Judge in Yingluck case ruled her ‘not guilty’

[binjalin]

4 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

The facts of the case are clear. Yingluck could have taken proper steps to investigate the credible allegations of corruption from officials in government agencies who  bravely doing their jobs to protect the public interest. Instead she chose to make a mockery of their work by allowing the guilty to investigate and whitewash themselves.  That is proven and is a clear violation of Section 157 of the Penal Code, regardless of whether Judge Pison chose to argue the semantics of the wording used by the OAG in citing the relevant laws in the indictment.  That is mere sophistry which was set aside and ignored by the other 8 judges.  It is important for the judges to refer back to the Penal Code itself.

 

What is not proven but is extremely probable is that Yingluck actually knew all about this scam. It is extremely likely that her brother engineered it with his close associate in crime Sia Piang, who drew a 48 year sentence for his role and is currently on the lam.  Of the various corruption schemes engineered by Thaksin during his sister's premiership, this one would have netted nearly US$200 million for the masterminds and must have been one of the largest, if not the largest.  Boonsong only got commission of US$5-6 million from it and Phum and the other signers obviously less than him,  So about US$10 million was paid to the signers, leaving about US$190 million for Sia Piang and whoever masterminded it with him.  Even Sia Piang was only a functionary, albeit an important one, who provided the logistics and the fake representatives (Thai drivers) of the Chinese state enterprises and organised the Thai cashier cheques instead of the normal letters of credit  If we assume that Sia Piang's share was US$50-70 million, there is still a huge amount of money with the mastermind whoever that was.  It would have been quite difficult for her not to have noticed such a large sum of money moving around, although that is not proven.

 

In a Western democracy, Yingluck would have been forced to resign by her own party when the scandal first emerged and the government would probably have collapsed.  But PT is not a Western style political party.  It is more like a business personally owned and controlled by her brother.  So there was no need to resign.  There is no point in trying to use Western standards to judge Thailand concluding that anyone elected by the people can steal whatever they like or allow their relatives' friends to steal whatever they like.

 

Thailand doesn't have Western standards of political ethics.  It has Section 157 and the military instead. Like it or lump it. I don't know how many generations it will take to develop a Western style democracy, probably never, but until that happens, there is no point in saying it should comply with Western standards for electing leaders but those leaders don't need to comply with Western standards when they get power.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is selective and that is why the Junta have given themselves 'amnesty' when their turn comes. No separation of power and, as you previously said, if no dictatorship had arrived it never would have happened and so...?  it is political by your own admission.

[robblok]

6 minutes ago, binjalin said:

Robblok he is arguing that, although some were same judges, thing have changed and the system has always been considered very establishment and very yellow. There is no jury system in Thailand nor any 'precedent' in law courts. It is very much a failed system even without the Junta in control (again). You might reject this argument but you might find it more fruitful to do that on the specifics not "you don't know the difference between a civil and military court'.  I think he does.

 

My opinion is that any system (Police, Law, Education) is bound to CHANGE under a Junta (same as many judges were the same before the rise of Hitler and continued when he was in power - as did the Police etc.). The argument that they were 'there before' is weak. There have been many, many cases recently where 'friends' have been allowed to go free or even 'nothing to prosecute' like the amulet seller's 20m 'commission' for what?  or Abhisit not held to account for killings? or Suthep for disrupting elections?  your considerations are 'convenient' at best and disingenuous at worst. I like many of your posts but you seem blinded by this issue.

There are also cases where reds get off.. and guess what those are accepted while anything that goes against them is bad. 

 

I get tired arguing with people who are so blinded, they can't accept YL her role in this corruption and that what Dogmatrix posts in post 149 that its far likely that she is more guilty of more then wat is proven right now is real plausible.

The fact remains that its real hard to convict people and get all the evidence in cases like this often a lot can't be proven but is highly likely. The fact that she probably knew and was ordered by her brother not to cancel the trade and that her brother probably got his kickback and she might even have gotten a kickback from him. All real plausible but not proven. While anyone with half a brain knows its probably right given the history of Thaksin and Sia Piang. 

 

You guys are so hateful of the junta you don't accept the fact that the PTP is there only for Thaksin. 

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, binjalin said:

 

It is selective and that is why the Junta have given themselves 'amnesty' when their turn comes. No separation of power and, as you previously said, if no dictatorship had arrived it never would have happened and so...?  it is political by your own admission.

