Lawyer who leaked Joe Ferrari tape sued for defamation

[metisdead]

Some posts with trolling comments toward ASEANNOW regarding the headline have been removed.  

[Burma Bill]

10 hours ago, webfact said:

The defamation suit was filed against him by ........................., a lawyer who was also in possession of the viral video before it was released on social media.

Sour grapes for being beaten at the post????

[rott]

48 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Has certainly been on BBC (UK) and ABC News online (Aust)

But has there been any public statement of Sitta accusing Decha of blackmail. Which is what this is all about. 

[Dont confuse me]

My first reaction was "unbelievable " but I quickly came to my senses and realised TIT where 'money number one' 

 

[Laughing Gravy]

2 hours ago, samtam said:

I don't think Boss is (yet) a government minister, but it's only August 2021.

 

 

I think stashing illicit wealth overseas is quite difficult now. Well, you can do it in Laos, or Cambodia, or in gold bars, (or maybe bitcoin), but if you want to use it in a legit business in an OECD country, you'd have a lot of questions to answer, (with proof of honesty).

"I don't think Boss is (yet) a government minister, but it's only August 2021."

Wrong family and wrong incident.

[GrandPapillon]

9 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

You have more faith than me. When a fella from a prominent family kills a police sergeant in front of 30 plus witnesses, goes on the run, all witnesses withdraw their statement and he gets off with it. Then ends up as a government minister. No it is not a Holywood comedy but what happened here.

I hope you are right but I have serious doubt.

indeed, same doubt about changes

 

the place will need to be put upside down Bolshevik style if you want to see real changes

[Sydebolle]

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

One more time for the hard of reading - “I have filed a complaint to prosecute Mr Sittha for defamation and violation of the Computer Crime Act after he accused me of trying to blackmail the former chief of police at Muang Nakhon Sawan police station,” he said.

It's about one lawyer saying the other was going to use the tape to blackmail. If not true, then he has every right to sue for defamation as this is a fairly serious allegation, especially for a lawyer.

If it was me being accused and I was innocent, I would absolutely be suing for defamation..

Thanks for putting things into perspectives; mea culpa! 

[candide]

5 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

So many posters jumping in without having read the full article.

 

'Sittha told the media on Tuesday that he got the clip from a low-ranking officer and before he released the clip, the low-ranking officer has sent the video to Decha first but he refused to released it to the public because we wanted to blackmail Joe for money.'

 

The defamation is NOT because he released the video but because Sittha has accused him of attemted blackmail - '“I have filed a complaint to prosecute Mr Sittha for defamation and violation of the Computer Crime Act after he accused me of trying to blackmail the former chief of police at Muang Nakhon Sawan police station,” he said.

Exactly! And it looks like quite an acceptable case of defamation. How did he know that the other lawyer did not release the video because he "intended" to blackmail the cop? Can he prove it?

 

Additionally, is it plausible? Blackmail a top cop who can easily get you killed? Really? On top of it, after watching a striking example of the cop's talent in the video?

Edited August 28, 2021 by candide

[samtam]

*Misquote edited out*

 

That was my point. You have to read the OP. He conflates the two.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Scott

[digger70]

4 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Please read the article. He is suing for defamation because the other lawyer accused him of attempted blackmail. It's nothing to do with the tape.

 

“I have filed a complaint to prosecute Mr Sittha for defamation and violation of the Computer Crime Act after he accused me of trying to blackmail the former chief of police at Muang Nakhon Sawan police station,” he said.

I red what was posted here ,I reacted on that .Why was that not posted in this article? why was I suppose to look somewhere else for the rest of the story. 

If they want one to read something Post the full article Not put a link at the bottom for the Real story. Bad reporting.

[Mr Meeseeks]

26 minutes ago, candide said:

Exactly! And it looks like quite an acceptable case of defamation. How did he know that the other lawyer did not release the video because he "intended" to blackmail the cop? Can he prove it?

 

Additionally, is it plausible? Blackmail a top cop who can easily get you killed? Really? On top of it, after watching a striking example of the cop's talent in the video?

