Thai Courts Being Deliberately Discredited : Democrat MPs

[webfact]

CONTROVERSIAL CLIPS

Courts being deliberately discredited : Democrat MPs

The Democrat Party yesterday expressed concern that efforts to discredit the judiciary would continue until the party is dissolved and the prime minister is banned from politics.

Satit Pitutecha, a Rayong MP and Democrat executive, said efforts to discredit the courts would continue even if the Democrat Party is dissolved but Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva does not face a political ban.

The party has been charged with abusing its political development fund. The Constitution Court is expected to make a ruling in the case next month.

The Pheu Thai Party alleged that a Democrat MP had met the then secretary of the Constitution Court president to lobby the case.

The Democrat said the release of the video clips depicting the meeting between the MP and the then secretary, who later resigned, was an attempt to discredit the court and step up pressure in the case against the ruling party.

"The movement to discredit the justice system will stop only after the Democrat Party is dissolved and the prime minister is banned," Satit said.

"The efforts to discredit courts began after former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was convicted in the Ratchadaphisek land case," Satit said.

'TRYING TO CONFUSE THE PUBLIC'

He said main opposition party Pheu Thai had tried to confuse the public by citing a similar but different case to discredit the courts.

He alleged that certain Pheu Thai MPs also created false evidence to plant doubts in society about the fairness of the justice system.

Satit said Pheu Thai spokesman Prompong Nopparit made allegations against the judges of the Constitution Court in the case against the Democrat Party until one of the judges had to resign from the panel to act as a plaintiff in a defamation suit against Prompong.

Judge Wasant Sroypisut resigned from the panel of judges in the Democrat case and sued Prompong after the Pheu Thai spokesman accused him of inviting Democrat representatives to meet him.

But, the Democrat said, the party representatives submitted a complaint on that day, asking the court to extend the deadline for the Democrat to submit its written defence statement to the panel of judges.

He said the movement to discredit the judiciary continued with efforts to create false evidence and link them although the linking of such evidence was not reasonable.

Satit said the release of the video clip of alleged lobbying attempts was part of the effort to discredit the courts.

"I would like to call on the courts to maintain their impartiality and justice and make rulings based on facts to create understanding in thesociety," he said.

PRESSURING THE COURT?

Democrat party-list MP Atthaporn Polabutr said Pheu Thai leaders should control the behaviour of Pheu Thai party-list MP and red-shirt leader Jatuporn Promphan and Prompong.

Atthaporn said Pheu Thai leaders should warn Jatuporn and Prompong to stop their efforts to discredit the courts. He said the two were trying to put pressure on the Constitution Court to rule against the Democrat Party and were using the issue to incite the red shirts people to create turbulence in the near future.

In a related development, Satit said websites that published information defaming the Royal family have been reopened again and again after they were shut down.

Satit said although the Information and Communications Technology Ministry shut down the websites, they were reopened with the IP being concealed, making it hard for the ICT Ministry to trace their source.

Satit alleged that supporters of the movement discrediting the Royal family were waiting to amplify the issue when the timing was right or when the power changes hand.

Satit said Jatuporn and other red-shirt leaders also made false allegations that the authorities were using the monarchy to harm the people.

He said Pheu Thai should stop protecting party members who defame the Royal family, like former PM's Office Minister Jakrapob Penkair, and academic Ji Ungpakorn who had to flee abroad.

-- The Nation 2010-10-25

[cougar52]

And what is happening with the action to have Jatuporn impeached that was initiated recently. I really am confused by all the news is reported ONLY ONCE and never followed up.

Including with the news of the transfer of 30,000 and 50,000 Baht by the Secratary to the wanted man in the Red Shirt Bomb-maker issue.

[princejohnjay]

"Satit Pitutecha, a Rayong MP and Democrat executive, said efforts to discredit the courts would continue even if the Democrat Party is dissolved but Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva does not face a political ban".

Do i smell something fishy here? why wouldn't Mr prime minister be banned from politics like others, if his party is dissolved?

[selftaopath]

And what is happening with the action to have Jatuporn impeached that was initiated recently. I really am confused by all the news is reported ONLY ONCE and never followed up.

Including with the news of the transfer of 30,000 and 50,000 Baht by the Secratary to the wanted man in the Red Shirt Bomb-maker issue.

Talk, talk, talk, talk, with NO follow up is the Thai way. Is it not? No action, no sanctions, take no responsibility for anything is so typically Thai. This is "the pretend hub" of the world.

[chantorn]

"Satit Pitutecha, a Rayong MP and Democrat executive, said efforts to discredit the courts would continue even if the Democrat Party is dissolved but Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva does not face a political ban".