No that is not political.. just means that nobody dared to go after her before but with junta protection they could and did. Would you go after a Shin or a Junta person in power if you know they could take their revenge on you. You would probably not do it.. but now that the junta took over the Shins could be convicted for their crimes without them having the power to go after those who did so. So people could do their job and uphold the law. 

 

WIthout the junta people like Boonsong and Sia Piang would have gotten off.. why because the Shins protected them. 

[LannaGuy]

15 minutes ago, robblok said:

If someone is a hypocrite its you.

 

I have often commented on Red Bull (for instance when they made it so that Thaksin cases could go on without him something i like i said should apply to red bull too, and many other times did i comment about it), the musroom pickers, Kho Tao i stay away from as I am not sure about the case. So again your lying. Guess they teach that at red indoctrination school. 

 

Ah the old remark.. any justice system that works in a military dictatorship has no credability.. prove to me the judges where threatened and so on.. if so why did one vote different. It looks a lot like all is in order. You just cant accept YL and her minions lost.

 

As for Anupong, i havent read it I don't know the guy don't like him. Told you countless times I like the junta a bit more then the Shins but don't like either of them while you clearly love the Shins at least YL. 

 

If they can make a case against Anupong then do so, in the past we have seen this countless times under all governments buying stuff at inflated prices.  I can only say its disgusting because it costs the Thai taxpayer money that could be used better. I seen this during YL and now a few times under the junta. (other junta fails include not checking nephew of Prayut and his brother). I have condemned those too but you keep saying YL is innocent.. while she is not. Your so blinded you can't accept your side is corrupt and gets punished for it. I accept but hate there is corruption under the junta. Your so blind as not to accept the misdeeds of your side. 

 

 

No lies I was obviously, and this past you by, debating generally and so 'you' was a general pointer to those few of you who support the Yingluck case but moan about the other cases (i.e. not you specifically). Got it now?  you can be so disappointing sometimes. Up your game man, up your game!

[LannaGuy]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

No that is not political.. just means that nobody dared to go after her before but with junta protection they could and did. Would you go after a Shin or a Junta person in power if you know they could take their revenge on you. You would probably not do it.. but now that the junta took over the Shins could be convicted for their crimes without them having the power to go after those who did so. So people could do their job and uphold the law. 

 

WIthout the junta people like Boonsong and Sia Piang would have gotten off.. why because the Shins protected them. 

So you are against your heroes "amnesty" then?  I mean, you are not a hypocrite right? if they do no wrong why they need an amnesty? 

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

No lies I was obviously, and this past you by, debating generally and so 'you' was a general pointer to those few of you who support the Yingluck case but moan about the other cases (i.e. not you specifically). Got it now?  you can be so disappointing sometimes. Up your game man, up your game!

You should man up and accept you were wrong as usual. 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, LannaGuy said:

So you are against your heroes "amnesty" then?  I mean, you are not a hypocrite right? if they do no wrong why they need an amnesty? 

Of course I am against any amnesty that clears them of corruption. You know that was what YL tried to do with her amnesty getting people off for corruption and so on. I argued against that many times. So why would i like an amnesty for the generals that clears them of corruption charges. I am against that too. Unlike you I am not a hypocrite. You still can't accept the crimes of the Shins while I readily convict the junta for their mistakes. 

[LannaGuy]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

Of course I am against any amnesty that clears them of corruption. You know that was what YL tried to do with her amnesty getting people off for corruption and so on. I argued against that many times. So why would i like an amnesty for the generals that clears them of corruption charges. I am against that too. Unlike you I am not a hypocrite. You still can't accept the crimes of the Shins while I readily convict the junta for their mistakes. 

You have not explained why they need an amnesty that would immune them to all this BS about Yingluck?  if they do no wrong why have an amnesty?  come on up your debating skills and give a REASON not just deflection  

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

You have not explained why they need an amnesty that would immune them to all this BS about Yingluck?  if they do no wrong why have an amnesty?  come on up your debating skills and give a REASON not just deflection  

I said i was against their amnesty just like i was against the amnesty by YL. Your question was "So are you against your heroes amnesty"

 

I replied i was against it.

 

Where did i say they did no wrong, i just told you that there are cases where the junta is wrong like in connection with his nephew and brother. Is it that hard to read.. 

