Judge in Yingluck case ruled her ‘not guilty’

[hstew]

The crime lacked "ill intentions", as in "mens rea", however politicians are not held to the same standard as a civilian would be in terms of depraved indifference, in knowing the consequences of their actions?

[candide]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

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. 

Dear Rob

May I dare insert in this discussion? 

I agree with you that none is probably better than the other, and that they all wish to protect their faction and prosecute the opposite one.

 

However, the key issue is that the two factions don't have the same power and influence, wether they are governing or not. The Judiciary does not depend from the government and is affiliated to the dominant network in Thailand (which colour is yellow, in case you did not decode). And it is worst under a Junta which can decide that whatever they want can be the law.

The red faction may well want to protect their minions, as you phrase it, but they are not very successful with it, even when in power. As mentioned in other posts, they did not even succeed to protect their PMs while in power, as four of them have been ousted by the Judiciary.

[wprime]

This judge is an idiot, while I agree that there is no proven intent this is a negligence case, intent is not required.

[Eric Loh]

10 minutes ago, wprime said:

This judge is an idiot, while I agree that there is no proven intent this is a negligence case, intent is not required.

Sir, I think you are referring to criminal negligence. Her case is not. 

[wprime]

3 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Sir, I think you are referring to criminal negligence. Her case is not. 

I should read beyond the titles before posting.

[binjalin]

5 hours ago, The Deerhunter said:

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.

Your thinking sir is MUDDLED. What relevance has robbing banks to do with this case?  did YL make any money?  you suggest she made some gain? 

 

I suggest you reserve your undoubted intellectual brevity for another subject... football maybe?

[The Deerhunter]

2 hours ago, binjalin said:

Your thinking sir is MUDDLED. What relevance has robbing banks to do with this case?  did YL make any money?  you suggest she made some gain? 

 

I suggest you reserve your undoubted intellectual brevity for another subject... football maybe?

So you are at least consistently wrong.  I have no interest in any T V sport, particularly football.  If you read my post out loud to yourself, slowly might help, it might just make sense. Make sure you have not been drinking or smoking anything first.  That might help the comprehension a well.  Good luck.

[Chris Lawrence]

On ‎20‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 8:49 PM, djjamie said:

 

She was elected after promising it. It certainly benefited her. If a monkey offered 500 baht a ton more than yingluck the monkey would have been the next PM. 

 

Prayut would then be trying to get that monkey of his back!

Your dogma lacks any real shrewdness and practical knowledge to be a judge of historical or political judgement.

 

The process is about shaming, you say the same thing over and over again fools will believe.

 

But then again your ability to share on monkeys may surpass political matters in a foreign country.

[sjaak327]

16 hours ago, robblok said:

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. 

And on what exactly do you base this on ? Because her surname is Shinawatra ? You do know you are trying to win a battle that is already lost ? No one outside of Thailand, and I mean absolutely no one, is taking the trial and the verdict seriously. Prayuth at two times meddled in the trial using article 44, so she quite clearly did not get a fair trial. On top of that, the evidence that was supposedly used to convict her is anything but compelling. 

 

Yingluck has nothing to worry about, she will not serve even a single minute of this conviction in jail, and that is absolutely 100% justified.

Edited October 21, 2017 by sjaak327

[metisdead]

Posts and replies not related to "Judge in Yingluck case ruled her ‘not guilty’ " have been removed. 

[Dogmatix]

15 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

And on what exactly do you base this on ? Because her surname is Shinawatra ? You do know you are trying to win a battle that is already lost ? No one outside of Thailand, and I mean absolutely no one, is taking the trial and the verdict seriously. Prayuth at two times meddled in the trial using article 44, so she quite clearly did not get a fair trial. On top of that, the evidence that was supposedly used to convict her is anything but compelling. 

 

Yingluck has nothing to worry about, she will not serve even a single minute of this conviction in jail, and that is absolutely 100% justified.

 

Nor will Sia Piang serve any of his 48 year sentence for his part in the fake rice exports to China or his sentence for his swindling of the Iranian government over undelivered but paid for rice exports, which was the conviction he ran away from before this case came to fruition.     

