122/2026 and file a new case, because I deemed it the quickest way to make the necessary amendments to the SoC.

8) Filing of HC/OC 324/2026 and HC/SUM 1144/2026

• 8a) On Monday April 6^th, I filed the new OC and SoC, accompanied by the exact same summons for an injunction and affidavit as I had filed on March 16^th.

• 8b) In spite of these being marked urgent and I paying extra at the service bureau, I heard nothing from the Court throughout the week. I reached out to the Court via its phone support on Wednesday the 8^th, and I managed to speak to registry employee Lay Peng on Friday the 10^th. She explained to me that the Court was awaiting instructions from David, and that the OC and SoC could not be approved until the Summons for an Injunction was also approved.

• 8c) Lay Peng provided me with the option to submit a Form B14 via email to request an Urgent Hearing before a Judge.

• 8d) After one week, on Monday the 13^th, the OC, SoC, and Summons were accepted by the Court. They were assigned numbers HC/OC 324/2026 and SUM 1144/2026.

9) Urgent Hearing Before Duty Registrar Claudia

• 9a) I submitted Form B14 + Skeletal Submissions to the Supreme Court Registry via email on Friday the 10^th, clearly stating that the summons was urgent, because it involved hundreds of daily illegal unconstitutional confinements, and hundreds of daily crimes of involuntary brain alterations.

• 9b) In the Form B14, I proposed Thursday the 16^th as a hearing date, after having confirmed with Dominic his availability.

• 9c) On Monday the 13^th, I talked to Duty Registrar Claudia, and I clearly told her that every single day matters when it comes to hearing SUM 1144, because it involves hundreds of daily illegal unconstitutional confinements, and hundreds of daily crimes of involuntary brain alterations.

10) Case Conference on April 17^th

• 10a) Thursday the 16^th passed without SUM 1144 being heard by a judge. It appeared as though someone had decided that illegal unconstitutional confinements and involuntary brain alterations were not urgent.

• 10b) During the case conference on April 17^th, which David led, I again mentioned the illegal confinements and involuntary brain alterations.

• 10c) SUM 1144 was not discussed much. I remember David mentioning the service bureau had made a mistake and attached the accompanying affidavit instead of filing it separately.

• 10d) I believe David also mentioned that he wanted all Defendants be served first, which made no sense, because Dominic, the respondent’s lead counsel, had been aware of the summons’ existence since March 16^th, he had proposed April 16^th as a hearing date on April 10^th, and he had been served SUM 1144 on April 14^th.

• 10e) I would’ve spoken up more, but both during this case conference as well as the one in HC/OC 122/2026 on March 26^th, David got very angry when I spoke when he didn’t want me to, and he did not give me much space to talk, especially not regarding SUM 1144.

11) Follow-up Emails

• 11a) I re-filed the supporting affidavit for SUM 1144 separately the morning after the case conference on the 18^th, as per David’s request.

• 11b) I then sent three emails to the Supreme Court Registry regarding SUM 1144 on April 21^st, April 29^th, and May 1^st, reiterating the extreme urgency, and explaing that there were no valid reasons left to not put it in front of a judge.

• 11c) I also spoke to Lay Peng on the phone on April 24^th. She told me that she had seen my April 21^st email.

12) David’s lie on behalf of the Supreme Court to cover up his crime

• 12a) On May 4^th, I was told via email that “my email is receiving attention”.

• 12b) In my reply, I shared my disappointment with the Court, and factually stated that it was severely lacking in honesty and transparency, which is not in accordance with its own ideals.

• 12c) On May 5^th, I received a Registrar’s Notice, which was signed by Lay Peng, but the content of which I can only assume was written by David.

• 12d) In it, David stated that he had not put SUM 1144 in front of a judge yet, because the Court is obligated to do a whole lot of other things, irrelevant to SUM 1144, first.

• 12e) The Court is under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to do all the things David listed first. David lied on behalf of the Supreme Court to cover up his criminal choice to not put SUM 1144 in front of a judge for over a month.

13) My Response

• 13a) I emailed two follow-up letters to the Supreme Court Registry on May 5^th and May 6^th.

• 13b) In these, I pointed out David’s criminality, and I shared with the Court that I had taken it upon myself to initiate criminal proceedings against David via a Magistrate’s Complaint at the State Courts.

