Yingluck case ‘technically over’ in absence of appeals

[wvavin]

It is already "technically over" even before the first hearing!

[Media1]

Justice lol. This country has no justice system that is sound. You need a miracle or a big envelope lol.

[Media1]

36 minutes ago, wvavin said:

It is already "technically over" even before the first hearing!

Yes

[tifino]

Expect the sole Judge to vote in her favour, to do the time for, and on her behalf...

 

Besides, his career would already be in tatters for going against Orders

[Goanna]

So...she just missed out on the new laws which exempt any member of the junta from prosecution. How is this fair to some, but not all?

[sandrew33]

9 hours ago, sawadeeken said:

 

 

9 hours ago, sawadeeken said:

I don't know the laws you refer to........ And I CAN'T believe you do either... (and yet you post as if you are so 'informed'.......... (Sooooo common on here....... )

FOR ONE GOOD REASON...... That is that she had a legal team, Maybe the 'best money could buy', and they didn't use 'that LAW'..... To save her 'precious butt'.......... LOL............

I mentioned the appeal law being changed. It was changed the week she was found guilty. 

 

The requirement changed was regarding the removal of the ability to appeal from abroad. 

 

Extremely convenient timing. 

 

The last part of your post re her legal team is nonsensical. Perhaps have another go and try making a point this time. 

Edited October 30, 2017 by sandrew33

[sandrew33]

9 hours ago, seajae said:

she had every chance to challenge the verdict and didnt, can only mean she knows she was guilty or an appeal would have been lodged. There will be those that will argue this but they cannot deny it happened, the guilty run away, not the innocent, she did the  same as her brother and others that are guilty, even truck/bus drivers do it here, they know they have done the wring thing and dont want to face up to it. 

 

The guilty run and so do those being prosecuted by a system that is inherently corrupt and has set out to get them so that they have no chance of a fair trial. 

 

So I guess she fits into one of those categories. 

 

Given Thailand and its institutions are beyond reproach, are open and accountable and always deliver the highest levels of justice for all then I can only agree that it must be her guilt that has made her run :) 

[wakeupplease]

More that likely the paperwork sent to Interpol was use as in should have been, bog paper

 

keep the story in the news roll it out as often as possible and the gullible will believe it, just as they have done over the last few decades.

 

Can't wait until the day a country gives her asylum on political grounds and the reaction of the J boys on here will have us all falling about with laughter, saying a civilised country is aiding and abetting corruption no doubt.

 

Start thinking up those excuses guys, your need them by the end of Feb and I need a good laugh

[bangrak]

10 hours ago, seajae said:

she had every chance to challenge the verdict and didnt, can only mean she knows she was guilty or an appeal would have been lodged. There will be those that will argue this but they cannot deny it happened, the guilty run away, not the innocent, she did the  same as her brother and others that are guilty, even truck/bus drivers do it here, they know they have done the wring thing and dont want to face up to it. 

Damn right you are!

And lawyer Norawit, plus all the tribe of others working for the Shins, no doubt, have not let a stone unturned to bring up new evidence and fabulous conclusions to underbuild an appeal with a shadow of a chance to convince the Court.

But, IMO, didn't find anything tangible enough the, well deserved, ruling could possibly be overturned with.

The absence of appeal, no doubt after discussions evaluating all angles with 'the man in desert', seems to have lead, IMO again, to the strategy(!) not to appeal, as the only available opportunity to go on manipulating the lemming followers in the country, and, internationaly, anyone, in politics and media, the big propaganda machine and flock of lobbyists, the Shins spend money on, to create the illusion Justice was not served, to cast a doubt in the mind(?) of those who have chosen(!) to swallow the sweet poison of their domination game. 

...While, when the visibly half-witted woman would not have accepted(!) to be 'sacrificed' on the altar of her big brother (father?) and family's interests, in a typical Chinese way, and a finger could have been pointed at Thaksin, who, still IMO, was behind the fake(!) G-to-G deals and well organised(!) following steps, as he was part of about every smelly 'big deal' in the country for nearly two decennia, ...it would have been a totally different ballgame, and she could have gone on growing mushrooms clad in Burberry's, maybe only on the withered red roses the red lemmings would have provided for the rest of her life.

Oh, the insidious propaganda game about the fake G-to-G deals seems to go strong: I read 'somewhere' that the rice from these ...was later exported via normal commercial channels, while, in fact, it was whether sold on the domestic market (at prices competitors could not follow, while the consumers didn't profit from the 'opportunity' at all), or, hush-hush, re-pledged one more time...   

Mind you, not saying that ANY wealthy family in the country would be 'skippy clean', once more IMO, no matter whether allied to the Shins' organisations and scams, or other ones 'affiliated' to the 'Dems' historical corruption, ...nor the 'nomenclatura' of those working hard (for themselves)... to stand upright with the weigh of all the brass and big medals hanging on colourfull ribbons they carry (which should mean they are the country's best, erm ...?)!

