Police Fire Tear Gas At Protesters In Front Of Parliament

[jdinasia]

BTW I would be VERY careful about accusing a Thai court of not following the law and due process

I agree.

I know most of you folks in this forum don't believe much in facts, but let me try:

1. Taksins wife bought some property. This was a bidding process, (second attempt btw, first round attracted no bidders)

2. The seller was FIDF, a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand according to the supreme court

3. She won the bid, beating two commercial developers (Noble Development Public Co. LTD. (offered B750 Mil), and House Public Co. LTD. (offered B730 Mil).

4. The seller was satisfied with the result, better deal than expected.

5. Her husband had to sign off on some papers after the deal, because he was her spouse (spousal consent required for this type of transaction)

6. The court decides that the prime minister commited a crime, because he was involved in a transaction with a 'government body'.

7. Compare point 6 and point 2, see if this makes sense.

8. Taksin gets 2 years imprisonment.

9. His wife is not found guilty of anything in this case, and can keep the property. Court decision.

My comment is: Is this the most serious crime the court could find to accuse the most crooked, corrupt criminal in recent Thai history?

Please tell me there is more! Facts I mean, not flippant unsubstantiated claims that this forum is overflowing with.

The information above was collected from the Bangkok post Forum discussion board. I encourage all of you to check it out. Some of you might get an educational experience...

LOL .. not totally accurate .. (the above) ....

But the simple answer again is that was the fastest case to prove because it was a slam dunk ... open .. see the records ... convict him. All done ...

what is accurate then?

And this time, try to state your case with something substantial!

Your remark is exactly of the quality I expected.

I am sure that you know all the details, and if you really put your mind to it, you can explain it in a more convincing manner than 'slam dunk'

Of course this was the fastest, I call it 'quick and dirty'

Call it what you like .... but be sure not to criticize the court in doing so

See posts 2542 and 2534

Thakky was dirty .. this was the fastest and easiest case to prove ...

I am sorry that you do not like the FACTS that he's now been convicted of a significant crime, but that is also a fact.

[soundman]

Back on topic please, in case you have all forgotten:

"Replying to Police Fire Tear Gas At Protesters In Front Of Parliament"

These threads are so intermeshed I am having serious difficulty remembering which one I am in after reading only a couple of the current posts.

[jdinasia]

Koo in all fairness we have to point out that the reds have launched a fair number of attacks on the PAD and the parliamentary opposition over the past few years including hitting an ex-PM with a chair. It would be very niaive to believe that the reds are non-violent. Both sides are emminently capable of employing violence and have proven it.

I haven't seen the reds do anything to the yellows. So far they only have 2 meetings to show they are supporting the current government.

Since you can't be bothered to know anything of your own country or what happens here ....... I am done with you.

Still wailing, sneering and insulting your way to your 9,000th post. Still not changed a single mind nor condescended to accept that opinions other than your own exist. Your family must be pleased as punch to be living under your despotic rule

I notice you didn't respond to Koo's post about 30baht health care, the loans, IMF fund, finishing the airport etc. Must be so inconvenient that the one you most detest, brought about more social improvements than the entire gamut of PAD/(anti-Democrats/Army friends you so love to support.

Leave the sneering a minute and lets have a list of Achievements of PAD. Thats achievments, things accomplished. Things that Thailand benefitted from. I'll start you off;

1. blocked phuket airport and turned away 20,000 people and caused untold misery and hardship to a tourist island already suffereing in low season. Anyone in Phuket will attest to an increase in crime has since followed.

2. scared thousands of Asian tourists into cancelling their holidays to thailand for the coming high season.

sorry, not being to helpful am I. I'll leave it to you as you know best. And sorry, I don;t have video footage of them cancelling!

Glad you are done with us, perhaps we can continue with these debates without your petulant outbursts.

You have spent far too much time on posting to have possibly learnt anything much about this country.

Bye, and don't let the door catch the back of your big ed on the way out!

hmmmmmm

Where to start

Yes I am finished with Koo82 who i do not believe is above board --- in fact I have added him to ignore ....but I will answer you this last time

The 30 baht health care scheme --- not his program was already on the board when he took office

Village loan scam --- increased debt whilst doing more harm than good

IMF loan early payback ---- stupid move done for his ego. Paying off a low interest loan early when sitting on those funds would have generated more wealth. Not using them to stimulate the economy ... just plain moronic!

PAD's accomplishments --- started the ball rolling to get rid of Thaksin (The courts are the ones that finally accomplished that)

Got the ball rolling to get TRT disbanded and a vast number of them barred from politics for 5 years (again the courts are the ones that finally accomplished that)

Got a corrupt government totally neutralized and replaced

Got the ball rolling on getting PPP banned

Got the ball rolling on getting Samak out

the list is long .......

but Finally ---- the PAD isn't a political party and all your personal attacks/flames on me in all these threads will not change that!

