Court case over but black listed

[jeab1980]

8 minutes ago, vasudev said:

I was not overstayed for even single day

What type of extension did you origionaly get for the year?

[jeab1980]

3 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

it's racist we agree on that

No not in the slightest do i agree with that statement.

[ubonjoe]

9 minutes ago, jeab1980 said:

What type of extension did you origionaly get for the year?

As stated before he was getting extensions based upon being involved in litigation at a court. They be granted back to back up to 90 days each time.

From the police order for extensions.

Quote

2.26 In the case of litigation or court proceedings:
Each permission shall be granted for no more than 90 days.
(1) There must be evidence confirming that the applicant is involved in a litigation or court proceedings as accuser, injured person, accused, plaintiff, defendant, or witness.
(2) The applicant does not behave in such a way that indicating his intention to stay longer.

 

[jeab1980]

8 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

As stated before he was getting extensions based upon being involved in litigation at a court. They be granted back to back up to 90 days each time.

From the police order for extensions.

 

Yes i know that i asked on what basis he got his origional extension of stay before the court 90 day ones.

It may or may not have some beaeing on his deportation by immigration.

Edited September 10, 2017 by jeab1980

[ubonjoe]

7 minutes ago, jeab1980 said:

Yes i know that i asked on what basis he got his origional extension of stay before the court 90 day ones.

It may or may not have some beaeing on his deportation by immigration.

From the OP.

 

On 9/8/2017 at 11:35 AM, vasudev said:

I was told by the local immigration that when i get this final clearance paper from court i can bring my wife(THAI WIFE) to immigration office and i will be back to normal NON O visa,

Which I assume means an extension of stay based upon marriage to a Thai.

[ubonjoe]

More baiting and bickering posts have been removed. Time to end it.

[LannaGuy]

2 hours ago, jeab1980 said:

No not in the slightest do i agree with that statement.

So what is it?  you don't think its discriminatory?  why?  give reasoning's - it's designed to discriminate against non-Thais whereas in Europe and USA etc. they have laws specifically designed to protect against such discrimination 

[vasudev]

2 hours ago, jeab1980 said:

What type of extension did you origionaly get for the year?

Non o; thai wife

[vasudev]

2 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

From the OP.

 

Which I assume means an extension of stay based upon marriage to a Thai.

Yes

[jeab1980]

40 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

So what is it?  you don't think its discriminatory?  why?  give reasoning's - it's designed to discriminate against non-Thais whereas in Europe and USA etc. they have laws specifically designed to protect against such discrimination 

Its the diffrent laws in diffrent lands. No matter where you go in the world there are diffrent laws not all the same as UK laws.

I dont have to give reasoning exept to say i completely disagree with your racist statement.

My statement does not by the way mean i agree with the laws but they are the laws.

And as such i abide by them.

 

[jeab1980]

1 minute ago, vasudev said:

Non o; thai wife

Ok thanks so an extension of stay based on being married. In that case it would have no bearing as to why immigration deported you.

[Jim7777]

On 9/9/2017 at 9:58 AM, 007 RED said:

Take a look at the OP's previous posting on the subject

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/901933-fake-nominee-case/

Oh very bad idea.  

[LannaGuy]

37 minutes ago, jeab1980 said:

Its the diffrent laws in diffrent lands. No matter where you go in the world there are diffrent laws not all the same as UK laws.

I dont have to give reasoning exept to say i completely disagree with your racist statement.

My statement does not by the way mean i agree with the laws but they are the laws.

And as such i abide by them.

 

MY racist statement???  you are obviously new here and know very little. The laws here ARE racist and discriminatory but I know from your posts you are a pseudo-thai with pink spectacles. Good luck you will need it.

[jeab1980]

21 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

MY racist statement???  you are obviously new here and know very little. The laws here ARE racist and discriminatory but I know from your posts you are a pseudo-thai with pink spectacles. Good luck you will need it.

Totally off topic and without any idea.

Ps 16 yrs and counting so ye not long.

I do not find Thailand any more racist than the UK.

You have your opinion i just dont agree with it.

Good luck you will require it. 

[jeab1980]

7 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

it's racist we agree on that

So you didn't make this statement then. 