• 13c) And I asked the Court to put a different, unbiased Registrar in charge of HC/OC 324/2026.

14) David’s Bias

Through his May 5^th Registrar’s Notice, David communicated 7 decisions he had made on behalf of the Court during the April 17^th case conference:

1. I was to send an email to the AGC by April 20^th with the OC + SoC.

2. I was to write to the Court whether I had decided to discontinue HC/OC 324/2026 against 5 out of the 10 Defendants by April 27^th. (This didn’t come from me. David pushed me to discontinue this lawsuit against 5 out of the 10 Defendants.)

3. I was to continue serving Defendants and write to the Court by April 17^th to update it on the status.

4. I was to apply for substituted service by May 4^th if desired.

5. I was to re-file SUM 1144’s affidavit to correct the service bureau’s mistake by April 24^th.

6. The first Defendant was to file and serve a strike out application by May 15^th.

7. The first Defendant didn’t have to file a Defence for now.

Points 1-5 were instructions to me, and points 6-7 were instructions to the first Defendant.

Let’s take a look at the workload of these instructions.

1. A negligible amount of time.

2. Many hours, especially considering it involved filing an NoD. Just filing an NoD takes hours without E-Litigation access, when you have to go through the service bureau.

3. Dozens of hours. One Defendant lives in Hong Kong, I flew there and back within a single day, which was ~20 hours in and of itself. Furthermore, due to the 1^st Defendant’s crimes, 3^rd parties are prohibiting me from contacting two Defendants. My attempt to serve Laura took hours because the police was called on me, and I’ve made three unsuccessful attempts at serving Phyllis thus far. I’ve also spent many hours talking to the AGC employees asking them to help me serve Defendants 3, 4, and 5, but they have refused to help me.

4. This requires a service bureau visit, which is anywhere from a few hours to an entire day.

5. I went to the service bureau at 7:30AM on a Saturday morning for this one, so it only took ~3 hours.

6. Around 15 minutes with E-Litigation access.

7. No time at all.

As such, David instructed me to do things that took on the order of ~50 hours over the 2.5 weeks following the April 17^th case conference.

And David instructed the first Defendant to do something that takes 15 minutes over the following month.

And it appears as though David thought that that might be too high of a workload for the first Defendant, because he decided to relieve it of the burden of having to file a Defence.

You cannot state that David is unbiased and remain credible. His bias clearly shows through his actions.

David told the first Defendant that it didn’t have to file a Defence, and gave it an entire month to do 15 minutes of work. David has aided the first Defendant in its desire to postpone filing a Defence, something the first Defendant has been trying to do since I first served it an SoC in HC/OC 122/2026. A Defence wasn’t filed on time in HC/OC 122/2026 either, and Dominic attempted to financially manipulate me to get me to agree to him not filing a Defence in that case.

I have received the 1^st Defendant’s strike-out application since writing this. Although I was right about the application taking ~15 minutes, I can tell that the accompanying affidavit took more work. I estimate ~10 hours, or at most 20 hours. This weakens my claim that David is biased slightly, but it still stands.

15) David’s Crimes

• 15a) On March 16^th, David saw SUM 1144 in HC/OC 122/2026 and its accompanying affidavit.

• 15b) David chose to not do anything for 10 days, until HC/OC 122/2026 was discontinued.

• 15c) David again saw SUM 1144 on April 6^th when it was filed along with the OC and SoC of HC/OC 324/2026. David took a week to approve this filing marked “Urgent”.

• 15d) David saw my Form B14 + Skeletal Submissions on April 10^th, which clearly explained the extreme urgency of SUM 1144.

• 15e) David presumably was relayed by Claudia the reasons why SUM 1144 was extremely urgent, on April 13^th.

• 15f) David chose to let the proposed hearing date of April 16^th go by, in spite of at this point clearly knowing that the matter involved hundreds of daily (alleged) illegal unconstitutional confinements and involuntary brain alterations, as per what I told Claudia and as per my Form B14.

• 15g) David again heard me reiterate hundreds of daily illegal unconstitutional confinements and involuntary brain alterations during the April 17^th case conference.

• 15h) David saw my email on or around April 21^st begging him / the Court to put SUM 1144 in front of a judge due to extreme urgency.