BTW ... I somehow managed to learn Thai, live in 3 separate regions of Thailand, maintain a real relationship with an equal partner in life etc etc etc ... and still find the time to educate people like you that brings my FAMILY into things ....

[CuttySark]

Koo in all fairness we have to point out that the reds have launched a fair number of attacks on the PAD and the parliamentary opposition over the past few years including hitting an ex-PM with a chair. It would be very niaive to believe that the reds are non-violent. Both sides are emminently capable of employing violence and have proven it.

I haven't seen the reds do anything to the yellows. So far they only have 2 meetings to show they are supporting the current government.

Since you can't be bothered to know anything of your own country or what happens here ....... I am done with you.

Still wailing, sneering and insulting your way to your 9,000th post. Still not changed a single mind nor condescended to accept that opinions other than your own exist. Your family must be pleased as punch to be living under your despotic rule

I notice you didn't respond to Koo's post about 30baht health care, the loans, IMF fund, finishing the airport etc. Must be so inconvenient that the one you most detest, brought about more social improvements than the entire gamut of PAD/(anti-Democrats/Army friends you so love to support.

Leave the sneering a minute and lets have a list of Achievements of PAD. Thats achievments, things accomplished. Things that Thailand benefitted from. I'll start you off;

1. blocked phuket airport and turned away 20,000 people and caused untold misery and hardship to a tourist island already suffereing in low season. Anyone in Phuket will attest to an increase in crime has since followed.

2. scared thousands of Asian tourists into cancelling their holidays to thailand for the coming high season.

sorry, not being to helpful am I. I'll leave it to you as you know best. And sorry, I don;t have video footage of them cancelling!

Glad you are done with us, perhaps we can continue with these debates without your petulant outbursts.

You have spent far too much time on posting to have possibly learnt anything much about this country.

Bye, and don't let the door catch the back of your big ed on the way out!

hmmmmmm

Where to start

Yes I am finished with Koo82 who i do not believe is above board --- in fact I have added him to ignore ....but I will answer you this last time

The 30 baht health care scheme --- not his program was already on the board when he took office

Village loan scam --- increased debt whilst doing more harm than good

IMF loan early payback ---- stupid move done for his ego. Paying off a low interest loan early when sitting on those funds would have generated more wealth. Not using them to stimulate the economy ... just plain moronic!

PAD's accomplishments --- started the ball rolling to get rid of Thaksin (The courts are the ones that finally accomplished that)

Got the ball rolling to get TRT disbanded and a vast number of them barred from politics for 5 years (again the courts are the ones that finally accomplished that)

Got a corrupt government totally neutralized and replaced

Got the ball rolling on getting PPP banned

Got the ball rolling on getting Samak out

the list is long .......

but Finally ---- the PAD isn't a political party and all your personal attacks/flames on me in all these threads will not change that!

BTW ... I somehow managed to learn Thai, live in 3 separate regions of Thailand, maintain a real relationship with an equal partner in life etc etc etc ... and still find the time to educate people like you that brings my FAMILY into things ....

All of you are so one-sided. Can't you people be more civilized and neutral. There's good & evil in everyone of us.

[LaoPo]

Yes I am finished with Koo82 who i do not believe is above board --- in fact I have added him to ignore ....but I will answer you this last time

As far as I'm aware, Koo82 is a Thai girl/Lady and putting a member on ''ignore'' is not the solution when people are debating.

I have never ever put anyone on ignore, whether they agreed or not in a discussion and whether or not they used vulgair and abusing, flaming language which a few members did actually. But, it says more about them than myself.

If politicians would put their opponents on ''ignore'', we would end up in nowhere land, where Thailand almost landed already...

LaoPo

[jdinasia]

Yes I am finished with Koo82 who i do not believe is above board --- in fact I have added him to ignore ....but I will answer you this last time

As far as I'm aware, Koo82 is a Thai girl/Lady and putting a member on ''ignore'' is not the solution when people are debating.

I have never ever put anyone on ignore, whether they agreed or not in a discussion and whether or not they used vulgair and abusing, flaming language which a few members did actually. But, it says more about them than myself.

If politicians would put their opponents on ''ignore'', we would end up in nowhere land, where Thailand almost landed already...

LaoPo

No Comment

but it's not a debate when someone ignores facts and denies any knowledge of their own (purported) country

and everyone I have used that option on has been banned over time ...