[tomacht8]

4 hours ago, vasudev said:

I was not overstayed for even single day

I understand that.
Probably the immigration official decided quick by file.
Perhaps he did not look at all papers.
You need a good lawyer who has good connections with the immigration.
Good luck.


 

[Preacher]

4 hours ago, jeab1980 said:

What type of extension did you origionaly get for the year?

Seems the OP was getting extensions of stay based on his company with fake shareholders, in other words got his extensions of stay in a fraudulent manor, which tend to upset immigration.

 

See:

 

Since he got married he did away with the company and was getting extensions based on that since 2013  But he still got caught after doing away with the company.

 

What the OP got going for him is that he closed his company before he got caught. Also they might have been more lenient in 2013 than now and they should apply the standards of 2013.

 

[tropo]

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

MY racist statement???  you are obviously new here and know very little. The laws here ARE racist and discriminatory but I know from your posts you are a pseudo-thai with pink spectacles. Good luck you will need it.

Discriminating against all foreigners is not racist at all. They would apply the same rules to SE Asians in neighbouring countries, who happen to be the same race.  

 

I think barring foreigners from owning land is a good thing in any country. Lease it out, sure, but don't sell it.

[tropo]

2 hours ago, jeab1980 said:

Ok thanks so an extension of stay based on being married. In that case it would have no bearing as to why immigration deported you.

Whatever visa he had before the court case is irrelevant. When the court process begins any visa and extension you have at that time is automatically canceled and you are issued with a temporary extension valid only for the time it takes to finalize legal proceedings. He could not have gotten an extension after court as he had no visa. He would have had to obtain a new non-O visa. To get that he would have had to leave the country anyway.

 

[Preacher]

2 minutes ago, tropo said:

Whatever visa he had before the court case is irrelevant. When the court process begins any visa and extension you have at that time is automatically canceled and you are issued with a temporary extension valid only for the time it takes to finalize legal proceedings. He could not have gotten an extension after court as he had no visa. He would have had to obtain a new non-O visa. To get that he would have had to leave the country anyway.

 

That it not in the rule books and the OP stated that immigration originally planned to give him an extension of stay based on marriage. Only higher up in the chain of command the decision was made that the OP should be blacklisted.

[JackThompson]

14 minutes ago, tropo said:

Discriminating against all foreigners is not racist at all. They would apply the same rules to SE Asians in neighbouring countries, who happen to be the same race.  

 

I think barring foreigners from owning land is a good thing in any country. Lease it out, sure, but don't sell it.

Agree on this point.  There is a difference between racism and nationalism. 

 

More to the point, in this case, there is also a difference between "smart / defensive nationalism" ...

• Not allowing your people to become homeless in their own country by foreign-purchases of land,
• Not allowing the business-sector to be bought out by foreign-interests,
• Not allowing critical supply-chains (i.e. food and fuel) or infrastructure (roads, etc) to be foreign-sourced and/or bought and controlled by foreign-interests

... and "stupid nationalism" ...

• Restrictive laws that discourage/prevent non-criminal foreigners with foreign-sourced incomes living in your country and spending their money there, simply "because they are foreigners"
• Encouraging your citizens via the media to distrust/hate "the foreigners" who are not threatening their well-being

Keeping out criminal foreigners would sometimes fall in either the "good" or "stupid" nationalism, depending on the nature of the crime - whether the person in question is likely to cause any future harm to Thais or Thailand - think "traffic ticket" vs "armed robbery."  This case falls in between those two, but would be much closer to the traffic-ticket, provided the company's function was not an attempt to control Thai land, critical supplies and/or infrastructure.

[tropo]

14 minutes ago, Preacher said:

That it not in the rule books and the OP stated that immigration originally planned to give him an extension of stay based on marriage. Only higher up in the chain of command the decision was made that the OP should be blacklisted.

I got the rules from my lawyer. It was explained to me clearly what would happen if the criminal case proceeded. I negotiated a settlement with the plaintiff and therefore avoided having to post bail and surrender my passport. Curiously the OP said he didn't surrender his passport or post bail, which just goes to show how minor his offense was. Obviously, the court requires bail and the surrender of passport to ensure the defendant won't skip the country, yet they didn't seem concerned about that in this case. There's a lot of confusing information here.