 

It is a pity about Boonsong who was allegedly ordered not to flee before his passport was confiscated, as his departure would have made Yingluck look guilty and things might have gone badly for his family in Thailand, if he had fled.  Now is facing 42 years in the slammer and will be over 80 when first eligible for parole, should he survive that long. His assets will be confiscated to a much greater value than the couple of hundred million baht he received for his signatures.  Since he has nothing to left to lose he may as well cooperate and spill the beans at the appeal hearing on who ordered him to sign and who else knew about it.  That is his only hope of a reduced and survivable sentence.  But I guess he is still too scared of the implications for the health of his family and will have to just take his punishment like a man and die in the joint, ruing the day he ever met Thaksin.  

[sjaak327]

5 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

 

Nor will Sia Piang serve any of his 48 year sentence for his part in the fake rice exports to China or his sentence for his swindling of the Iranian government over undelivered but paid for rice exports, which was the conviction he ran away from before this case came to fruition.     

 

It is a pity about Boonsong who was allegedly ordered not to flee before his passport was confiscated, as his departure would have made Yingluck look guilty and things might have gone badly for his family in Thailand, if he had fled.  Now is facing 42 years in the slammer and will be over 80 when first eligible for parole, should he survive that long. His assets will be confiscated to a much greater value than the couple of hundred million baht he received for his signatures.  Since he has nothing to left to lose he may as well cooperate and spill the beans at the appeal hearing on who ordered him to sign and who else knew about it.  That is his only hope of a reduced and survivable sentence.  But I guess he is still too scared of the implications for the health of his family and will have to just take his punishment like a man and die in the joint, ruing the day he ever met Thaksin.  

Right, Not sure if any of what you wrote is factual. What I do know, it has nothing at all to do with my post.

[Dogmatix]

On 10/21/2017 at 3:27 PM, Eric Loh said:

Sir, I think you are referring to criminal negligence. Her case is not. 

 

She intended to do nothing about the corruption allegations, as evidenced by her decision to permit the allegedly guilty investigate themselves.  If we compare with the acquittal of Somchai et al by the same court on the same negligence charge, there was clearly an intent to be negligent on Yingluck's part.  Somchai's acquittal was sound in my opinion because he had no intent to kill and maim the yellow shirt rioters.  He simply wanted them cleared from the Parliament building, so the opening of Parliament could proceed and he ordered the police to disperse them.  He didn't order them specifically to fire shotguns loaded with explosive tear gas canisters directly at the protesters and there is no evidence that he was informed of exactly what the police were doing in time to order them to stop. 

 

 

Even though Section 157 doesn't specifically require intent, I disagree with Judge Pison and agree with the majority opinion on the grounds that Yingluck did intend to let the guilty investigate themselves, knowing full well they would exonerate themselves.       

[sjaak327]

4 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

 

She intended to do nothing about the corruption allegations, as evidenced by her decision to permit the allegedly guilty investigate themselves.  If we compare with the acquittal of Somchai et al by the same court on the same negligence charge, there was clearly an intent to be negligent on Yingluck's part.  Somchai's acquittal was sound in my opinion because he had no intent to kill and maim the yellow shirt rioters.  He simply wanted them cleared from the Parliament building, so the opening of Parliament could proceed and he ordered the police to disperse them.  He didn't order them specifically to fire shotguns loaded with explosive tear gas canisters directly at the protesters and there is no evidence that he was informed of exactly what the police were doing in time to order them to stop. 

 

 

Even though Section 157 doesn't specifically require intent, I disagree with Judge Pison and agree with the majority opinion on the grounds that Yingluck did intend to let the guilty investigate themselves, knowing full well they would exonerate themselves.       

Yet you provide no evidence, it is all just your suggestion. 

[Dogmatix]

4 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Right, Not sure if any of what you wrote is factual. What I do know, it has nothing at all to do with my post.

 

You made the point that Yngluck has nothing to worry about because she will not serve a single minute of her sentence in jail.

[sjaak327]

3 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

 

You made the point that Yngluck has nothing to worry about because she will not serve a single minute of her sentence in jail.

Yes, and that is not just because she left the country. I made no claim about the other bloke at all.

[Dogmatix]

1 minute ago, sjaak327 said:

Yet you provide no evidence, it is all just your suggestion. 