I'm sure if the cop attempted to kill or even succeeded in killing the lawyer the video would have made its way to the media.

[NeoDinosaw]

10 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

I do not see how defamation can apply in this case but maybe the law here is different.  There was no libel or slander or comments just a video which people can come to their own conclusion.

 

Falsity - Defamation law will only consider statements defamatory if they are, in fact, false. A true statement is not considered defamation. Additionally, because of their nature, statements of opinion are not considered false because they are subjective to the speaker.

This is the way it goes in farang-land - but don't Thais have a different law - if the statement causes loss (or face or money) then it is defamation. It does not matter whether it is true or false.

[Gottfrid]

7 hours ago, rott said:

Section 326 states that one person may not impute to another anything that may impair his reputation. 

 

Do you understand the basis of the legal claim here.?

 

It appears to be a pity that your brain is not as sharp as your mouth. 

Sure, I read that. Unfortunately you do not get it. Section 326 regards the fact that it would be a real defamation as it has no substance in reality. Section 330 regards the fact that the information leaked is true and has value of interest for the people. Therefore the law is quite clear, and i can guarantee he will not be punished for publishing the video.

[Gottfrid]

4 hours ago, chilly07 said:

Best to read the full article

Did that! ???? 

[Grusa]

4 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

One more time for the hard of reading - “I have filed a complaint to prosecute Mr Sittha for defamation and violation of the Computer Crime Act after he accused me of trying to blackmail the former chief of police at Muang Nakhon Sawan police station,” he said.

It's about one lawyer saying the other was going to use the tape to blackmail. If not true, then he has every right to sue for defamation as this is a fairly serious allegation, especially for a lawyer.

If it was me being accused and I was innocent, I would absolutely be suing for defamation..

It's about one lawyer saying the other was going to use the tape to blackmail. If not true, Whether true or not, in Thailand he has every right to sue for defamation, as this is a fairly serious allegation, especially for a lawyer.

If it was me being Thai and accused and/or relatively (sufficiently?) wealthy, whether or not I was innocent, I would absolutely be suing for defamation.

 

As I said before: "who pays, wins"

 

Apologies for the convoluted editing!

[TheFishman1]

Only in Thailand amazing Thailand TIT

[josephbloggs]

34 minutes ago, TheFishman1 said:

Only in Thailand amazing Thailand TIT

What?  Only in Thailand can you sue someone for defamation if they publicly accuse you of blackmail?  Really????

Edited August 28, 2021 by josephbloggs

[Artisi]

7 hours ago, KhaoNiaw said:

No, you haven't understood it. He's not being sued for releasing a video of a killing. He's being sued for saying that another lawyer who had the video earlier was using it to blackmail the police officers involved. The defamation is against the other lawyer. 

Don't make it too complicated, remember many of here are still learning, cat, dog, sit, sat, reading and comprehension will be taught after kindergarten. 

[Artisi]

What hasn't be addressed yet (as far as I can tell) who planted the camera or filmed it, on whose instructions was it done and why was there such a delay between the act and releasing the video, this would also open another can of worms if looked into. 

Hint, someone with perceived authority whose nose was out of joint in the the police station. 

Edited August 28, 2021 by Artisi

[RobU]

Perhaps this is a method cooked up by both lawyers to keep the case in the Judicial system it can't go away or be swept under the carpet this way since the statements of the 'defending' lawyer will be made public by the courts

[ben2talk]

15 hours ago, ukrules said:

I have a feeling it will be different this time, this video evidence will be famous throughout the entire world.

 

Everyone will know what they're all about now.

 

Since when did that make a blind bit of difference? The Red Bull heir is one of the longest running jokes in Thai History, and there are MANY others... to the extent that we KNOW they'll get away, and amongst all he people shouting 'let's get this sorted' in public are many who will turn off the camera and say 'he's family, he can't get in trouble for this'.

[joloit]

Imagine 20 years ago, when the internet was still in the developing age. This would have never reached the news and it would likely have never been exposed….

