Thai Ruling Party Faces Ban Verdict Monday: Deputy PM Suthep

[webfact]

Thai ruling party faces ban verdict Monday: deputy PM

BANGKOK, November 26, 2010 (AFP) - Thailand is expected to learn the fate of its ruling Democrats next week in a court verdict that could lead to the party's dissolution, the deputy prime minister said Friday.

The Constitutional Court is due to rule on Monday, Suthep Thuagsuban said, after a trial centred on accusations of misuse of a 29-million-baht (960,000 dollar) state grant in 2005.

Suthep, who is also secretary general of the Democrats, said the party will accept the decision, which could lead to five-year bans for party executives, including Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

"I expect after the closing remarks the judges would hand down the verdict on (November) 29," he told reporters. "Certainly it's acceptable to me whatever the verdict is."

Thailand's Election Commission (EC) in April called for the Democrat Party -- the country's oldest party -- to be abolished over the accusations, as well as a separate case alleging an undeclared political donation.

The call coincided with the country's worst political violence in decades, which ultimately left more than 90 people dead and almost 1,900 wounded in a series of street clashes between opposition protesters and troops.

The Democrats are accused of paying 23 million baht to advertising firms, despite having permission to spend only 19 million on billboard marketing.

Abhisit, who was the party's deputy leader at the time, appeared as a witness for the defence during the trial, telling the court the election body had been informed about changes in campaign plans.

He has also had to defend the Democrats against accusations that a member of his party had attempted to influence the judiciary in the case.

Some observers question whether Abhisit's backers in the military and Bangkok-based elite would allow the Democrats to be toppled.

But judicial rulings have played a pivotal role in shaping Thailand's political landscape in the past.

The Democrats came to power two years ago after court decisions ousted allies of fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra, who was himself unseated in a 2006 military coup.

The judiciary forced two premiers from office in 2008 -- one of them, Samak Sundaravej, was removed for taking payments for hosting TV cooking shows.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2010-11-26

[mca]

"I expect after the closing remarks the judges would hand down the verdict on (November) 29," he told reporters. "Certainly it's acceptable to me whatever the verdict is."

" Unlike my previous M.O. which was to resign before the E.C. bloodhounds got too much of a taste for my arse. " he added.

[asiawatcher]

I wil be surprised if the Dems are disbanded. I think it will be one of those predetermined inhouse solution 5 to 4 against to show that some of the judges are for it and they just got pipped at the post. Be interesting to see.

[LaoPo]

I wil be surprised if the Dems are disbanded. I think it will be one of those predetermined inhouse solution 5 to 4 against to show that some of the judges are for it and they just got pipped at the post. Be interesting to see.

I will be...very!

LaoPo

[kuffki]

A scary thought, what IF they do get banned, who? what party will take over and what is going to happen then?

[whybother]

I wil be surprised if the Dems are disbanded. I think it will be one of those predetermined inhouse solution 5 to 4 against to show that some of the judges are for it and they just got pipped at the post. Be interesting to see.

If they don't find them guilty, they are going to have to explain their decision REALLY well. That wouldn't stop protests of course.

[whybother]

A scary thought, what IF they do get banned, who? what party will take over and what is going to happen then?

The new democrat party will form a coalition with the BJT and some smaller parties and form government. Pretty much what the PTP could have done if they had kept the support of the PPP coalition.

[TAWP]

The number of MPs banned, forcing by-elections, will not be so high...

[whybother]

The number of MPs banned, forcing by-elections, will not be so high...

Many red supporters believe that the courts kicked the PPP/PTP out of government, but it wasn't.

The reason they lost government was that they lost the support of the smaller parties and even some of their own party.

So if the democrats get banned but keep their current support, they will stay in government, unfortunately without Abhisit.

[mkawish]

I wil be surprised if the Dems are disbanded. I think it will be one of those predetermined inhouse solution 5 to 4 against to show that some of the judges are for it and they just got pipped at the post. Be interesting to see.

If they don't find them guilty, they are going to have to explain their decision REALLY well. That wouldn't stop protests of course.

Perhaps you've had not been following this story very long.

