Horace

2 hours ago, harrry said:

And not in US courts.where the lawyers just pocket the money they settle for but in the Thai Courts where it is a Criminal lible where Musk would be liable for arrest  if he ever passed through Thailand again.  He is so sure of himself that he would ignore that and come here sure he was safe.   

I seriously doubt that Musk will be passing through Thailand again knowing he could end up in jail for criminal defamation.

Go after him where he lives, California.  The US is not going to recognize or enforce a Thai (or UK) judgement for defamation.  But Musk's statements are so outrageous that he also breached US defamation laws and his exposure in the US is massive.  If its contingency, there is limit on the lawyer's share, and I am sure there are plenty of good lawyers willing to do this on a contingency in California.  Go after Musk's assets, and his heart and mind will follow.

1 minute ago, Sheryl said:

While US does not share Thailand's draconian defamation law it does have criminal libel laws in 17 states...and aside from that one can file a civil suit anywhere in the US for defamation.

Agree.  This is best addressed in a civil case in the US where major damages are in play.  I think Musk's lawyers will tell him to pay quickly (which means a major amount) to make this go away quickly.  What Musk did is indefensible.

2 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

A subtle way for Mr Unsworth to deal with this would be to have his lawyer to contact Mr Musk's lawyers with the threat of action, and the objective to settle before going that far.

 

That would minimize the troubles, and the costs...

Agree.  Musk has tremendous exposure here no matter where he is.  And I think its perfectly legitimate for Mr. Unsworth to make Mr. Musk pay.  And I think he can (why would Musk want to fight this and draw more attention to his reckless tweet?)

Class action was just a shot in the dark. I also doubt it will happen.  But I also think Musk should pay for this.

With this sort of defendant and this sort of defamation, I am sure you can get a damn good lawyer for Mr. Unsworth and I don't think it will cost him a thing.  I can't see how Musk can possibly defend what he tweeted.  

4 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

Like the covfefe tweet...

 

The problem is that, despite being live for a very short time, the tweet has made the headlines worldwide!

 

So the prejudice caused to Mr Unsworth is quite significant...

Agree 1000%.  I suspect Musk already has lawyers trying to minimize the damage and I suspect a few US contingency lawyers will reach out to Mr. Unsworth.  I don't see this going away unless Musk pays big time and I think that is the right result.

1 minute ago, OJAS said:

Assuming that Unsworth does decide to press defamation charges against him and he is still in the country at that point, I am sure that Musk will soon find this out once his passport has been seized and he finds himself unable to leave Thailand until the court case has been concluded at the very least - and, ideally, not before he has subsequenly done porridge for an exceedingly lengthy period of time in the Bangkok Hilton.

Is Musk still in Thailand?  Thailand imposes serious criminal penalties on this sort of defamation, and Unsworth is a hero. 

Even if Musk has returned to the US, he's looking at a serious civil damage claim, with plenty of lawyers willing to handle it on a contingency fee basis.  At the very least, I think Musk should be made to pay big time for his irresponsible tweet.

26 minutes ago, sirineou said:

wrote that he didn't "see another reason for a white man to live in Thailand"!

Not doubting you, but can you provide a link?  A class action lawsuit in the US against Musk for defamation?  Vern Unsworth certainly has a strong claim, but I am not sure that you bring this as a class action even in the US.  But if you can, simply being a white man in Thailand may be worth thousands now.  Just a thought.

On 7/2/2006 at 8:46 PM, camerata said:

Entitled to apply for citizenship after 5 years.

I posted here a few weeks ago stating that you needed PR status before applying for citizenship, but someone else posted saying my information was about ten years out of date.  I checked with the company lawyer, and she told me that my information was indeed out of date, but true when I applied for citizenship (i.e., PR status was required when I applied).  In any event, this is a good article.

Incidentally, I actually found the written exam much easier than answering random questions in Thai (I have tin ear for tones).  The questions were very simple (e.g., what color is not on the Thai flag, etc.)  So there is hope if you're hopeless with tones.