 

You could be correct in your earlier assessment that he was given the blacklisting because he set up a company to issue a work permit as a way to obtain his extensions before he was married. He was breaking company law AND deceiving Immigration.

Edited September 10, 2017 by tropo

[Preacher]

The difference might be that in your case there was a plaintiff seeking financial compensation. In such cases the plaintiff can request that the court holds the passport and you are not allowed to leave the country.

[jeab1980]

52 minutes ago, tropo said:

Whatever visa he had before the court case is irrelevant. When the court process begins any visa and extension you have at that time is automatically canceled and you are issued with a temporary extension valid only for the time it takes to finalize legal proceedings. He could not have gotten an extension after court as he had no visa. He would have had to obtain a new non-O visa. To get that he would have had to leave the country anyway.

 

I know that i have the answer of the op. But as you now concede the deportation could well have been for earlier exstensions. As he was found guilty immigration could well have decided earlier extension were obtained fraudulently.  

Edited September 10, 2017 by jeab1980

[JohnThailandJohn]

Would an appeal in the case allow you to stay in the country as it was on going? Even if you pled guilty, you still may be able to appeal certain aspects like the sentence.

[tropo]

17 minutes ago, Preacher said:

The difference might be that in your case there was a plaintiff seeking financial compensation. In such cases the plaintiff can request that the court holds the passport and you are not allowed to leave the country.

MIne wasn't a civil case - it was a criminal case. The only financial payment made in these cases is before they go to trial, during mediation, in an effort to avoid criminal proceedings.

[jeab1980]

5 minutes ago, tropo said:

MIne wasn't a civil case - it was a criminal case. The only financial payment made in these cases is before they go to trial, during mediation, in an effort to avoid criminal proceedings.

There seems to be a massive diffrence here

1. Op was found guilty. 

Op was deported no one knows why exept himself and immigration. We can speculate forever.

Your case seems to have little in common with op's and as you state the lawyer you was paying obviously didnt follow your instructions. However all seems to have been sorted out for you.

I dont think an appeal by the OP will serve any purpose apart from to lose him money hand over fist.

None of use know the facts apart from he was found guilty of fraud and in that fraud period he obtained extensions using the fraudulant method. That probably has got a lot to do with it.

 

[tropo]

27 minutes ago, jeab1980 said:

There seems to be a massive diffrence here

1. Op was found guilty. 

Op was deported no one knows why exept himself and immigration. We can speculate forever.

Your case seems to have little in common with op's and as you state the lawyer you was paying obviously didnt follow your instructions. However all seems to have been sorted out for you.

I dont think an appeal by the OP will serve any purpose apart from to lose him money hand over fist.

None of use know the facts apart from he was found guilty of fraud and in that fraud period he obtained extensions using the fraudulant method. That probably has got a lot to do with it.

 

There's not a massive difference. Both of us were involved in criminal cases...  

 

I changed lawyers, that's how I sorted it out - I found a good one.

 

Either way, you don't just give up because some people on an internet forum suggest you're screwed and there's nothing that can be done. Rather than listening to us theorising about his case, he needs to consult a lawyer, which I'm sure he will do.

[LannaGuy]

12 hours ago, tropo said:

Discriminating against all foreigners is not racist at all. They would apply the same rules to SE Asians in neighbouring countries, who happen to be the same race.  

 

I think barring foreigners from owning land is a good thing in any country. Lease it out, sure, but don't sell it.

Go read the international racial discrimination laws in every developed country in the entire world. 

[LannaGuy]

13 hours ago, jeab1980 said:

So you didn't make this statement then. 

Obviously it's racist as only Thais can own. Imagine if Germany said 'only Germans can own land' or any country. It would lead to economic arrest and what's next?  only men can own cars?  only the rich can Vote?  these rights were fought for over decades. It's a discriminatory policy to protect the rich in Thailand and does not help the poor who are limited to selling their property to Thais.  So many condos are run down because Thais cannot freely sell their units, houses too. An open market is the best market and will encourage Thais to send their kids to good schools as they can release funds to do so. All this does is suppress and allow wealthy Thais to buy CHEAP. Now you can argue that this is a good thing but you cannot argue it's not discriminatory.