Some months ago, the redshirts went to the investigation building, demanded and threatened destruction and lives, if the Demos were not charged.

Some weeks prior, the investigation already concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to take the Demos to court.

If you followed the story, you could probably also conclude that the red has been using the same threatening tactic in several current incidents which include introducing doctored video trying to pursue the public that the Demos have been dealing in secret. But those tactics and incidents backed fire. The general public appears to be more on the ball nowadays and are not easily fooled as before.

The best that could have happened to the reds is for the aging ChowWaLit and JaTuPorn to shut up and to stop blaming everyone else for their own wrong doings.

If these two and others would just mellow down and do their very best in the upcoming election and by-election, perhaps they still could manage to maintain some degree of respect and dignity for themselves and the other remaining reds.

Just shut up and prove their points in the ballots like many other intelligent politicians do.

Edited November 26, 2010 by mkawish

[mkawish]

The number of MPs banned, forcing by-elections, will not be so high...

Many red supporters believe that the courts kicked the PPP/PTP out of government, but it wasn't.

The reason they lost government was that they lost the support of the smaller parties and even some of their own party.

So if the democrats get banned but keep their current support, they will stay in government, unfortunately without Abhisit.

Remember SuTaap?

A few months ago, he resigned to avoid the appearance of using his post to influence the senate election that he joined in NaKornSeeThumMaRard?

He won the senate race.

And now he is in line to become the next PM, should the lack of moral courage Apisit be banned by the upcoming disband decision.

Yupppee, would Sutaap be a better and more effective PM moving Thailand toward more prosperity, is another big big question.

Will the corrupt ministers et al be condemned, charged and brought to justice, under SuTaap?

Will the general public rise up against the corrupted govt and her officials, including SuTaap et al and other coalition parties?

Will the yellow shirts succeed in their upcoming campaign, Sunday December 12,

against the govt SECRETIVELY giving away her enormous natural resources and some other Northern parts of Thailand to HuSan et al?

It is so very interesting and exciting to be living in Thailand right at the moment.

Edited November 26, 2010 by mkawish

[webfact]

DEMOCRAT DISSOLUTON CASE

Withdrawal leaves 6 judges hearing Democrat trial

By THE NATION

Charoon

Constitution Court judges agreed yesterday to allow their colleague Charoon Inthajarn, who has been hit by the recent video-clip scandal, to withdraw from hearing the two dissolution cases against the ruling Democrat Party, leaving only six of the court's nine judges in the trial.

However, they did not allow Suphot Khaimuk to withdraw along with Charoon, according to a document released by the court yesterday.

The judges agreed that Charoon had "impregnable reasons" to withdraw, according to the document, which did not explain why Suphot's request was rejected.

The two judges had requested withdrawal from the trial after video clips were posted on the Internet accusing them of involvement in favouritism regarding an examination of court officials.

The six judges remaining in the trial are Suphot, Constitution Court president Chut Chonlavorn, Boonsong Kulbupar, Jaran Pukditanakul, Udomsak Nitimontree, and Nurak Marpraneet.

Earlier, two other judges withdrew from the trial - Wasant Soypisut, who is engaged in a legal wrangle with some politicians from the opposition Pheu Thai Party, and Chalermpon Akeuru, whose family name resembles that of a Democrat MP.

On Monday, Charoon, Suphot and Chalermpon had their lawyers file a suit with the Criminal Court against former Constitution Court president's secretary Pasit Saksanarong, Pheu Thai spokesman Prompong Nopparit, and Matichon Plc, accusing them of libel and violating the Computer Crimes Act.

The suit said Pasit and Prompong had worked with an unidentified group in spreading untrue information about the court in the form of video clips, while Matichon helped spread the false information by providing a link on its website to the clips on the YouTube video-sharing website.

Meanwhile, Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said that if the party is found guilty, party figures serving as executive members at the time of the alleged offences, including himself, would be banned from politics. Remaining party figures will decide about its future.

"I am sure that party members who were not disqualified would reunite and work together again," the prime minister said, referring to the possibility of forming a new party if the country's oldest political party is dissolved by court order.

