Thai Judges Filmed From Sacked Secretary's Seat

[webfact]

Judges 'filmed from sacked secretary's seat'

By The Nation

The video-clip showing judges discussing the Democrat Party's dissolution case was recorded from where Pasit Sakdanarong, the sacked former secretary of the Constitution Court president, was seated, the court's fact-finding committee revealed yesterday.

Constitution Court secretary-general Chaowana Trimas said yesterday that the investigative panel did not conclude that Pasit was making the recordings, other than the fact that the two meetings held in the judges' private chambers in early October were filmed from his seat.

Chaowana said two of the three clips were captured during the October 4 meeting and the last one on October 11. Pasit, then secretary to the court's president, Chat Chonlaworn,

was present at both the meetings and was sacked on October 18 after the clips appeared on the YouTube video-sharing website.

Chaowana told the press conference yesterday that court officials would present the findings to the police team investigating the complaint filed by the court last week.

As for the second batch of clips showing alleged cheating during court job-application tests in 2008, Chaowana said the judges wanted the previous secretary-general to the court, Paiboon Warahapaitoon, to rebut the allegations. Paitoon, who is now a member of the National Human Rights Commission, was in charge of administering the test.

Chaowana yesterday also expressed resentment at criticism that he had not done enough to protect the image of the Constitution Court. With tears in his eyes, he said he was so devoted to his job that he had no time to visit his ailing father.

Meanwhile, a senior official from King Prajadhipok Institute said yesterday that a recent survey found the Constitution Court had the lowest confidence rating.

According to a survey in August, 65.1 per cent of the respondents had confidence in the Constitution Court, compared to 67.3 per cent for the Administrative Court and 71.3 per cent for the courts of justice, said Thawinwadi Burikul, director of the KPI's research and development office.

Meanwhile, Democrat Party spokesman Buranat Samutharak said that Robert Amsterdam, the Canadian lawyer for fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra, had issued a statement accusing the government of joining hands with the judiciary to fight political enemies. He said Amsterdam was expected to submit the statement at a meeting of the federation of liberal democratic parties in South Africa next week, and that the foreign minister's secretary, Chavanont Intarakomolsut, would be sent to counter the allegation.

-- The Nation 2010-11-06

[brahmburgers]

It's hard to follow all the details of this story, even if I wanted to, which I don't. One basic premise comes forth though: It's not so important whether unethical or illegal things were done. In the view of the Justices, the only two things that matter are;

1. sweeping the whole matter under the rug as soon as possible.

2. punishing the person who made the videos.

Whistle blowers should be commended rather than vilified. In some societies (certainly not in Asia), whistle blowers are rewarded for useful and true information that uncovers improprieties. I admit, secretly filming court members' private discussions is questionable in terms of ethics, but now that the cat is out of the bag, let the public see whether any illegal or improper activity has been going on.

Heck, law enforcement does it all the time, when snooping on common citizens - how about turning the tables and seeing what those at the top are doing?

.....and I agree that Mr. Amsterdam should keep his fat nose out of these matters. These are disciplinary and ethical issues for Thais to deal with.

[Buchholz]

Whistle blowers should be commended rather than vilified. In some societies (certainly not in Asia), whistle blowers are rewarded for useful and true information that uncovers improprieties.

That's only done with the caveat that their actions themselves didn't instigate the action itself and that they don't commit illegal acts themselves in the process.

I admit, secretly filming court members' private discussions is questionable in terms of ethics

It goes beyond being questionable ethics, it's blatantly illegal with severe penalties. With 5 counts (or more) of that criminal act, Pasit is looking at a long prison stretch if the terms are served consecutively.

That would go partially to explaining his AWOL from Thailand status.

Concern over not becoming the next deceased Shipping Moo (who WAS a legitimate whistle blower) would further explain his absence from the Kingdom.

[TAWP]

Whistle blowers should be commended rather than vilified.

Whistleblowers usually have something to whistle about.

Edited November 6, 2010 by TAWP

[Buchholz]

Now that's politeness.

They won't say it was Pasit that illegally filmed the judges private discussions, but they will say the filming was done from the angle of his seat and will say that he did attend the meeting on those dates.

It was also revealed that Pasit arranged the seating in those meeings, presumably for best videoing angles.

[brahmburgers]

I admit, secretly filming court members' private discussions is questionable in terms of ethics

It goes beyond being questionable ethics, it's blatantly illegal with severe penalties. With 5 counts (or more) of that criminal act, Pasit is looking at a long prison stretch if the terms are served consecutively.