This is neither a political situation, a classroom, or a therapists couch, it is at it's best a chance to discuss things with adults and at its worst a forum for people that have never been in Thailand to tell those of us that live here how it really is

[Plus]

There's good & evil in everyone of us.

Yes, but they don't cancel each other to some one digit number.

I admit that I'm not the one to give Thaksin lots of credit where its due, I spend a lot more time on trying to convince people that he should get his deserved punishment instead.

I'm not really sure what he should get for lifting farmers out of deep poverty or desperation, for giving them hope, for 30 baht scheme, for mobile phone loan fund and so on. I'm sure, though, that it's not going to cancel dropping all charges for corruption, looting the country, destroying political system, starting the murderous drug war, and setting extra low moral standards for country to follow.

That should never be excused, in my view.

[LaoPo]

and everyone I have used that option on has been banned over time ...

This is neither a political situation, a classroom, or a therapists couch, it is at it's best a chance to discuss things with adults and at its worst a forum for people that have never been in Thailand to tell those of us that live here how it really is

..than I better start praying you won't put me on ignore.....right ?

... ..you think there are many members who have never been in Thailand, trying to tell the ones who live in Thailand how it really is ? That would be unbelievable, wouldn't it ?

LaoPo

[Guest Reimar]

From TOC

Explosion at Govt House, Injuring One

UPDATE : 8 November 2008

One person has been injured by an explosion at Government House, near the main PAD platform.

Reports said the explosion occurred in front of the Santi Maitree Building in the Government House compound where the PAD rally is based. The explosion injured a middle-aged man, named as Metee Uthong, who is a PAD security guard. He suffered wounds to his forehead and chest.

The injured security guard is now being treated at the Ramatibbadee Hospital. The blast created a deep hole and pieces of aluminum and bottle were scattered around the site. The site is only 150 meters away from the main platform.

A PAD guard at the scene said he was resting with his friends nearby when he saw smoke which was followed by the explosion.

Security has been tightened at the PAD rally following the explosion, while investigations are underway.

[sriracha john]

PAD guard hurt in new bomb attack

A PAD guard was wounded in a bomb blast in the early hours yesterday near the group's makeshift stage in the Government House compound. The bomb blast was the third in recent weeks and went off near a camp where PAD guards were sleeping. It was the closest yet to the alliance's stronghold. Methee U-thong, 25, suffered injuries to his forehead and chest in the pre-dawn attack. The PAD did not disclose where Mr Methee was being treated, due to safety concerns. Two men claiming to be members of the Internal Security Operations Command had asked to see Mr Methee at the hospital. They ran away when asked to produce identification. The latest bomb blew a hole in the ground about 250m from the main rally stage in front of Santi Maitree building, where PAD key leaders often address supporters. After inspecting the bomb site, the PAD guards said they believe the device was hidden under a plank of plywood rather than thrown in, as was the case in previous attacks. Core PAD leader Chamlong Srimuang said the explosions were aimed at discouraging people from joining the anti-government outfit's rallies. The first bomb attack against the PAD injured nine people near Makkhawan Rangsan bridge late last month, while a second explosive device went off at Thewakam intersection, near Orathai bridge.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/091108_News/09Nov2008_news06.php

[sriracha john]

Explosion at Govt House, Injuring One

One person has been injured by an explosion at Government House, near the main PAD platform.

Reports said the explosion occurred in front of the Santi Maitree Building in the Government House compound where the PAD rally is based. The explosion injured a middle-aged man, named as Metee Uthong, who is a PAD security guard. He suffered wounds to his forehead and chest.

The injured security guard is now being treated at the Ramatibbadee Hospital. The blast created a deep hole and pieces of aluminum and bottle were scattered around the site. The site is only 150 meters away from the main platform.

A PAD guard at the scene said he was resting with his friends nearby when he saw smoke which was followed by the explosion.

Security has been tightened at the PAD rally following the explosion, while investigations are underway.

- TOC / 8 November 2008

accompanying photo to the article:

[NCFC]

Well, yes, OMR, and thanks to Slimdog and Hammered, too.

What I see here is someone with a clear agenda trying to recruit followers by waving important sounding numbers in front of their noses.

I'm sure NCFC knows that SC ruling of two decades ago doesn't have a legal bearing on the current case but that's not what he posted here and in BP's forum. I think it's a sorry attempt at blatant manipulation of unsuspecting public.

Lawbooks aside, at this point my understanding is that back in 1990 the SC ruling was related to government's responsibility for covering FIDF debt obligations, ie would the Bank of Thailand gurantee all its loans. That degree of control obviously is not necessary to qualify as a "government agency" from the conflict of interest point of view.

Maybe I'm dead wrong - the point is, 9-0 is a pretty strong ruling from people far more expert in laws than anyone else here.