On 7/11/2018 at 5:38 AM, Maestro said:

 

Thank you, OJAS, for posting the link to the English translation of the Alien  Registration Act B.E, 2493 (1950). For the legal eagles among the Thaivisa members I am adding the link to the original Thai text:

http://web.krisdika.go.th/data/law/law2/%a118/%a118-20-9999-update.pdf

This is interesting, but this law requires foreigners to carry a document that does not exist anymore.  Is there any law that refers to tourists (with no alien certificate) having to carry their passports all of the time?

I've heard officials emphatically insist that foreigners must carry their passports on their person and I have seen past debates on many forums on this exact same subject, but I have never seen a link (in Thai or translation) that actually states that foreigners must have passports with them at all times. 

Put this in context: we can find readily find the law requiring foreigners to carry a certificate that has ceased to exist. I have seen the same link to the "alien certificate" before when this issue has been discussed.  If this out-dated law requiring foreigners to carry a certificate that no longer can be readily located, why can't anyone find a link to the purported law that requires foreigners to carry passports?  If you can easily find the former, why can't anyone find the latter? 

You'd think it be much easier to find (1) a law actually that specially says foreigners must carry passports than (2) a 68 year old law that requires foreigners to carry a certificate that no longer exists. Very curious.  

On 7/9/2018 at 3:56 PM, Mattd said:

This has been done to death over the years on TV and no one can find a law that states that you must carry your original passport with you at all times.

The requirement is that you can prove your legal status in Thailand and photo ID, so a copy of your passport along with a Thai or Foreign DL (with photo) would be fine, you could be asked to produce the actual passport at a later time.

Personally I have the passport stuff recorded in my phone, if ever asked for it.

Carrying the original poses far too many risks, so only do this if doing something official that may need it.

I have heard that you are required to carry your passport and I have also heard the opposite from a Thai lawyer I respect.  Carrying your passport around does seem very risky.  Is there a law or regulation anyone can cite to conclusively answer this question?

Oh, in the 20+ years I  have been here, I have never been asked to provide any form of ID, except for a bogus traffic infraction about 18 years ago.  No one has ever stopped me on the street, in bar or even a disco (although its been years since I have been in one), and asked me for my ID.  Years ago, when I was much younger and Mr. T was the PM, the authorities raided Q Bar (I believe it no longer exists) and would not allow anyone to leave until they submitted a urine sample, but they still did not require an ID of any sort.  If they can compel you to submit a urine sample simply because you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, you would think they could also compel you to produce ID, but they didn't.

So, where is this law that requires foreigners to carry any sort of ID on them?  What law requires Thai citizens to do so? 

Don't mean to disparage any comments or opinions given on this subject, but I would like to see a cite to the actual law since I have heard so many contradictory statements on the subject and, save one traffic incident, have never been asked for my ID.

1 minute ago, ubonjoe said:

Your info is almost a decade out of date.

Since the nationality act was amended in 2008 a person married to a Thai does not have to have permanent residence to apply for Thai citizenship. It requires working for 3 years with a work permit and paying taxes.

Sorry, you are right.  I applied for citizenship before 2008 and so had the PR status first.  Getting citizenship took much longer than getting PR status, but maybe that has also changed.  PR status did not seem to take long, but citizenship took around 12+ years.

I don't think you can apply for Thai citizenship until you are first a Thai Permanent Resident for a fixed number of years.  Its a fairly paper intensive process, and the main paper they seem to want is your tax income returns.

15 hours ago, freddel08 said:

I'm financial analyst and manage for my own saving.

Do you manage for your own saving while in Thailand?  If so, that is probably work, particularly under the new definition.  Indeed, the new definition of "work" for work permit purposes expressly says that an activity can be work even if there is no employer.  I suspect this was added because Thai authorities realize that many people engage in income generating activity while in Thailand even though they don't have an employer (or even an office), at least in the traditional sense.