• 15i) David saw a follow-up email from me on April 29^th.

• 15j) On May 1^st, David saw another email from me desperately asking him / the Court to put SUM 1144 in front of a judge.

• 15k) On May 5^th, David lied on behalf of the Supreme Court in his Registrar’s Notice stating that the Court is obligated to take care of a host of irrelevant matters first before SUM 1144 can be put in front of a judge.

• 15l) If David had had nothing to hide, he wouldn’t have lied. He lied to cover up his criminal choice to not put SUM 1144 in front of a judge for over a month.

16) In Summary

At this point, David has proven himself to be biased when it comes to the topics of HC/OC 324/2026. To me, the only plausible explanation for his actions is that he personally supports the illegal unconstitutional confinement and involuntary alteration of his fellow citizens whom he dislikes and whom he judges to be lunatics.

David has clearly shown extreme bias in his court decisions. While he could be given a stern warning for his bias, told to do better, and ultimately forgiven, the same cannot be said for his crimes:

1. David abused his power as a Supreme Court Registrar to push his own personal agenda by refusing to put the extremely urgent SUM 1144 in front of a judge for a month and a half. He has absolutely no excuse for this after I spoke to Duty Registrar Claudia on April 13^th and he let the proposed April 16^th hearing date pass. He has hereby enabled the IMH to continue its hundreds of daily crimes of illegal unconstitutional confinements and involuntary brain alterations against Singapore Citizens.

2. He covered up the above crime by lying on behalf of the Singapore Supreme Court in his Registrar’s Notice on May 5^th.

17) How to move forward

• 17a) I demand that David is no longer involved in HC/OC 324/2026 in any way, and that a Court employee who won’t let its personal biases influence its decisions is assigned to manage it.

• 17b) I strongly recommend that the Court dismisses David. The Singapore Supreme Court cannot remain a credible trustworthy institution in Singapore if it employs criminals like David, who has abused his power as a Court employee to push his own personal agenda.

• 17c) I strongly recommend that the Court reports David to the police / the AGC. I have initiated criminal proceedings against David via a Magistrate’s Complaint, but this really shouldn’t be on me. I am already incredibly busy fighting against the crimes going on at the IMH.

• 17d) I recently read that the AGC is seeking a prison term of up to three years against someone who licked an iJooz straw and put it back in the machine. As disgusting as that is, you can’t seek a three year prison sentence against such a crime and let someone like David go unpunished.

• 17e) I ask that the first Defendant is ordered to file a Defence on an accelerated timeline after its strike-out application has been dismissed.

• 17f) I ask that I be assigned a Court Process Server ASAP so that I can serve Phyllis, and also so that I can confirm that service was affected on Laura. As per my April 27^th affidavit and Police Report #25 in my reply affidavit to Pui Yee for SUM 1438, I do not know whether the documents were handed to Laura by the police.

Appendix A – Form B14 – I submitted via Email to SC Registry on April 10^th

Request for Urgent Hearing before Judge

Case Number(s) and Case Name(s)	On April 6th, I filed an Originating Claim and Statement of Claim marked “Urgent” through the service bureau. An employee from the Supreme Court’s registry has informed me that they are under review by a registrar named David Lee.
Sub-Case Number(s) (if applicable)	n/a
Name(s) of Applicant(s)	Frank Lee
Details of Applicant(s)	Claimant
Counsel for Applicant(s) (if represented)	Self-Represented Litigant
Contact Number(s) of Counsel for Applicant(s) (if represented) or of Applicant(s) (if unrepresented)	REDACTED
Name(s) of Respondent(s)	The Institute of Mental Health. But arguably the Ministry of Health’s point-of-view should also be heard.
Counsel for Respondent(s) (if represented)	Dominic Kwok @ Legal Clinic LLC
Contact Number(s) of Counsel for Respondent(s) (if represented) or of Respondent(s) (if unrepresented)	REDACTED
Summary of relief sought	An injunction preventing the IMH from confining individuals, unless there exists clear and concise evidence that a person is likely to end its life in the near-term.
Proposed hearing dates for the application(s)	Due to extreme urgency, I prefer this be heard as soon as possible. I will personally show up with 30 minutes notice, although I am unreachable between 8PM and 7AM while I sleep. The defendant’s council has stated it is available for half a day’s hearing on Thursday April 16th @ 2:30PM.
Estimated duration of the hearing	The respondent assumes it’ll take half a day. I think it should only take a minute. Let’s go with half a day to be safe.