The SC ruling that FIDC is NOT a state body, but a separate juristic entity has a DIRECT legal bearing on the Taxsin court case. The basis of the charges related to section 100 which states the government officials may not have dealings with State bodies. Since the Supreme Court ruled that FIDC is not a state body, then the case against Taxsin collapses.

It is not an argument that the court can ignore the law every time a case comes to the court. Think about it, if that were the case there would be no law. The law is the law. You cannot argue to put the law books aside in the case regarding the law, you must follow what the law says.

Since the court did not follow the Supremem Court ruling, then the result was politically motivated.

Would any of you stay in a country if you knew the laws would be framed against you?

[NCFC]

BTW I would be VERY careful about accusing a Thai court of not following the law and due process

I agree.

I know most of you folks in this forum don't believe much in facts, but let me try:

1. Taksins wife bought some property. This was a bidding process, (second attempt btw, first round attracted no bidders)

2. The seller was FIDF, a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand according to the supreme court

3. She won the bid, beating two commercial developers (Noble Development Public Co. LTD. (offered B750 Mil), and House Public Co. LTD. (offered B730 Mil).

4. The seller was satisfied with the result, better deal than expected.

5. Her husband had to sign off on some papers after the deal, because he was her spouse (spousal consent required for this type of transaction)

6. The court decides that the prime minister commited a crime, because he was involved in a transaction with a 'government body'.

7. Compare point 6 and point 2, see if this makes sense.

8. Taksin gets 2 years imprisonment.

9. His wife is not found guilty of anything in this case, and can keep the property. Court decision.

My comment is: Is this the most serious crime the court could find to accuse the most crooked, corrupt criminal in recent Thai history?

Please tell me there is more! Facts I mean, not flippant unsubstantiated claims that this forum is overflowing with.

The information above was collected from the Bangkok post Forum discussion board. I encourage all of you to check it out. Some of you might get an educational experience...

LOL .. not totally accurate .. (the above) ....

But the simple answer again is that was the fastest case to prove because it was a slam dunk ... open .. see the records ... convict him. All done ...

Long before this case came to trial, the Supreme Court determined that FIDF is not a 'State Body'. Decision No. 4655/2533 ruled that the FIDF is a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand. It has its own rights and duty in accordance with laws and regulations within the boundary of its objectives.

The Supreme Court ruling takes precence over other courts.

Therefore, clearly within the law Taksin is not in breach of section 100 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, which which he was charged.

The decision of the court was truly politically motivated.

Technically Thai law does not have precedent. And in practice many cases vary in terms of decision from very similar cases. A body of central legal decisons and precedent does not exist. A famous example was the asset concealment case where the Thaksin defence was accepted when the Sanan similar defence was prevuiously rejected.

That is the nature of the Thai code of law

The Supreme Court rulings sets a precedence over all other courts. It is one of the main functions of this court. And the SC has ruled that FIDC is not a state body but a separate jurisdict entity.

[NCFC]

There's also possibility that the law the Const. Court based its decision on has its own description of what can be deemed a government agency and what is not.

You may well be right on this, but it still does not alter the fact that the Supreme Court, which sets a precedence for all other courts has ruled that FIDC is not a state body. It would seem that someone or something is manipulating the CC.

[NCFC]

Long before this case came to trial, the Supreme Court determined that FIDF is not a 'State Body'. Decision No. 4655/2533 ruled that the FIDF is a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand. It has its own rights and duty in accordance with laws and regulations within the boundary of its objectives.

The Supreme Court ruling takes precence over other courts.

Therefore, clearly within the law Taksin is not in breach of section 100 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, which which he was charged.

The decision of the court was truly politically motivated.

What the Supreme court ruled in 4655/2533 (1990) was that the FIDF was governed by Section 29 (ter) of the Bank of Thailand Act, and as such was not responsible to pay in full all monies lost by individual investors in the event of financial Institutions failure and that Section 29 (Octo) determined that the FIDF was only liable to pay "reasonable" amounts" due to a financial Institutions failure which results in a serious financial crisis.

Section 29 (ter):

A fund shall be established in the Bank of Thailand and called the "Financial

Institutions Development Fund". The Fund shall be a juristic person with the purpose of

reconstructing and developing the financial institution system to accord it strength and

Stability. It shall have the "Department of Financial Institutions Development Fund" as its

competent authority and shall be separate and kept wholly distinct from the Bank's other

business.