The chances of the authority uncovering this sort of "work" are small (unless you talk about it or funds are flowing in and out of a Thai bank account) and this, I suspect, is why they are taking a closer look at visa stamps.  I also suspect we will see more of this as more people engage in non-traditional work.

20 hours ago, stevenl said:

Don't sign, don't do a visa run, go to labour office first.

Agree. I am not sure what type of job you have, but the Labour Protection Act (does not apply to teachers) provides that they cannot take away any benefits without your consent.  If they are planning on firing you anyway, you lose your right to statutory severance if you quit.  If they are forced to fire you, you are entitled to three months severance and payment in lieu of notice.  For payment in lieu of notice, assume you are paid on the last day of the month. If so, and they fire you today (3 July), they must pay your salary through the end of August.  About five months.  And then, on top of that, you can sue unfair termination, but that is discretionary and not an entitlements they are obliged to pay.

Go to the Labour Protection Office ASAP.  Too many foreigners get jerked around by their employers here.  Many local employers use all sorts of intimidation practices, and the Labour Protection office knows that. 

If your employment is subject to the Labour Protection Act, you employer is obligated to pay statutory severance.  If they fail to pay it, the interest amount is huge (if the failure to pay is "intentional", the interest rate on the unpaid severance is 15% every seven days) and the directors have committed a crime punishable by six months imprisonment (you can directly file a criminal action).  The Labour Protection Office knows and your employer probably knows.  But most employees do not. 

For the statutory severance and payment in lieu of notice, you have tremendous leverage against your employer.  Don't forfeit that leverage.  Thai courts tend to side in favor of employees on unfair termination, but its not guaranteed.  If you are singled out or its personal, its likely unfair.  Use this as a bargaining chip to press for six or seven months.  You might not get the full six or seven months, but if you know your rights and press hard (like virtually Thais do when they are terminated), you should get a generous separation package.

AMCHAM Discussion on New Work Permit Law

Contact American Chamber of Commerce in Thailand for Details Telephone Number: Tel: +66 (0) 2254-1041
Date & Time:	11-Jul-2018 18:00
Location:	Bourbon Street Restaurant (BTS Ekkamai)
Duration:	1.5 Hours
Member Cost:	THB 400.00

On 2/24/2018 at 11:16 AM, rooster59 said:

and a personality profile check to make sure farang are not marrying just to get a marriage visa,”

What sort of personality profile check?  Personality profiles are notoriously unreliable.  Here in Thailand, I can't imagine what they have in mind.   Are psychologists generally qualified to make this sort of assessment?  Assuming some are (which I suspect is not the case), how many are in Thailand?

2 minutes ago, Denim said:

Unfortunately, it is not just a question of diving skills that is needed. Caving experience is also needed. If the water in the cave were crystal clear it would be a lot easier but this is very muddy water so visability must be next to nothing.

How can divers unfamiliar with the cave know all its twists and turns.

 

I'm sure everybody is hoping for a happy outcome but obviously, time is a deciding factor.

Fair enough.  How many skilled cave divers do you think Thailand has?  

To everyone who criticized the Brit who overstayed and didn't follow the "rules", realize that his very forum "Thai Visa" would not exist if the rules were clear and were fairly administered (meaning, no corruption).   

They need skilled rescue divers, and the article lists a "shortage of rescue divers" as a problem.  How many skilled rescue divers does Thailand have?  Maybe the authorities should have asked for assistance from foreign countries - that have expertise and skilled rescue divers - at the very beginning of this tragedy?

On 6/6/2018 at 7:10 PM, sam neuts said:

 

Remember foreigners should carry their passport at all times according to Thai Law

This sentence uses the word "should", but is there any Thai law that says that foreigners MUST carry their passports at all times?  I have seen this claim made, but I have never seen anyone cite a law that actually says this.