Is that true - that secretly filming conversations which include judges - is that severely illegal?

I can understand how Pasit fled the country due to concerns of getting in trouble, but does the trouble he faces stem from personal vendettas (from those who lost face) or from breaking the law - or both?

[Buchholz]

I admit, secretly filming court members' private discussions is questionable in terms of ethics

It goes beyond being questionable ethics, it's blatantly illegal with severe penalties. With 5 counts (or more) of that criminal act, Pasit is looking at a long prison stretch if the terms are served consecutively.

Is that true - that secretly filming conversations which include judges - is that severely illegal?

I can understand how Pasit fled the country due to concerns of getting in trouble, but does the trouble he faces stem from personal vendettas (from those who lost face) or from breaking the law - or both?

I recall reading it was 5 years per offense, which is significant as the list of his tapes grow.

As for reasons to flee, it could be both or either. It's not nice to expose these types of characters. Shipping Moo, aka Kornthep Viriya, found that out when he was killed.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-37051218_ITM

[TAWP]

Is that true - that secretly filming conversations which include judges - is that severely illegal?

I would assume that taping *anyone* secretly is the offense - no law covering judges specifically.

[Buchholz]

Pasit's official passport cancelled

The Thai Foreign Ministry has already revoked the official passport of Pasit Sakdanarong, a former secretary to the Constitution Court president who was suspected of being behind controversial court clips.

Chaovana Traimas, the secretary general of the Constitution Court Office, said he was informed by the Foreign Ministry Monday morning that Pasit's official passport had already been cancelled.

Pasit had used the passport to travel to Hong Kong a few days before controversial video clips, which purportedly showed a Democrat MP; Wiruch Romyen, lobbying Constitution Court judges in the party dissolution case, were released on Youtube.

He was sacked on October 18 after the clips were released and he is believed to be still in Hong Kong. It is possible that Pasit could have an ordinary passport with him.

A fact-finding panel of the court set up to investigate the release of clips concluded that Pasit was allegedly the one who recorded the clips.

The clips showing judges discussing the Democrat Party's dissolution case was recorded from where Pasit, former secretary to the court’s president, Chat Chonlaworn, was seated, the court's fact-finding committee has revealed.

[Thai at Heart]

Pasit's official passport cancelled

The Thai Foreign Ministry has already revoked the official passport of Pasit Sakdanarong, a former secretary to the Constitution Court president who was suspected of being behind controversial court clips.

Chaovana Traimas, the secretary general of the Constitution Court Office, said he was informed by the Foreign Ministry Monday morning that Pasit's official passport had already been cancelled.

Pasit had used the passport to travel to Hong Kong a few days before controversial video clips, which purportedly showed a Democrat MP; Wiruch Romyen, lobbying Constitution Court judges in the party dissolution case, were released on Youtube.

He was sacked on October 18 after the clips were released and he is believed to be still in Hong Kong. It is possible that Pasit could have an ordinary passport with him.

A fact-finding panel of the court set up to investigate the release of clips concluded that Pasit was allegedly the one who recorded the clips.

The clips showing judges discussing the Democrat Party's dissolution case was recorded from where Pasit, former secretary to the court’s president, Chat Chonlaworn, was seated, the court's fact-finding committee has revealed.

Has he been charged with anything yet?

[Buchholz]

AFAIK, he has not.

He has been fired from the position for which he was issued a government official passport.

[Thai at Heart]

AFAIK, he has not.

He has been fired from the position for which he was issued a government official passport.

Hope someone hasn't signed him off on leave while he has been on his extended leave in Hong Kong.

[jdinasia]

AFAIK, he has not.

He has been fired from the position for which he was issued a government official passport.

Question -----

Is there an "unofficial passport"? or are they meaning to say that he had a Diplomatic passport and that that has been cancelled (in which case --- did he use that or an ordinary Thai passport to enter HK? If he entered on a passport that has since been revoked then his permission to stay is automatically revoked. If he didn't ...

[jdinasia]

I admit, secretly filming court members' private discussions is questionable in terms of ethics

It goes beyond being questionable ethics, it's blatantly illegal with severe penalties. With 5 counts (or more) of that criminal act, Pasit is looking at a long prison stretch if the terms are served consecutively.

Is that true - that secretly filming conversations which include judges - is that severely illegal?