 

The evidence of Somchai's innocence and Yingluck's guilt was presented at their trials. I was simply agreeing with the majority opinions in both cases.  I have no need to produce my own evidence.  Indeed, how could I?   

[sjaak327]

4 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

 

The evidence of Somchai's innocence and Yingluck's guilt was presented at their trials. I was simply agreeing with the majority opinions in both cases.  I have no need to produce my own evidence.  Indeed, how could I?   

Let me rephrase, did the court beyond a resonable doubt prove what you claimed, I personally find it almost impossible to prove. 

Edited October 22, 2017 by sjaak327

[binjalin]

23 hours ago, The Deerhunter said:

So you are at least consistently wrong.  I have no interest in any T V sport, particularly football.  If you read my post out loud to yourself, slowly might help, it might just make sense. Make sure you have not been drinking or smoking anything first.  That might help the comprehension a well.  Good luck.

 

Deflection I sense sir, deflection!   and deflection + muddled thinking = chaos in ones brain sir

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, Dogmatix said:

 

She intended to do nothing about the corruption allegations, as evidenced by her decision to permit the allegedly guilty investigate themselves.  If we compare with the acquittal of Somchai et al by the same court on the same negligence charge, there was clearly an intent to be negligent on Yingluck's part.  Somchai's acquittal was sound in my opinion because he had no intent to kill and maim the yellow shirt rioters.  He simply wanted them cleared from the Parliament building, so the opening of Parliament could proceed and he ordered the police to disperse them.  He didn't order them specifically to fire shotguns loaded with explosive tear gas canisters directly at the protesters and there is no evidence that he was informed of exactly what the police were doing in time to order them to stop. 

 

 

Even though Section 157 doesn't specifically require intent, I disagree with Judge Pison and agree with the majority opinion on the grounds that Yingluck did intend to let the guilty investigate themselves, knowing full well they would exonerate themselves.       

Off course you entitled to your own opinion but fact still remain that her case was rushed although the AG advised against it. It still smell of a concerted effort by the junta to put pressure on her to flee and also a planned effort to facilitate her escape. As when I see similar convictions of aligned politicians like Ahbisit and Suthep, generals and police chiefs investigated for corruption, I will change my opinion. 

[YetAnother]

On 10/19/2017 at 7:44 AM, webfact said:

The act of negligence alone did not count as an offence in the laws cited by the Attorney-General, Pison pointed out.

the vote was 8:1 ; political corruption against the 'thai absolute' of law;

kind of sums up justice in thailand, dont you think ?

[Rhys]

Not only teachers do runners.. aye...

[binjalin]

3 hours ago, Rhys said:

Not only teachers do runners.. aye...

 

Aye... Police Generals to Aus... others to jails!  Aye!  others have 'accidents' and off to the Grim Reaper Aye!

 

Others jailed from 'mushroom picking' to 'FB likes' Aye!

 

You don't comply?   we'll jail YOU too!  AYE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[scorecard]

On 10/22/2017 at 2:08 AM, sjaak327 said:

And on what exactly do you base this on ? Because her surname is Shinawatra ? You do know you are trying to win a battle that is already lost ? No one outside of Thailand, and I mean absolutely no one, is taking the trial and the verdict seriously. Prayuth at two times meddled in the trial using article 44, so she quite clearly did not get a fair trial. On top of that, the evidence that was supposedly used to convict her is anything but compelling. 

 

Yingluck has nothing to worry about, she will not serve even a single minute of this conviction in jail, and that is absolutely 100% justified.

 

Just your biased opinion and nothing more.

 

You made the statement: "No one outside of Thailand, and I mean absolutely no one, is taking the trial and the verdict seriously".

 

Prove it.

[Becker]

27 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

Just your biased opinion and nothing more.

 

You made the statement: "No one outside of Thailand, and I mean absolutely no one, is taking the trial and the verdict seriously".

 

Prove it.

Why would he need to prove that? It's blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain that the BS excuses the junta used for yet another military take-over is just that - BS. So when they are putting on trial a political opponent (and at the same time jailing peaceful protesters and submitting them to trial by military courts with no representation, chance of appeal, public scrutiny) then cannot and should not be taken seriously by anyone. In fact, they should be condemned.