 

Now if YL did nothing wrong why did she need an amnesty ? (remember she was included in it) Do reply to that one too.

[AGareth2]

23 minutes ago, robblok said:

I get tired arguing with people who are so blinded, they can't accept YL her role in this corruption

take  a break

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

take  a break

I might do so its hard to argue with blinded people. LannaGuy is a great example of one of those blinded. I often see eye to eye with him on many topics but here he is blinded. Can't accept a single fault of the Shins, lies and accuses me of supporting the red bull guy and lies that I supported the mushroom pickers sentence. Then when confronted with the truth does not man up. Just really weak to be honest. 

[LannaGuy]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

I might do so its hard to argue with blinded people. LannaGuy is a great example of one of those blinded. I often see eye to eye with him on many topics but here he is blinded. Can't accept a single fault of the Shins, lies and accuses me of supporting the red bull guy and lies that I supported the mushroom pickers sentence. Then when confronted with the truth does not man up. Just really weak to be honest. 

I never said you support the 'red bull guy' I said you DIDN'T. You need to read again. I said you supported the opposition to the courts in those cases (rightfully) but NOT in Yingluck's case hence the hypocrisy. 

[LannaGuy]

9 minutes ago, robblok said:

We are not making any progress as you can't accept that YL her mob was corrupt and YL is convicted based on facts.

 

I have always been against amnesties that clear people of corruption. You are just against those that are not on your side.

You never replied to why YL was on the list as she did nothing wrong according to you. Guess she knew of her role in the rice scam and wanted to be protected... hmm... looks a lot like what the generals did. Oh.. wow.

I never said that. My premise from the beginning has always been:

 

I do not support unelected governments nor any rulings by them including by 'courts' in ANY country. My point has never been about Yingluck's guilt, or lack of it. She was a poor PM but persecuted for political reasons it's that simple.

[AGareth2]

38 minutes ago, robblok said:

he fact remains that its real hard to convict people and get all the evidence in cases like this often a lot can't be proven but is highly likely. The fact that she probably knew and was ordered by her brother not to cancel the trade and that her brother probably got his kickback and she might even have gotten a kickback from him. All real plausible but not proven. While anyone with half a brain knows its probably right given the history of Thaksin and Sia Piang. 

convicting someone based on half a brain is not sound law

How can you use the word "fact" and then go on to say plausible but not proven

do you know the meaning of the word "fact"?

[robblok]

9 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

convicting someone based on half a brain is not sound law

How can you use the word "fact" and then go on to say plausible but not proven

do you know the meaning of the word "fact"?

No she is convicted on what could be proven, but what I am arguing is that she is guilty of much more that could not be proven. I am arguing she probably did far more. So what I am saying is her conviction is sound but she did far more then what she is convicted for. 

[AGareth2]

the topic of this thread is the dissenting judgement

plausible but not proven is not fact at law

which may be why the judge ruled the way he did

[robblok]

To lannaGuy,

 

Mea culpa, misread indeed I don't like the red bull guy, nor did i like the sentence of the mushroom pickers, Kho Tao i stay silent on as I don't want to take sides too much unclear things there.

 

No i don't cherry pick at all, I am against corruption always have been. I am happy when people go down for corruption no matter if they are red, green ,  democrat or whatever. I would love to see Suthep go down too. I like it now that they revived Thaksin cases as it will prove to the world he is guilty of far more then what he was convicted for before. It will make it harder for him to proclaim his its all political.

 

Again i misread and should not have called you a liar. 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, AGareth2 said:

the topic of this read is the dissenting judgement

plausible but not proven is not fact at law

which may be why the judge ruled the way he did

This is one of 9 judges the other saw differently. By any means this shows things are not rigged for allowing judges to have different views. 

[AGareth2]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

This is one of 9 judges the other saw differently. By any means this shows things are not rigged for allowing judges to have different views. 

as I stated in a previous post

 

but we are not discussing the 8

we are discussing the 1

do keep on topic

 

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

as I stated in a previous post

 

but we are not discussing the 8

we are discussing the 1

do keep on topic

 

By discussing 1 judge his verdict you can discuss the others too. Why did this one judge go against 8 others.. cake box maybe ?

 

But whatever his reason it clearly shows that the judges are free to judge however they see things. That is a great sign in a trail like this. It gives more credibility to the whole verdict. If 9 had voted guilty people would have said it was rubber stamped. Now 1 is not voting guilty people are saying she is not guilty. Whatever side you are on you can always spin things in your advantage. 