I can understand how Pasit fled the country due to concerns of getting in trouble, but does the trouble he faces stem from personal vendettas (from those who lost face) or from breaking the law - or both?

Breaking the law.

In your first post you raise 2 points.

1. sweeping the whole matter under the rug as soon as possible.

2. punishing the person who made the videos.

both are your OPINION of what you perceive.

I don't see the judges sweeping anything under the rug. I see the judges NOT participating in a public relations campaign to bolster their position (as would be normal in most areas of Thai society) and I see them continuing to do their jobs. (that is point 1). Your point 2 --- ummm yeah, also their job. Making sure that internal discussions of cases and law remain just that --- internal.The discussions they have should be about the issues at hand, the validity of the arguments put before them, the different ways to interpret the law that the charges can be determined by etc ... the discussions themselves are sealed, not a part of public record, which allows anything to be discussed. The official findings of the court are public record with dissenting opinions noted.

Anything that prevents judges from exploring all possible angles of a case because one given angle might cause concern for some or all of the population is perverting the law. Take all the serious cases that have been handled lately --- they justices examine the evidence before them, they meet and discuss the points of law and the evidence --- they go off and think about it and then maybe meet again --- they make a finding of truth about the charges and then prepare a statement as to how and why the charges are either valid or not valid. (Radchada Pisek land deal --- charges are valid and warranted against former PM Thaksin as he was a government official -- PM Thaksin's former wife MAY have been guilty but the court that heard the case had no jurisdiction over her because she was not a public official --- case dismissed ----- note this is my interpretation of the facts as I understand them of that case and are not a criticism of the case or the judges involved)

[jayboy]

Anything that prevents judges from exploring all possible angles of a case because one given angle might cause concern for some or all of the population is perverting the law. Take all the serious cases that have been handled lately --- they justices examine the evidence before them, they meet and discuss the points of law and the evidence --- they go off and think about it and then maybe meet again --- they make a finding of truth about the charges and then prepare a statement as to how and why the charges are either valid or not valid.

Give it a rest.In the last few days even the mainstream local press (Thai and English language) have concluded that there are serious issues which not only need to be independently investigated but have undermined the standing of the court.

You can rattle on about the whistleblower and strain your imagination to bring in Thaksin and his moneybags.. but it's not the main issue now or even a significant one.I agree that ultimately these matters need to be properly checked but with respect common sense and perspective disappeared from your posts on this subject some time ago.The problem is squarely the integrity of the Court itself.

[Thai at Heart]

According to the other paper, there has been another video released, which has now been blocked for "security reasons".

Oh good, I am so glad that the government knows best.

[jdinasia]

Anything that prevents judges from exploring all possible angles of a case because one given angle might cause concern for some or all of the population is perverting the law. Take all the serious cases that have been handled lately --- they justices examine the evidence before them, they meet and discuss the points of law and the evidence --- they go off and think about it and then maybe meet again --- they make a finding of truth about the charges and then prepare a statement as to how and why the charges are either valid or not valid.

Give it a rest.In the last few days even the mainstream local press (Thai and English language) have concluded that there are serious issues which not only need to be independently investigated but have undermined the standing of the court.

You can rattle on about the whistleblower and strain your imagination to bring in Thaksin and his moneybags.. but it's not the main issue now or even a significant one.I agree that ultimately these matters need to be properly checked but with respect common sense and perspective disappeared from your posts on this subject some time ago.The problem is squarely the integrity of the Court itself.

I have never had to strain my imagination to bring Thaksin into this mess (and neither have many other people as some links appear to be obvious to all but a few ... some of those few have been badmouthing the courts for a long time --- over cases which were resolved within the law and explained thoroughly to the public. The FACT that Thaksin's lawyers have tried to bribe the courts and have served time for contempt of court over that certainly DO bring his moneybags into question. A significant question for many. Question --- if Pasit is found to have taken Thaksin's money to discredit the court through these actions ... will your opinion change? I rather doubt it and I have my own opinion as to why

Even in August it appears that the confidence in the Constitution Court was only 65.1 %

According to a survey in August, 65.1 per cent of the respondents had confidence in the Constitution Court, compared to 67.3 per cent for the Administrative Court and 71.3 per cent for the courts of justice, said Thawinwadi Burikul, director of the KPI's research and development office.