[sjaak327]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

 

Just your biased opinion and nothing more.

 

You made the statement: "No one outside of Thailand, and I mean absolutely no one, is taking the trial and the verdict seriously".

 

Prove it.

I don't have a biased opinion, the Thai justice system is not exactly renowned for delivery fair justice. And in this case it is clear that Yingluck did not receive a fair trial. It simply cannot be denied. I only refer to Prayuth using article 44, at least two times in this case. 

 

Of course the proof is readily available, read any foreign media and you will see my assesment is pretty damm accurate. Good luck with getting her back, I calculate the change of she being extradited at 0.000001%. and that will turn out to be pretty accurate as well..

[SheungWan]

3 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

I don't have a biased opinion, the Thai justice system is not exactly renowned for delivery fair justice. And in this case it is clear that Yingluck did not receive a fair trial. It simply cannot be denied. I only refer to Prayuth using article 44, at least two times in this case. 

 

Of course the proof is readily available, read any foreign media and you will see my assesment is pretty damm accurate. Good luck with getting her back, I calculate the change of she being extradited at 0.000001%. and that will turn out to be pretty accurate as well..

'I don't have a biased opinion...'  

[Dogmatix]

1 hour ago, sjaak327 said:

I don't have a biased opinion, the Thai justice system is not exactly renowned for delivery fair justice. And in this case it is clear that Yingluck did not receive a fair trial. It simply cannot be denied. I only refer to Prayuth using article 44, at least two times in this case. 

 

Of course the proof is readily available, read any foreign media and you will see my assesment is pretty damm accurate. Good luck with getting her back, I calculate the change of she being extradited at 0.000001%. and that will turn out to be pretty accurate as well..

 

What were the two orders issued by Prayuth under Section 44 relating to this case?  Can you cite the reference numbers or show the links to the orders in the Royal Gazette?

 

I recall that two ministerial regulations were issued by the Finance Ministry, pursuant to regular statutory law, that could be construed as relating to this case.  Regulation no. 448/2558 was issued to appoint a committee to assess the financial damage incurred by the state and regulation no.  39/2558 was to do with the management of rotting rice stocks left over from the rice pledging scheme.  These were not orders issued under Section 44 and had no direct bearing on the case.   

 

Claiming that ministerial regulations issued pursuant to Acts of Parliament that existed long before the coup were actually orders issued under Section 44 is a complete misrepresentation.   

 

I agree that she will not be coming back to Thailand, except as ashes.

Edited October 23, 2017 by Dogmatix

[sjaak327]

9 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

 

What were the two orders issued by Prayuth under Section 44 relating to this case?  Can you cite the reference numbers or show the links to the orders in the Royal Gazette?

 

I recall that two ministerial regulations were issued by the Finance Ministry, pursuant to regular statutory law, that could be construed as relating to this case.  Regulation no. 448/2558 was issued to appoint a committee to assess the financial damage incurred by the state and regulation no.  39/2558 was to do with the management of rotting rice stocks left over from the rice pledging scheme.  These were not orders issued under Section 44 and had no direct bearing on the case.   

 

Claiming that ministerial regulations issued pursuant to Acts of Parliament that existed long before the coup were actually orders issued under Section 44 is a complete misrepresentation.   

 

I agree that she will not be coming back to Thailand, except as ashes.

He issued one to speed up the process in the beginning. And not that long ago, he issued one to be able to seize her assets. That one was very unfair, considering it was invoked well before she even was found guily...

[NCFC]

Yes real proof it was rigged and no other opinions allowed. Plus it shows how hard it is to really convict someone. Everyone knows here that the rice trader was close to Thaksin (as proven with pictures). Now its a small step to connect the dots. This judge however did not see it that way. Thankfully the other judges did. 
 
But at least this shows it was not a show process and that they really did follow the law and discussed it extensively. Just one of the 9 thought the proof was not sufficient, the others were more clear minded and accepted Thaksin his friendship with the rice trader as proof. Its good otherwise an other criminal shin action would have gone unpunished. 

So if your wife is ever photographed standing next to a minor dara, who subsequently turns out to be a criminal, then we can join the dots and assume you are a criminal, too? I think not.

Sent from my G7-L01 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app