But when, anyone, would start cleaning up your stinking dirty stables, should you complain about which part he started with? I don't think so. 

Edited October 30, 2017 by bangrak

[bangrak]

2 hours ago, Goanna said:

So...she just missed out on the new laws which exempt any member of the junta from prosecution. How is this fair to some, but not all?

All is fair in love, ...and in hate, was, is, and will remain so. Is there any better one with authority without any dirt on its fancy clothes in the land of scams?

I seriously doubt it.

...But there are the worst criminals, using, abusing every law in their advantage, with their ill-acquired wealth the leverage.

They do deserve every 'attention' they get, at last.

When a law needs to be created to nail some big criminal, who was able to set the laws to his, dishonest, hand before it, then, please, yes, do it, rather yesterday than tomorrow!

What do you think? When the TS clan would be down and out, the ST family could be next, then maybe the CP, or, why not the PC, gang. To me it is about creating momentum in the fight against organised crime and corruption. Once the process gathers speed, maybe, I hope, nobody will be able to stop it, will be 'safe' for/from the Law, at last.

Let the Gens start it up, and laugh at what could follow...

Edited October 30, 2017 by bangrak

[bangrak]

1 hour ago, sandrew33 said:

 

The guilty run and so do those being prosecuted by a system that is inherently corrupt and has set out to get them so that they have no chance of a fair trial. 

 

So I guess she fits into one of those categories. 

 

Given Thailand and its institutions are beyond reproach, are open and accountable and always deliver the highest levels of justice for all then I can only agree that it must be her guilt that has made her run :) 

The Shins as 'victims' of corruption is a new concept to me, a ludicrous or just laughable one, or is it just a next step in the des-information they have invested heavily in for many years?

What is it, 'sandrew33'? You fell for their traps, or you actively participate spreading those?

[Soupdragon]

Take a look at how much the Shinawatra family fortune increased over her "rule". More than one billion dollars. There you have your answer why the rice scheme was implemented.

[Jonah Tenner]

10 hours ago, Dogmatix said:

 

Nonsense. Nothing changed that effected Yingluck’s conviction or sentence. The change was that she was given the new right to appeal, which she chose not to take up.

If you are capable of believing that I have a wonderful bargain for you.

No checks, please. Cash and in small bills.

[Dogmatix]

23 hours ago, greenchair said:

What changed is she is the first person in the history of the world that was prosecuted for a policy that failed and the corruption of others of which she recieved no benefit. I can't imagine there is a single thai pm present or past that has not violated 157 if you want to look at it like that. 

She was not convicted for policy failure and the court made very clear that it had no jurisdiction to try her over the rightness or wrongness of her government's policy, if you care to read the judgement. She was convicted for failing to take action to investigate the credible allegations raised by competent government agencies.  Her negligence was in allowing the subordinates of the guilty to investigate them, knowing they would report nothing amiss, rather than insisting on the appointment of an objective commission.

 

Whether other Thai prime ministers have violated Section 157 or not and ought to be prosecuted too is an interesting point but doesn't not make her more or less guilty.

 

Do you have any evidence that she (and/or her brother) did not benefit from the corruption?  I think it would be more realistic to say that there is no evidence that she received no benefit, rather than state categorically that she did not, unless convincing evidence to prove this based on painstaking and exhaustive searches through bank account details in many overseas jurisdictions has come to light.  

Edited October 31, 2017 by Dogmatix

[greenchair]

2 hours ago, Dogmatix said:

She was not convicted for policy failure and the court made very clear that it had no jurisdiction to try her over the rightness or wrongness of her government's policy, if you care to read the judgement. She was convicted for failing to take action to investigate the credible allegations raised by competent government agencies.  Her negligence was in allowing the subordinates of the guilty to investigate them, knowing they would report nothing amiss, rather than insisting on the appointment of an objective commission.

 

Whether other Thai prime ministers have violated Section 157 or not and ought to be prosecuted too is an interesting point but doesn't not make her more or less guilty.

 

Do you have any evidence that she (and/or her brother) did not benefit from the corruption?  I think it would be more realistic to say that there is no evidence that she received no benefit, rather than state categorically that she did not, unless convincing evidence to prove this based on painstaking and exhaustive searches through bank account details in many overseas jurisdictions has come to light.  

That's what I said, she was convicted for the corruption of others of which she had nothing to do with. 

There are independent agencies that are supposed to investigate and prosecute government officials that delve in corruption. 

None of her business in my opinion, unless she specifically ordered them to not take action. 

Notwithstanding those officials that "supposedly " reported the corruption to her are just as guilty of 157. 

The court said after thorough investigation  she had not benefited from the corruption, hence they did not seek monetary compensation. 

So talk to the investigators and judge about that.