NCFC

You could of course argue that the Supreme Courts verdict 4655/2533 was politically motivated, after all the case originated from the 1983 financial crisis. So 2 questions

Which financial Institution was the worst offender in paying back it's depositors when it defaulted on payments

Who was the Prime Minister at the time of the ruling

Give you a hint: Ratchada Land

Slimdog, you may well be right that the Supreme Court ruling was politically motivated, we will never know. But we do know that the ruling was many years before Rachada Land and many years before Taxsin became Prime Minister. Therefore we can be well sure that the SC ruling is not influenced by the Racha Land case, the one that we are discussing.

You ask me " Which financial Institution was the worst offender in paying back it's depositors when it defaulted on payments?" and "Who was the Prime Minister at the time of the ruling?"

My answer is that I am pointing out the SC ruling declared FIDC to not be a state body and therefore Taxsin could simply not have contravened section 100. This ruling was made long before the Rachada land was auctioned off, not after.

[hammered]

BTW I would be VERY careful about accusing a Thai court of not following the law and due process

I agree.

I know most of you folks in this forum don't believe much in facts, but let me try:

1. Taksins wife bought some property. This was a bidding process, (second attempt btw, first round attracted no bidders)

2. The seller was FIDF, a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand according to the supreme court

3. She won the bid, beating two commercial developers (Noble Development Public Co. LTD. (offered B750 Mil), and House Public Co. LTD. (offered B730 Mil).

4. The seller was satisfied with the result, better deal than expected.

5. Her husband had to sign off on some papers after the deal, because he was her spouse (spousal consent required for this type of transaction)

6. The court decides that the prime minister commited a crime, because he was involved in a transaction with a 'government body'.

7. Compare point 6 and point 2, see if this makes sense.

8. Taksin gets 2 years imprisonment.

9. His wife is not found guilty of anything in this case, and can keep the property. Court decision.

My comment is: Is this the most serious crime the court could find to accuse the most crooked, corrupt criminal in recent Thai history?

Please tell me there is more! Facts I mean, not flippant unsubstantiated claims that this forum is overflowing with.

The information above was collected from the Bangkok post Forum discussion board. I encourage all of you to check it out. Some of you might get an educational experience...

LOL .. not totally accurate .. (the above) ....

But the simple answer again is that was the fastest case to prove because it was a slam dunk ... open .. see the records ... convict him. All done ...

Long before this case came to trial, the Supreme Court determined that FIDF is not a 'State Body'. Decision No. 4655/2533 ruled that the FIDF is a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand. It has its own rights and duty in accordance with laws and regulations within the boundary of its objectives.

The Supreme Court ruling takes precence over other courts.

Therefore, clearly within the law Taksin is not in breach of section 100 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, which which he was charged.

The decision of the court was truly politically motivated.

Technically Thai law does not have precedent. And in practice many cases vary in terms of decision from very similar cases. A body of central legal decisons and precedent does not exist. A famous example was the asset concealment case where the Thaksin defence was accepted when the Sanan similar defence was prevuiously rejected.

That is the nature of the Thai code of law

The Supreme Court rulings sets a precedence over all other courts. It is one of the main functions of this court. And the SC has ruled that FIDC is not a state body but a separate jurisdict entity.

There is no precedent in Thai law.

Any court can hear a very simlar case the next day and come to acompletely different decision. This is all based more on every case is different. Court decisions are also not circulated so there is not even the precursor of precedent.

In short any decison made by the supreme or any other court at any time in the past has no effect on the case under consideration.

Precedent is common where the system is based on English Common Law - UK, USA, ex UK Colonies. Thailand's legal system is based on Roman Code rather than English Common Law.

[jdinasia]

Slimdog, you may well be right that the Supreme Court ruling was politically motivated, we will never know. But we do know that the ruling was many years before Rachada Land and many years before Taxsin became Prime Minister. Therefore we can be well sure that the SC ruling is not influenced by the Racha Land case, the one that we are discussing.

You ask me " Which financial Institution was the worst offender in paying back it's depositors when it defaulted on payments?" and "Who was the Prime Minister at the time of the ruling?"

My answer is that I am pointing out the SC ruling declared FIDC to not be a state body and therefore Taxsin could simply not have contravened section 100. This ruling was made long before the Rachada land was auctioned off, not after.

Sorry kiddo .. but you have it wrong. The reason they went this way is that there is NO chance for a legit appeal. Thakky's case went the way it did just to make sure of this. (And if you think otherwise you'd have to ask why no appeal has been filed ... etc etc)

They went for the 100% chance of easy conviction ... 1) She bought the land 2) He was PM 3) that broke the law ----- the reason many people object to this is that they didn't go for the other factors in the case ... instead they went for the easy win and ignored the real corruption and conspiracy charges that would have been more difficult to prove.

[mc2]

BTW I would be VERY careful about accusing a Thai court of not following the law and due process

I agree.