[Artisi]

18 minutes ago, joloit said:

Imagine 20 years ago, when the internet was still in the developing age. This would have never reached the news and it would likely have never been exposed….

In today's age, just treat this case as an anomoly.... 

[rott]

4 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

Sure, I read that. Unfortunately you do not get it. Section 326 regards the fact that it would be a real defamation as it has no substance in reality. Section 330 regards the fact that the information leaked is true and has value of interest for the people. Therefore the law is quite clear, and i can guarantee he will not be punished for publishing the video.

As we both know Gottfrid it is not about the video, it is about an accusation of blackmail. 

 

Anyway most of your posts make sense to me, I have no wish to continue this discussion. 

[johnnybangkok]

17 hours ago, Grusa said:

It's about one lawyer saying the other was going to use the tape to blackmail. If not true, Whether true or not, in Thailand he has every right to sue for defamation, as this is a fairly serious allegation, especially for a lawyer.

If it was me being Thai and accused and/or relatively (sufficiently?) wealthy, whether or not I was innocent, I would absolutely be suing for defamation.

 

As I said before: "who pays, wins"

 

Apologies for the convoluted editing!

Not sure I agree with your 'editing'.

 

First, it's VERY important if it's true or not. All defamation and libel cases hold merit depending on their authenticity and although Thailands laws may be particularly harsh and many cases are particularly spurious, proof has to be submitted and that's easier if true (and easier still when clearly seen/heard as in this case).

Secondly, I don't think this is just a Thai thing. Defamation and libel laws are alive and well in many Western countries with my home country of the UK being a particulalrly popular place to bring these cases due to the relative ease and high success rate when suing for libel/defamation.

 

Obviously the ability to pay for all this is a contributory factor, but isn't that the same the world over?

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways 

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

On 8/28/2021 at 4:09 AM, Somtamnication said:

THIS can only happen in Thailand. Farcical and ridiculous!

Sadly enough this is not only a Thailand thing. This happens often in the US as well. 

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts and the replies have been removed. 

[GarryP]

7 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Not sure I agree with your 'editing'.

 

First, it's VERY important if it's true or not. All defamation and libel cases hold merit depending on their authenticity and although Thailands laws may be particularly harsh and many cases are particularly spurious, proof has to be submitted and that's easier if true (and easier still when clearly seen/heard as in this case).

Secondly, I don't think this is just a Thai thing. Defamation and libel laws are alive and well in many Western countries with my home country of the UK being a particulalrly popular place to bring these cases due to the relative ease and high success rate when suing for libel/defamation.

 

Obviously the ability to pay for all this is a contributory factor, but isn't that the same the world over?

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways 

But in the UK it would be a civil case, whereas in Thailand defamation is a criminal case with penalties including up to 2 years imprisonment. It is for this very reason (including that truth is not a defense against defamation) that defamation charges are used to silence opponents, e.g. the human rights people who reveal information about terrible treatment of workers by certain companies. Defamation charges should be civil only and not prevent people from revealing the truth no matter how distasteful to some. 

 

I realize that many other countries' defamation statutes are criminal law based too, but are they weaponized like they are in Thailand?       

[impulse]

On 8/27/2021 at 6:07 PM, Gottfrid said:

Sued for defamation? What? Mr. Joe was pretty good at making himself look bad. No chance that telling the truth can be a case of defamation. If they do that they will only dig a deeper hole for the force. And, I believe it´s deep and ugly enough already.

Joe's not suing anyone.  And he's being sued for statements he made, not for releasing the video.  An attorney is suing the guy because the guy claimed the attorney was holding onto the video to blackmail Joe.  Calling someone a blackmailer is defamation if he isn't a blackmailer.

 

Joe and the video are just incidental to the non-story...

 

Edited August 29, 2021 by impulse

[Saanim]

On 8/28/2021 at 7:50 PM, joloit said:

Imagine 20 years ago, when the internet was still in the developing age. This would have never reached the news and it would likely have never been exposed….

Not true. Read the case above, it was more than 20 years ago an it had been in news every day for quiet a long time. However, it had not changed much on the outcome...