Considering that some groups have been pushing a "Judicial Coup" conspiracy theory instead of looking at the law .... well ..... shouldn't that number have been higher even back then? Have I EVER suggested there should not be an independent inquiry? I am in favor of that. In fact, them NOT policing themselves is important. That does not preclude them from seeking the harshest penalty for those caught impugning the court.

edit --- what you quote me saying and what you say about what is in the quote seem unrelated to me.

Edited November 9, 2010 by jdinasia

[jayboy]

A significant question for many. Question --- if Pasit is found to have taken Thaksin's money to discredit the court through these actions ... will your opinion change? I rather doubt it and I have my own opinion as to why.

The answer to your question is that if there is evidence he should be prosecuted and punished.But you still apparently don't seem to have absorbed what was obvious from the first and is now mainstream opinion:the problem is the court itself not the whistleblower (or evil paid agent of the great Satan as seems a popular explanation among some).

And now since I have been courteous enough to answer your question perhaps you will answer mine, namely why do rather doubt my opinion could not change?I am assuming - perhaps I shouldn't - you do not think I am a paid agent of Thaksin.

[jdinasia]

A significant question for many. Question --- if Pasit is found to have taken Thaksin's money to discredit the court through these actions ... will your opinion change? I rather doubt it and I have my own opinion as to why.

The answer to your question is that if there is evidence he should be prosecuted and punished.But you still apparently don't seem to have absorbed what was obvious from the first and is now mainstream opinion:the problem is the court itself not the whistleblower (or evil paid agent of the great Satan as seems a popular explanation among some).

And now since I have been courteous enough to answer your question perhaps you will answer mine, namely why do rather doubt my opinion could not change?I am assuming - perhaps I shouldn't - you do not think I am a paid agent of Thaksin.

You did not answer my question. My question was "Would your opinion change?" not "should he be punished?"

You stating the "mainstream opinion = A, does not make the mainstream opinion = A

I believe that there is a strong and growing question in a large part of Thai society of whether they can trust the legal system. I believe that question can be answered and that the courts are taking the right approach. I know that I will not be using the opinion of an editorial writer that I have in the past ridiculed to support a position that is neither "mainstream" nor any more valid than many other opinions, as to do so would lack intellectual honesty. (Hey guys ... I know I have called this guy an absolute wa&*^%er in the past but his opinion now apparently agrees with mine so .......!)

I will try and answer your question within the guideline set down by TVF --- IMHO --- You made up your mind about the court system here a long time ago, have stated it repeatedly, and would not change that opinion even if they were proven faultless in this and that it was ALL set up by Thaksin --- in my opinion even if as YOU put it sardonically "the Great Satan" set this up I believe your opinion will not have changed

[animatic]

Anything that prevents judges from exploring all possible angles of a case because one given angle might cause concern for some or all of the population is perverting the law. Take all the serious cases that have been handled lately --- they justices examine the evidence before them, they meet and discuss the points of law and the evidence --- they go off and think about it and then maybe meet again --- they make a finding of truth about the charges and then prepare a statement as to how and why the charges are either valid or not valid.

Give it a rest.In the last few days even the mainstream local press (Thai and English language) have concluded that there are serious issues which not only need to be independently investigated but have undermined the standing of the court.

You can rattle on about the whistleblower and strain your imagination to bring in Thaksin and his moneybags.. but it's not the main issue now or even a significant one.I agree that ultimately these matters need to be properly checked but with respect common sense and perspective disappeared from your posts on this subject some time ago.The problem is squarely the integrity of the Court itself.

Jayboy you talk as if good ethics was a commonly held belief in Thailand.

You philosophical cudgel you wield at others here doesn't change much.

[Buchholz]

AFAIK, he has not.

He has been fired from the position for which he was issued a government official passport.

Question -----

Is there an "unofficial passport"? or are they meaning to say that he had a Diplomatic passport and that that has been cancelled (in which case --- did he use that or an ordinary Thai passport to enter HK? If he entered on a passport that has since been revoked then his permission to stay is automatically revoked. If he didn't ...

There are "ordinary" passports (left) and "official" passports (right). * the actual sizes of both are the same *

It was reported earlier that he had entered Hong Kong with the now cancelled official passport:

Two days before the scandal broke Pasit abruptly departed for Hong Kong, using his official passport.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=412813&view=findpost&p=3995992

and

Pasit Sakdanarong, secretary to the high court president, used his official passport to take a Cathay Pacific flight departing around 5.45 pm last Wednesday.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=405243&view=findpost&p=3964746

And yes, now that the passport he used to enter Hong Kong with has been since been revoked, he's in Hong Kong without permission.