I know most of you folks in this forum don't believe much in facts, but let me try:

1. Taksins wife bought some property. This was a bidding process, (second attempt btw, first round attracted no bidders)

2. The seller was FIDF, a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand according to the supreme court

3. She won the bid, beating two commercial developers (Noble Development Public Co. LTD. (offered B750 Mil), and House Public Co. LTD. (offered B730 Mil).

4. The seller was satisfied with the result, better deal than expected.

5. Her husband had to sign off on some papers after the deal, because he was her spouse (spousal consent required for this type of transaction)

6. The court decides that the prime minister commited a crime, because he was involved in a transaction with a 'government body'.

7. Compare point 6 and point 2, see if this makes sense.

8. Taksin gets 2 years imprisonment.

9. His wife is not found guilty of anything in this case, and can keep the property. Court decision.

My comment is: Is this the most serious crime the court could find to accuse the most crooked, corrupt criminal in recent Thai history?

Please tell me there is more! Facts I mean, not flippant unsubstantiated claims that this forum is overflowing with.

The information above was collected from the Bangkok post Forum discussion board. I encourage all of you to check it out. Some of you might get an educational experience...

LOL .. not totally accurate .. (the above) ....

But the simple answer again is that was the fastest case to prove because it was a slam dunk ... open .. see the records ... convict him. All done ...

Long before this case came to trial, the Supreme Court determined that FIDF is not a 'State Body'. Decision No. 4655/2533 ruled that the FIDF is a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand. It has its own rights and duty in accordance with laws and regulations within the boundary of its objectives.

The Supreme Court ruling takes precence over other courts.

Therefore, clearly within the law Taksin is not in breach of section 100 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, which which he was charged.

The decision of the court was truly politically motivated.

[sriracha john]

3 Senate panels will announce findings of Oct 7 event Tuesday

Three Senate panels will Tuesday announce the results of their investigations into police's October 7 bloody crackdowns on protesters.

One of the panels held Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat mainly responsible for the crackdowns, which led to killings and injuries of the protesters, a senator said Sunday.

Senators Somchai Sawaengkarn, chairman of the Senate committee on human rights and consumers protection, said three subcommittees of his panel had been assigned to investigate the October 7 event and they would announce their findings Tuesday.

The three subcommittees are the subcommittee on human rights and consumer protection, subcommittee on corruption and good governance, and subcommittee on public health.

- The Nation / 2008-11-09

[Old Man River]

The SC ruling that FIDC is NOT a state body, but a separate juristic entity has a DIRECT legal bearing on the Taxsin court case. The basis of the charges related to section 100 which states the government officials may not have dealings with State bodies. Since the Supreme Court ruled that FIDC is not a state body, then the case against Taxsin collapses.

It is not an argument that the court can ignore the law every time a case comes to the court. Think about it, if that were the case there would be no law. The law is the law. You cannot argue to put the law books aside in the case regarding the law, you must follow what the law says.

You really have missed the point here. I am not going to get into whether the SC ruling pertaining to the FDIC has any relation to the Ratchadapisek land case, because it simply does not matter. In Thailand, when it is said the law is the law, it refers to the the written (codified) law only, not to opinions by other courts. Don't confuse other countries legal systems with Thailand's legal system. There are no precedents in Thailand. If it isn't written in the codified law, it is subject to the opinions of the judges each and every time, regardless of how similar the cases may appear to be.

[JetsetBkk]

Any lawyers willing to state which of the above opinions is true? Is there precedent in Thai law and does the Supreme Court's decision set a precedent in this case?

(Not that I believe the stated views of our esteemed posters is in any way biased.)

[NCFC]

BTW I would be VERY careful about accusing a Thai court of not following the law and due process

I agree.

I know most of you folks in this forum don't believe much in facts, but let me try:

1. Taksins wife bought some property. This was a bidding process, (second attempt btw, first round attracted no bidders)

2. The seller was FIDF, a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand according to the supreme court

3. She won the bid, beating two commercial developers (Noble Development Public Co. LTD. (offered B750 Mil), and House Public Co. LTD. (offered B730 Mil).

4. The seller was satisfied with the result, better deal than expected.

5. Her husband had to sign off on some papers after the deal, because he was her spouse (spousal consent required for this type of transaction)

6. The court decides that the prime minister commited a crime, because he was involved in a transaction with a 'government body'.

7. Compare point 6 and point 2, see if this makes sense.

8. Taksin gets 2 years imprisonment.

9. His wife is not found guilty of anything in this case, and can keep the property. Court decision.

My comment is: Is this the most serious crime the court could find to accuse the most crooked, corrupt criminal in recent Thai history?

Please tell me there is more! Facts I mean, not flippant unsubstantiated claims that this forum is overflowing with.