Do i smell something fishy here? why wouldn't Mr prime minister be banned from politics like others, if his party is dissolved?

Because Mark is clean. Like Teflon, nothing will stick.

Question: If Teflon is so non-stick, how could i be stick on the pan in the first place?

[whybother]

"Satit Pitutecha, a Rayong MP and Democrat executive, said efforts to discredit the courts would continue even if the Democrat Party is dissolved but Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva does not face a political ban".

Do i smell something fishy here? why wouldn't Mr prime minister be banned from politics like others, if his party is dissolved?

I read something a while ago that suggested that Abhisit was not an executive of the party at the time that the "crime" was committed. Only the executive get banned when the party get dissolved.

edit: I'm not sure if he was on the executive then, but that could explain the comment.

Edited October 25, 2010 by whybother

[SergeiY]

"Satit Pitutecha, a Rayong MP and Democrat executive, said efforts to discredit the courts would continue even if the Democrat Party is dissolved but Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva does not face a political ban".

Do i smell something fishy here? why wouldn't Mr prime minister be banned from politics like others, if his party is dissolved?

I read something a while ago that suggested that Abhisit was not an executive of the party at the time that the "crime" was committed. Only the executive get banned when the party get dissolved.

edit: I'm not sure if he was on the executive then, but that could explain the comment.

Than you read something that contained incorrect information. Where did you read it, here at the forum, some comment by someone else?

If the party gets dissolved does not necessary mean that all executives get banned too. That is an additional option of the penalties possible.

[whybother]

I read something a while ago that suggested that Abhisit was not an executive of the party at the time that the "crime" was committed. Only the executive get banned when the party get dissolved.

edit: I'm not sure if he was on the executive then, but that could explain the comment.

Than you read something that contained incorrect information. Where did you read it, here at the forum, some comment by someone else?

If the party gets dissolved does not necessary mean that all executives get banned too. That is an additional option of the penalties possible.

I think I read it in a news article ... can't remember. It may have had something to do with a different case.

Anyway, your second sentence explains the quote in the OP - The PM may not be banned if the Democrats are dissolved.

edit: which would just mean the the "New Democrat party" would be in power instead of the old one.

Edited October 25, 2010 by whybother

[OzMick]

"Satit Pitutecha, a Rayong MP and Democrat executive, said efforts to discredit the courts would continue even if the Democrat Party is dissolved but Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva does not face a political ban".

Do i smell something fishy here? why wouldn't Mr prime minister be banned from politics like others, if his party is dissolved?

I read something a while ago that suggested that Abhisit was not an executive of the party at the time that the "crime" was committed. Only the executive get banned when the party get dissolved.

edit: I'm not sure if he was on the executive then, but that could explain the comment.

The article you refer to was probably Democrats might get away on technicalities posted on 1/10/10. It stated that the party can be banned, but the executives not if they were not the people making the decision causing the ban. Also, the action took place under the old act which does nor proscribe party banning as a punishment; that is in the later act.

It is unreasonable to apply retroactive punishment, but of course the Red kwai will smell something fishy and scream double standards - mainly through ignorance and lack of logic, as usual.

Edited October 25, 2010 by OzMick

[SergeiY]

The article you refer to was probably Democrats might get away on technicalities posted on 1/10/10. It stated that the party can be banned, but the executives not if they were not the people making the decision causing the ban. Also, the action took place under the old act which does nor proscribe party banning as a punishment; that is in the later act.

It is unreasonable to apply retroactive punishment, but of course the Red kwai will smell something fishy and scream double standards - mainly through ignorance and lack of logic, as usual.

Well, wasn't that the same case as the TRT got dissolved and executives got banned?

Don't remember the article headline but it was in a forum topic, that if executives would get banned, there would be still Suthep as the 'surviving' bigwig of the democrats.

[whybother]

The article you refer to was probably Democrats might get away on technicalities posted on 1/10/10. It stated that the party can be banned, but the executives not if they were not the people making the decision causing the ban. Also, the action took place under the old act which does nor proscribe party banning as a punishment; that is in the later act.

It is unreasonable to apply retroactive punishment, but of course the Red kwai will smell something fishy and scream double standards - mainly through ignorance and lack of logic, as usual.

Well, wasn't that the same case as the TRT got dissolved and executives got banned?

Don't remember the article headline but it was in a forum topic, that if executives would get banned, there would be still Suthep as the 'surviving' bigwig of the democrats.

My general understanding was that if a non-exec MP was found committing electoral fraud then he, individually, would be banned. If the executive were involved in, or were generally aware of, the electoral fraud being committed, then the executive would be banned and the party would be disbanded.