He's on borrowed time before apprehension and return to Thailand.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Buchholz

[jayboy]

AFAIK, he has not.

He has been fired from the position for which he was issued a government official passport.

Question -----

Is there an "unofficial passport"? or are they meaning to say that he had a Diplomatic passport and that that has been cancelled (in which case --- did he use that or an ordinary Thai passport to enter HK? If he entered on a passport that has since been revoked then his permission to stay is automatically revoked. If he didn't ...

There are "ordinary" passports (left) and "official" passports (right). * the actual sizes of both are the same *

It was reported earlier that he had entered Hong Kong with the now cancelled official passport:

Two days before the scandal broke Pasit abruptly departed for Hong Kong, using his official passport.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=412813&view=findpost&p=3995992

and

Pasit Sakdanarong, secretary to the high court president, used his official passport to take a Cathay Pacific flight departing around 5.45 pm last Wednesday.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=405243&view=findpost&p=3964746

And yes, now that the passport he used to enter Hong Kong with has been since been revoked, he's in Hong Kong without permission.

He's on borrowed time before apprehension and return to Thailand.

Well done.You have really managed to get to the heart of this matter.It's all about diplomatic passports and Pasit's borrowed time.What a great sense of context and perspective you have, ie to cut through the peripheral irrelevancies like a disgraced and compromised Court and concentrate on pursuing the whistleblower - the really important thing.

[Buchholz]

AFAIK, he has not.

He has been fired from the position for which he was issued a government official passport.

Question -----

Is there an "unofficial passport"? or are they meaning to say that he had a Diplomatic passport and that that has been cancelled (in which case --- did he use that or an ordinary Thai passport to enter HK? If he entered on a passport that has since been revoked then his permission to stay is automatically revoked. If he didn't ...

There are "ordinary" passports (left) and "official" passports (right). * the actual sizes of both are the same *

It was reported earlier that he had entered Hong Kong with the now cancelled official passport:

Two days before the scandal broke Pasit abruptly departed for Hong Kong, using his official passport.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=412813&view=findpost&p=3995992

and

Pasit Sakdanarong, secretary to the high court president, used his official passport to take a Cathay Pacific flight departing around 5.45 pm last Wednesday.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=405243&view=findpost&p=3964746

And yes, now that the passport he used to enter Hong Kong with has been since been revoked, he's in Hong Kong without permission.

He's on borrowed time before apprehension and return to Thailand.

Well done.You have really managed to get to the heart of this matter.It's all about diplomatic passports and Pasit's borrowed time.What a great sense of context and perspective you have, ie to cut through the peripheral irrelevancies like a disgraced and compromised Court and concentrate on pursuing the whistleblower - the really important thing.

A question was asked about Pasit on a thread about Pasit.

I answered the question about Pasit with an informative post.

You follow that up with ridicule and mocking. The same sort of tone that has resulted in multiple post deletions over the past week.

Today is just another jayboy day.

[jayboy]

A question was asked about Pasit on a thread about Pasit.

I answered the question about Pasit with an informative post.

You follow that up with ridicule and mocking.

Does it ever occur to you that ridicule is sometimes deserved? I have tried to make a serious point that there is now a problem of huge dimension with the Constitutional Court, and to obsess endlessly about how that information came into the public domain (to the exclusion of the main significance) is not only objectionable but intellectually dishonest.The whole of Thailand knows this now so it is hardly controversial.

For those who are interested in a serious analysis as opposed take a look at this.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/11/09/the-quantum-physics-of-the-thai-constitutional-universe/#more-11520

[Buchholz]

A question was asked about Pasit on a thread about Pasit.

I answered the question about Pasit with an informative post.

You follow that up with ridicule and mocking.

Does it ever occur to you that ridicule is sometimes deserved? I have tried to make a serious point that there is now a problem of huge dimension with the Constitutional Court, and to obsess endlessly about how that information came into the public domain (to the exclusion of the main significance) is not only objectionable but intellectually dishonest.The whole of Thailand knows this now so it is hardly controversial.

For those who are interested in a serious analysis as opposed take a look at this.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/11/09/the-quantum-physics-of-the-thai-constitutional-universe/#more-11520

My answer to an on-topic and specific question about a person that this thread specifically addresses is undeserving of your attacks, especially as it appears to be an object of ridicule simply because it's on different point to your "I've tried to make a serious point" aspect.