Summary of relevant facts: 1) At every point in time, hundreds of Singapore citizens are confined to the IMH. They are not allowed to go home, and they are prevented from freely seeing their loved ones. Being confined is not in anyone’s best interest, arguably unless there exists clear and concise evidence that a person is likely to end its life in the near term. The law considers these human beings patients and IMH personnel their doctors/caregivers. This means that IMH personnel is required by law to act in the best interests of these human beings, which means releasing them from their confinements. As such, these confinements are not in accordance with the law, which means that these confinements are in violation of Article 9(1) of Singapore’s constitution. 2) Moreover, every single day, hundreds of Singapore citizens have their brains altered against their wills, without so much as a single piece of evidence that there is anything wrong with their brains. This is done by nurses at the IMH, who follow instructions from the psychiatrists. One does not need laws to understand that involuntary brain alteration constitutes a crime.

Reason(s) for urgency: Every single day, hundreds of Singapore citizens have their brains altered against their wills, without even a single piece of evidence that there is anything wrong with their brains.

Have all requisite Court papers been filed and are they in order?	I believe so. On April 6th, alongside an Originating Claim and Statement of Claim, I filed a summons for an injunction with a 41-page affidavit attached. The header of the affidavit matches an old case (HC/OC 122/2026) that’s been discontinued, but the content remains unchanged. Furthermore, I will file this Form B14 + Skeletal Submissions to the court via email, as instructed by an employee at the registry over the phone. I will cc the IMH’s legal counsel on that email.
Is this an application without notice?	This summons for an injunction was first filed in case HC/OC 122/2026 on March 16th, which has since been discontinued. That same day, the IMH’s legal counsel was informed of the filing and received a copy of the 41-page supporting affidavit. In addition, on March 18th, I delivered a letter to the MoH informing it of that summons for an injunction, with my 41-page affidavit attached. The mail room employee promised me he would deliver it to the MoH’s registry. Today, on April 10th, I informed the IMH’s legal counsel of my intent to submit this Form B14 to the Supreme Court. As such, the IMH’s legal counsel has been aware of my intentions in regards to this injunction for almost a month. If this legally constitutes notice, then yes. If not, then no.
Does paragraph 71 of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 on applications without notice for injunctions apply?	I believe it does not.
Has/Have the Applicant(s) notified the Respondent(s) of the attendance before the Duty Registrar?	It came up during a case conference for the discontinued case on March 26th. And I emailed the IMH’s legal counsel today, on April 10th, that I am filing a Form B14.
Has there been any previous request for an urgent hearing of the application(s)?	No.

Skeletal Submissions* (please select the applicable option): ☐ I confirm that the skeletal submissions have been filed together with this Form. ☐ The skeletal submissions could not be filed together with this Form, but will be filed as soon as possible and, in any event, no later than the next working day after the attendance before the Duty Registrar, unless the Court directs otherwise. ☐ Due to the extreme urgency, the skeletal submissions cannot be filed or provided in hard copy by the time of the hearing before the Judge, and I intend to seek a dispensation of this requirement at the hearing before the Judge.

Signature of Counsel for Application or of Applicant: Name: Frank Lee Date: April 10th 2026

^{* The skeletal submissions must comply with the requirements stated in paragraphs 87(5) and (6) of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021.}

Appendix B – My email to SC Registry on April 21^st

Appendix C – My email to SC Registry on April 29^th

Appendix D – My email to SC Registry on May 1^st

Appendix E – The response from SC Registry on May 4^th

Appendix F – My email to SC Registry on May 4^th

Appendix G – Registrar’s Notice issued on May 5^th

Appendix H – My letter to the Singapore Supreme Court & All Parties in HC/OC 324/2026 on May 5^th

Appendix I – My email to the Singapore Supreme Court & All Parties in HC/OC 324/2026 on May 5^th

Appendix J – My letter to the Singapore Supreme Court & All Parties in HC/OC 324/2026 on May 6^th