In the case of the TRT and PPP, the executive were found to be involved in the electoral fraud, so the executives were banned, and the parties were dissolved.

I haven't seen any other references to your suggestion that the party could be dissolved without the executive being banned. (Not saying it's wrong, just haven't seen anything else suggesting it.)

[SergeiY]

The article you refer to was probably Democrats might get away on technicalities posted on 1/10/10. It stated that the party can be banned, but the executives not if they were not the people making the decision causing the ban. Also, the action took place under the old act which does nor proscribe party banning as a punishment; that is in the later act.

It is unreasonable to apply retroactive punishment, but of course the Red kwai will smell something fishy and scream double standards - mainly through ignorance and lack of logic, as usual.

Well, wasn't that the same case as the TRT got dissolved and executives got banned?

Don't remember the article headline but it was in a forum topic, that if executives would get banned, there would be still Suthep as the 'surviving' bigwig of the democrats.

My general understanding was that if a non-exec MP was found committing electoral fraud then he, individually, would be banned. If the executive were involved in, or were generally aware of, the electoral fraud being committed, then the executive would be banned and the party would be disbanded.

In the case of the TRT and PPP, the executive were found to be involved in the electoral fraud, so the executives were banned, and the parties were dissolved.

I haven't seen any other references to your suggestion that the party could be dissolved without the executive being banned. (Not saying it's wrong, just haven't seen anything else suggesting it.)

here is the article Ozmick mentioned:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/10/01/politics/Democrats-might-get-away-on-technicalities-30139124.html

There you can read that parties can be dissolved without executives being banned.

There is a difference between the TRT ban and the PPP ban when it comes to retroactive use of a new law. That was not the case in the PPP ban.

Edited October 25, 2010 by SergeiY

[OzMick]

The article you refer to was probably Democrats might get away on technicalities posted on 1/10/10. It stated that the party can be banned, but the executives not if they were not the people making the decision causing the ban. Also, the action took place under the old act which does nor proscribe party banning as a punishment; that is in the later act.

It is unreasonable to apply retroactive punishment, but of course the Red kwai will smell something fishy and scream double standards - mainly through ignorance and lack of logic, as usual.

Well, wasn't that the same case as the TRT got dissolved and executives got banned?

Don't remember the article headline but it was in a forum topic, that if executives would get banned, there would be still Suthep as the 'surviving' bigwig of the democrats.

I know this is a bit much to ask, but after I give you an easy reference, couldn't you at least look at it?

TRT committed political fraud under the new act; therefore it is reasonable that they cop the penalties under the new act, which was party dissolution.

The executive of the party was caught red-handed (pun intended) and so were also banned.

The Democrats are not in the same situation BUT because of pressure being exerted on the court, may come down with an inappropriate finding. It seems that they are not very comfortable being invaded, being threatened with bombings of their homes and possible assassination.(Who would do such a thing?) The Suthep ploy is covering all bases (ie smart)

[whybother]

<snip>

There is a difference between the TRT ban and the PPP ban when it comes to retroactive use of a new law. That was not the case in the PPP ban.

Sorry ... don't understand this statement.

Was one of the parties disbanded based on the retroactive use of a new law? Was it TRT or PPP?

[SergeiY]

<snip>

There is a difference between the TRT ban and the PPP ban when it comes to retroactive use of a new law. That was not the case in the PPP ban.

Sorry ... don't understand this statement.

Was one of the parties disbanded based on the retroactive use of a new law? Was it TRT or PPP?

Ask OZmick about the specific laws that were used. He seems to know it exactly and i don't be interested to get insulted by some red shirt hunting trolls just because i provide some facts.

edit to add PS

PS. or look here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Thai_political_party_dissolution_charges

don't blame me that its wiki, but it has quotes form the relevant laws and English translation.

Check for yourself how correct they are and check the date when they were enacted.

Edited October 25, 2010 by SergeiY

[whybother]

<snip>

There is a difference between the TRT ban and the PPP ban when it comes to retroactive use of a new law. That was not the case in the PPP ban.

Sorry ... don't understand this statement.

Was one of the parties disbanded based on the retroactive use of a new law? Was it TRT or PPP?

Ask OZmick about the specific laws that were used. He seems to know it exactly and i don't be interested to get insulted by some red shirt hunting trolls just because i provide some facts.

edit to add PS

PS. or look here

http://en.wikipedia....olution_charges

don't blame me that its wiki, but it has quotes form the relevant laws and English translation.

Check for yourself how correct they are and check the date when they were enacted.

If you can't back up your "facts" then should you be posting them as "facts"? That would make you the troll.