The information above was collected from the Bangkok post Forum discussion board. I encourage all of you to check it out. Some of you might get an educational experience...

LOL .. not totally accurate .. (the above) ....

But the simple answer again is that was the fastest case to prove because it was a slam dunk ... open .. see the records ... convict him. All done ...

Long before this case came to trial, the Supreme Court determined that FIDF is not a 'State Body'. Decision No. 4655/2533 ruled that the FIDF is a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand. It has its own rights and duty in accordance with laws and regulations within the boundary of its objectives.

The Supreme Court ruling takes precence over other courts.

Therefore, clearly within the law Taksin is not in breach of section 100 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, which which he was charged.

The decision of the court was truly politically motivated.

Technically Thai law does not have precedent. And in practice many cases vary in terms of decision from very similar cases. A body of central legal decisons and precedent does not exist. A famous example was the asset concealment case where the Thaksin defence was accepted when the Sanan similar defence was prevuiously rejected.

That is the nature of the Thai code of law

The Supreme Court rulings sets a precedence over all other courts. It is one of the main functions of this court. And the SC has ruled that FIDC is not a state body but a separate jurisdict entity.

There is no precedent in Thai law.

Any court can hear a very simlar case the next day and come to acompletely different decision. This is all based more on every case is different. Court decisions are also not circulated so there is not even the precursor of precedent.

In short any decison made by the supreme or any other court at any time in the past has no effect on the case under consideration.

Precedent is common where the system is based on English Common Law - UK, USA, ex UK Colonies. Thailand's legal system is based on Roman Code rather than English Common Law.

Sorry Hammered but that is factually incorrect.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and will hear cases referred to it from lower courts. The SC is the final arbiter of rulings, and its decisions are binding. Of course courts will hear similar cases every day and in each case the judges must examine the facts of the case. The judges must then look at the relevant laws. In this instance the law is very clear and has been since 1990. I'm quite sure there have been hundreds of cases in the past two decades that refer to the judicial status of FDIC. Since 1990 no one has ever claimed that FDIC is a state body until the Rachada case, where the law is quite clear on the matter. FDIC is not a state body according to the law.

You make a very strange comment that court decisions are not circulated. Of course they are. We are discussing the Supreme Court case from 1990 which was released as descision number 4655/2533. How can you say this is not circulated?

[NCFC]

Slimdog, you may well be right that the Supreme Court ruling was politically motivated, we will never know. But we do know that the ruling was many years before Rachada Land and many years before Taxsin became Prime Minister. Therefore we can be well sure that the SC ruling is not influenced by the Racha Land case, the one that we are discussing.

You ask me " Which financial Institution was the worst offender in paying back it's depositors when it defaulted on payments?" and "Who was the Prime Minister at the time of the ruling?"

My answer is that I am pointing out the SC ruling declared FIDC to not be a state body and therefore Taxsin could simply not have contravened section 100. This ruling was made long before the Rachada land was auctioned off, not after.

Sorry kiddo .. but you have it wrong. The reason they went this way is that there is NO chance for a legit appeal. Thakky's case went the way it did just to make sure of this. (And if you think otherwise you'd have to ask why no appeal has been filed ... etc etc)

They went for the 100% chance of easy conviction ... 1) She bought the land 2) He was PM 3) that broke the law ----- the reason many people object to this is that they didn't go for the other factors in the case ... instead they went for the easy win and ignored the real corruption and conspiracy charges that would have been more difficult to prove.

Well if this was the best case they could come up with after all the years of trumpeting about corruption then they really are walking along the flimsy of paths.

Taksin was charged under section 100 of the corruption code which says that a government official or the spouse cannot enter into business with state agencies. If that were the case in the Rachada Land situation then the law would have been broken. But the FDIC as the seller of the land is not a state agency. That is the law as it stands today. Therefore Taxsin has not breached section 100. For the nine judges to ignore the law as laid down by 4655/2533 strongly suggests the verdict is politically motivated.

[NCFC]

The SC ruling that FIDC is NOT a state body, but a separate juristic entity has a DIRECT legal bearing on the Taxsin court case. The basis of the charges related to section 100 which states the government officials may not have dealings with State bodies. Since the Supreme Court ruled that FIDC is not a state body, then the case against Taxsin collapses.

It is not an argument that the court can ignore the law every time a case comes to the court. Think about it, if that were the case there would be no law. The law is the law. You cannot argue to put the law books aside in the case regarding the law, you must follow what the law says.