[AGareth2]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

cake box maybe ?

 

very weak

do you think that the S44 confiscation of assets could have had an influence on the 8?

[robblok]

Just now, AGareth2 said:

very weak

Why weak its a tried and tested Thaksin method. Who knows how many times he used it successfully. We only hear about the one time it failed. 

[AGareth2]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

Why weak its a tried and tested Thaksin method. Who knows how many times he used it successfully. We only hear about the one time it failed. 

I hope you're not accusing a Supreme Court Jude of taking a bribe

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

I hope you're not accusing a Supreme Court Jude of taking a bribe

How is that different from accusing 8 others to be under the junta its influence ? That is what you and lana are arguing ?

[LannaGuy]

18 minutes ago, robblok said:

To lannaGuy,

 

Mea culpa, misread indeed I don't like the red bull guy, nor did i like the sentence of the mushroom pickers, Kho Tao i stay silent on as I don't want to take sides too much unclear things there.

 

No i don't cherry pick at all, I am against corruption always have been. I am happy when people go down for corruption no matter if they are red, green ,  democrat or whatever. I would love to see Suthep go down too. I like it now that they revived Thaksin cases as it will prove to the world he is guilty of far more then what he was convicted for before. It will make it harder for him to proclaim his its all political.

 

Again i misread and should not have called you a liar. 

Fair enough thank you.

 

For me we cannot say "That's wrong and unjust" on some things (as you and I have both done on those cases) and not on others was my point. For me it all needs a radical overhaul and kept 100% separate from all other branches (political, religious etc.) and we differ over whether that is the case now or not.

[AGareth2]

Just now, robblok said:

How is that different from accusing 8 others to be under the junta its influence ? That is what you and lana are arguing ?

thank you for the banter

I am going to take my sons shopping

catch up on this point later

[LannaGuy]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

How is that different from accusing 8 others to be under the junta its influence ? That is what you and lana are arguing ?

 

I believe that ANY court, educational system,  press, elections etc. are heavily influenced by their environment. Inside a free and fair democracy they will normally operate fairly well with adjustments when a 'rotten apple' is found. Inside a dictatorship, ANY dictatorship, they will flounder and have no credibility as they are a product of that environment. IF Yingluck was found guilty by a fair and free court of corruption (not some flimsy 'we think she knew') then I would obviously support it.

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

Fair enough thank you.

 

For me we cannot say "That's wrong and unjust" on some things (as you and I have both done on those cases) and not on others was my point. For me it all needs a radical overhaul and kept 100% separate from all other branches (political, religious etc.) and we differ over whether that is the case now or not.

No we differ if it was ever the case.. you keep arguing how great it was under YL but it was bascially the same where the ones in power made sure their minions were protected. This is something that has happened with EVERY government here military, red, yellow ect. 

 

I am for a big overhaul as well... but now I doubt it will ever happen. Those in power don't want to see their privileges revoked so it will never happen. Not with PTP, not with army not with Democrats. I had hopes when the army first took over.. those hopes are long gone. 

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

I believe that ANY court, educational system,  press, elections etc. are heavily influenced by their environment. Inside a free and fair democracy they will normally operate fairly well with adjustments when a 'rotten apple' is found. Inside a dictatorship, ANY dictatorship, they will flounder and have no credibility as they are a product of that environment. IF Yingluck was found guilty by a fair and free court of corruption (not some flimsy 'we think she knew') then I would obviously support it.

I don't agree here (do agree that there is influence) but I disagree that its not there with a fair democratic system (if you consider the ptp governments fair and democratic because they did exactly the same things). They protected their own and still do. I think ALL governments here in Thailand protect their own and influence courts and put their people in place to make sure they are protected. 

[The Deerhunter]

2 hours ago, binjalin said:

"parliamentary privilege" passed you buy then?  that say's "if you speed whilst in elected office it shall not be an offence" (not literal)  

TIT.  Did the judge quote that too?  I can't be bothered looking.  It was a simple example to draw the comparison. How about neglecting the fact that robbing banks is wrong?  Oh silly me.  Elected officials and high civil servants have been doing that for years in all sorts of countries, but in other places if they get caught they might do time and not be able to consider to seek refugee status in another country.