Anyway, it seems that the TRT was disbanded based on a 1998 law. But the politicians were banned based on a 2006 amendment to that law.

Section 3. In the case that Constitutional Court or other organisation acting as the Constitutional Court issues order dissolving any political party owing to the contravention of the Organic Act on Political Party BE 2541 (1998), the executive members of such political party shall be banned from elections for five years as from the date the dissolving order is issued.

[SergeiY]

If you can't back up your "facts" then should you be posting them as "facts"? That would make you the troll.

Anyway, it seems that the TRT was disbanded based on a 1998 law. But the politicians were banned based on a 2006 amendment to that law.

Section 3. In the case that Constitutional Court or other organisation acting as the Constitutional Court issues order dissolving any political party owing to the contravention of the Organic Act on Political Party BE 2541 (1998), the executive members of such political party shall be banned from elections for five years as from the date the dissolving order is issued.

And when exactly was this 2006 amendment made in 2006? And when the TRT commit their "crime"?

Can you see now that there is a difference between how it was done with the TRT and how it was done with the PPP?

What "facts" did i post here as a troll? It was you who came here up with inaccuracies and clueless guesses. Maybe you should stop doing that without knowing the basics.

In another topic i got attack by a mob of bullies just for stating that the village vs. PAD issue cannot be blamed on the reds or Thaksin but is based on other issues. Some people just don't wanna hear what doesn't fit their agenda.

[whybother]

If you can't back up your "facts" then should you be posting them as "facts"? That would make you the troll.

Anyway, it seems that the TRT was disbanded based on a 1998 law. But the politicians were banned based on a 2006 amendment to that law.

Section 3. In the case that Constitutional Court or other organisation acting as the Constitutional Court issues order dissolving any political party owing to the contravention of the Organic Act on Political Party BE 2541 (1998), the executive members of such political party shall be banned from elections for five years as from the date the dissolving order is issued.

And when exactly was this 2006 amendment made in 2006? And when the TRT commit their "crime"?

Can you see now that there is a difference between how it was done with the TRT and how it was done with the PPP?

What "facts" did i post here as a troll? It was you who came here up with inaccuracies and clueless guesses. Maybe you should stop doing that without knowing the basics.

In another topic i got attack by a mob of bullies just for stating that the village vs. PAD issue cannot be blamed on the reds or Thaksin but is based on other issues. Some people just don't wanna hear what doesn't fit their agenda.

You said "Ask OZmick about the specific laws that were used. He seems to know it exactly and i don't be interested to get insulted by some red shirt hunting trolls just because i provide some facts."

And I said "If you can't back up your "facts" then should you be posting them as "facts"? That would make you the troll."

If you post something to back up your "facts", then you are not a troll. I posted "my general understanding". I didn't post it as fact. It's just they way I understand it. And you provided some information to correct my understanding ... thank you.

I can see now that there is a difference in what was done with the TRT and PPP. THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION.

The parties were disbanded under the same law (nothing retroactive). The TRT politicians were banned even though the law was enacted after they committed their crime. Although the changed law says "... as the Constitutional Court issues order dissolving any political party ...". So although the TRT broke the law before this was enacted, it was enacted before the Constitutional Court had heard the case. So a grey area for sure.

[h90]

"Satit Pitutecha, a Rayong MP and Democrat executive, said efforts to discredit the courts would continue even if the Democrat Party is dissolved but Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva does not face a political ban".

Do i smell something fishy here? why wouldn't Mr prime minister be banned from politics like others, if his party is dissolved?

Because Mark is clean. Like Teflon, nothing will stick.

Question: If Teflon is so non-stick, how could i be stick on the pan in the first place?

I know, Geckos can not escape teflon pans....the slide as well.

But who tells that teflon sticks on the pan??? It can hold other ways that sticking

[Piengrudee]

Maybe, I don't really know. คำสารภาพคนโกงข้อสอบ By now, CRES and DSI must have my IP address already. I am expecting them anytime soon. Time to log off and run; maybe to HK, maybe to Norway to meet Sanan.

[hammered]

Basically if the videos are real and unedited the courts have a lot of explaining to do. If the tapes are fake those releasing them are in big trouble. If the tapes have been edited the courts still have explaining to do but those releasing them are in trouble too. It should be easy to work these things out.

The issue that the first release linked things that were not linked to create conspiracy also looks suspicious although the meeting needs eplanation.

Note several PTP executive mebers are currently resigning for two reasons: double standards in the PTP and worry that the tape release will lead to a PTP disolution, which may by the way be the aim of those who released them

[rubl]

Post deleted. Reason: memory item found 'don't feed the troll even with a nice name like piengrudee

Edited November 10, 2010 by rubl