You really have missed the point here. I am not going to get into whether the SC ruling pertaining to the FDIC has any relation to the Ratchadapisek land case, because it simply does not matter. In Thailand, when it is said the law is the law, it refers to the the written (codified) law only, not to opinions by other courts. Don't confuse other countries legal systems with Thailand's legal system. There are no precedents in Thailand. If it isn't written in the codified law, it is subject to the opinions of the judges each and every time, regardless of how similar the cases may appear to be.

The Supreme Court decision 4655/2533 is not an opinion but a ruling on the law. You are correct that lower courts make make rulings that can be overturned by a higher court, but once the SC has made a decsion that is the law until such time as the law-makers change by the written law as you have described it.

Since no lawmaker has change the law that says FDIC is not a state body ( and remember law-makers have had eighteen years to change the law if they thought the SC ruling was an incorrect one) then the SC ruling stands as the law today. So you really cannot say the ruling simply doesn't matter. It does matter because it is the law and it is at the very heart of the case against Taxsin.

Simply put, the law has not been upheld in this case.

[jdinasia]

Simply put, you are mistaken. Unless there is a successful appeal.

[Meerkat]

Any lawyers willing to state which of the above opinions is true? Is there precedent in Thai law and does the Supreme Court's decision set a precedent in this case?

(Not that I believe the stated views of our esteemed posters is in any way biased.)

No lawyer, but it's something I've certainly heard fairly often.

It's a funny old world when a lack of precedent means that something that might seem to be legal at the time is only actually legal or not based on the whim of a future court. So in effect if I wanted to do something now, I should go to the court before I did it to make sure it's actually legal. Oh, but that judgement anyway would have absolutely no bearing at all in the future if someone decided to raise a case against me. So perhaps I shouldn't go to court in advance after all. Quite bizarre.

Add to that the fact that it is illegal to criticise the court's decision (no "The Law is an Ass" over here) and the situation becomes even more troubling.

One might go so far as to say that it opens up the gaping possibility (or even probability if one subscribes to the adage of "power corrupts") for selective justice, but there again one might be considered in contempt and locked away for saying so. So on that basis, I won't.

Personally (as a legal layman) it seems to me that there should be enough evidence to convict Thaksin of a variety of crimes; this case though raises more questions than it answers. It's a shame one must flirt with breaking the law to raise them.

[Thai at Heart]

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and will hear cases referred to it from lower courts. The SC is the final arbiter of rulings, and its decisions are binding. Of course courts will hear similar cases every day and in each case the judges must examine the facts of the case. The judges must then look at the relevant laws. In this instance the law is very clear and has been since 1990. I'm quite sure there have been hundreds of cases in the past two decades that refer to the judicial status of FDIC. Since 1990 no one has ever claimed that FDIC is a state body until the Rachada case, where the law is quite clear on the matter. FDIC is not a state body according to the law.

That is how I understand it to work also. Doesn't change the reality of the judgement, after all, TIT.

[Los78]

"2 'PAD guards' arrested with bombs"

<H2></H2>- Nation 09/11/2008

Read more here:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...newsid=30087964

Well I told you that this was my assumption and I guess I was correct. PAD bombing itself for media attention. (Not confirmed offcoarse because I dont want to post no facts until they are investigated) What have farang PADistas got to say about this? Peaceful group. haha yes lets play with bombs peacefully. Curious

[Thai at Heart]

"2 'PAD guards' arrested with bombs"

<H2></H2>- Nation 09/11/2008

Read more here:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...newsid=30087964

Well I told you that this was my assumption and I guess I was correct. PAD bombing itself for media attention. (Not confirmed offcoarse because I dont want to post no facts until they are investigated) What have farang PADistas got to say about this? Peaceful group. haha yes lets play with bombs peacefully. Curious

Curious is a bit of an understatement. Are they expecting more trouble coming soon?

[jdinasia]

"2 'PAD guards' arrested with bombs"

<H2></H2>- Nation 09/11/2008

Read more here:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...newsid=30087964

Well I told you that this was my assumption and I guess I was correct. PAD bombing itself for media attention. (Not confirmed offcoarse because I dont want to post no facts until they are investigated) What have farang PADistas got to say about this? Peaceful group. haha yes lets play with bombs peacefully. Curious

Hmmm I think I will reserve judgement for a little while ---- why?

It is openly admitted by both sides that the PAD groups have been infiltrated by both the police and enemies .... I doubt that these ID's will be found to be legitimately issued by the PAD (or that these guys may have been planted). Far too random for a police stop to catch anyone doing this. (Why wouldn't you send someone on the route first etc) Random police stops just don't catch folks like this ....

So let's see how it plays out ... certainly after the mess created by Thaksin's speech ... Thaksin's conviction ... and most recently and most embarrassingly Thaksin's loss of face in the revocation of his visa to the UK.