It's possible to have more than one single focus of conversation without condemning the posts of others on a different focus than yours.

But yes, go to the New Mandala forum from your link, by all means. There's nothing that says you have to come to this forum and degrade its members.

But leave me out of your efforts to stir up the same sort of thing that has needed moderator intervention on your part several times in just a week.

At this point, I think it best to follow cdnvic's earlier posted advice to members and leave you to your vices without responding.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Buchholz

[animatic]

Ridicule for divergent or tangental thinking is not part of proper debate.

And ridicule for not changing focus to someone elses points in a group forum debate, has even less place in civilized society. But that then begs the question of whether some poster thinks this is civilized discussion. Or if they imagine that ONLY their points make it civilized, and other opinions are of no consequence and therefor the posters are of no consequence by extension.

Edited November 9, 2010 by animatic

[jayboy]

Ridicule for divergent or tangental thinking is not part of proper debate.

And ridicule for not changing focus to someone elses points in a group forum debate, has even less place in civilized society. But that then begs the question of whether some poster thinks this is civilized discussion. Or if they imagine that ONLY their points make it civilized, and other opinions are of no consequence and therefor the posters are of no consequence by extension.

Really? You don't seem to have studied the history of debating since ridicule has an important role where deserved.Read the Lincoln - Douglas debates or the exchanges between Gladstone and Disraeli.

In this particular the point being made was indeed absurd, namely to ignore the compromised Court and focus to the exclusion of all else on the whistleblower.It's not a rational position.

Your thoughts on who I believe to be of consequence are misplaced.It is very evident who adds value and who does not.

[whybother]

Didn't they initially release the videos to discredit the Democrats? What happened to that?

I think they should sack all the corrupt judges and start the case again when they find some clean judges ......

[rubl]

There are "ordinary" passports (left) and "official" passports (right). * the actual sizes of both are the same *

It was reported earlier that he had entered Hong Kong with the now cancelled official passport:

Two days before the scandal broke Pasit abruptly departed for Hong Kong, using his official passport.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=412813&view=findpost&p=3995992

and

Pasit Sakdanarong, secretary to the high court president, used his official passport to take a Cathay Pacific flight departing around 5.45 pm last Wednesday.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=405243&view=findpost&p=3964746

And yes, now that the passport he used to enter Hong Kong with has been since been revoked, he's in Hong Kong without permission.

He's on borrowed time before apprehension and return to Thailand.

Well done.You have really managed to get to the heart of this matter.It's all about diplomatic passports and Pasit's borrowed time.What a great sense of context and perspective you have, ie to cut through the peripheral irrelevancies like a disgraced and compromised Court and concentrate on pursuing the whistleblower - the really important thing.

As usual each case has various aspects. This OP is about 'Thai judges filmed from sacked secretary's seat. That brings us to why isn't k. Pasit here to answer questions ? Induce him to come back voluntarily, or get other countries to help. Canceling the passport he used could be a way. Makes him kind of an 'illegal alien' in HongKong, if rumours are correct.

As for 'diplomatic' passport, a government passport can be, but normally wouldn't be a diplomatic passport. Diplomats fall under special laws and have real, special status. K. Pasit wouldn't have that status, even judges traveling wouldn't have that status.

Edited November 9, 2010 by rubl

[rubl]

A question was asked about Pasit on a thread about Pasit.

I answered the question about Pasit with an informative post.

You follow that up with ridicule and mocking.

Does it ever occur to you that ridicule is sometimes deserved? I have tried to make a serious point that there is now a problem of huge dimension with the Constitutional Court, and to obsess endlessly about how that information came into the public domain (to the exclusion of the main significance) is not only objectionable but intellectually dishonest.The whole of Thailand knows this now so it is hardly controversial.

For those who are interested in a serious analysis as opposed take a look at this.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/11/09/the-quantum-physics-of-the-thai-constitutional-universe/#more-11520

The article says a.o.:

'In most countries with a written constitution, these videos would have caused an immediate constitutional crisis.'

What is probably meant is that the 'contents' of these videos could cause an immediate constitutional crisis. At the same time a parallel investigation into how videos could have been made, by whom and who distributed them would be started. The fact that the unrelated video (the slideshow with K. Prem from one/two years ago) was obviously only included to suggest something amiss would limit any constitutional crisis immediately and cause an investigation into who would want to diminish or destroy the image of the constitutional court.