The Constitution Court has scheduled Monday for the final verbal statements by both parties in the two cases - involving allegations that the Democrat Party misused the Political Party Development Fund allocated by the Election Commission and a concealed Bt258-million donation from TPI Polene.

The court is expected to read its verdicts later on Monday.

Bangkok Governor MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra, who was also a Democrat executive at the time of the alleged offence, said yesterday that he would have to give up his seat in the city administration and a new gubernatorial election would be called if the party is found guilty.

He said there should be no concern, as the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration's top permanent official, permanent secretary Charoenrat Chootikarn, would become the acting governor until his elected replacement took over.

More than 20 senior Democrat figures, including Abhisit, chief party adviser and ex-leader Chuan Leekpai, and Banyat Bantadtan, who served as the party leader at the time of the alleged offence, will be present to hear the court's verdicts, Abhisit's spokesman Theptai Senpong said yesterday.

He said Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban, who is the Democrat secretary-general, would become the acting prime minister if the party is found guilty and Abhisit is disqualified. Theptai added, however, that the Democrats were confident the party would be acquitted in the cases.

-- The Nation 2010-11-27

[Siam Simon]

The number of MPs banned, forcing by-elections, will not be so high...

Many red supporters believe that the courts kicked the PPP/PTP out of government, but it wasn't.

The reason they lost government was that they lost the support of the smaller parties and even some of their own party.

So if the democrats get banned but keep their current support, they will stay in government, unfortunately without Abhisit.

Eh? Come in planet Zarg. Earth calling.

[virtualtraveller]

It seems quite ridiculous to rule on an infringement that happened about a decade ago, but rules are rules, they were applied retroactively to TRT, and so they should be again. It all points to a rather ridiculous and zealous court system here that's doing the country no good. You just can't go on forever banning parties like this, when they simply reform under proxy (and incompetent) leadership! TIT

[whybother]

The number of MPs banned, forcing by-elections, will not be so high...

Many red supporters believe that the courts kicked the PPP/PTP out of government, but it wasn't.

The reason they lost government was that they lost the support of the smaller parties and even some of their own party.

So if the democrats get banned but keep their current support, they will stay in government, unfortunately without Abhisit.

Eh? Come in planet Zarg. Earth calling.

Another useful comment from a red supporter.

Are you able to give a constructive response?

[COXYATCITY]

The number of MPs banned, forcing by-elections, will not be so high...

Many red supporters believe that the courts kicked the PPP/PTP out of government, but it wasn't.

The reason they lost government was that they lost the support of the smaller parties and even some of their own party.

So if the democrats get banned but keep their current support, they will stay in government, unfortunately without Abhisit.

Eh? Come in planet Zarg. Earth calling.

Another useful comment from a red supporter.

Are you able to give a constructive response?

WHY BOTHER HE HE

Edited November 27, 2010 by COXYATCITY

[Pib]

Thailand's Election Commission (EC) in April called for the Democrat Party -- the country's oldest party -- to be abolished over the accusations, as well as a separate case alleging an undeclared political donation.

Since the EC has made the recommendation to abolish the Democrat Party and since the Constitutional Court judges are under more pressure than normal (from all parties) due to the recent video clips, my guess is the court is going to hand down some heavy penalties on the Democrat Party. And if it results in the PM having to step down, then he will just become another PM who has had to step down over issues like this...the Thai political system swaps out PM's like it is just having its yearly oil change. Yes, Virginia, I fully expect some near term by-elections after next week's ruling. But, at the same time, I won't be suprised if no to light penalties are handed down....nothing surprises me anymore regarding Thai politics.

[hammered]

Wonder when the disolution cases will end. If this one goes through wait for another one against PTP (even a rebel PTP MP has "threatened" his party if it moves against him).

Parliamentary poltics has become something that can occasionally go on for a short while on mostly non-contentious issues in between parties being disolved, parties assuming government and then deciding not to administer the country, MPs being banned, colour coded demos that shut parliament or government down and the odd coup.

[hammered]

Thailand's Election Commission (EC) in April called for the Democrat Party -- the country's oldest party -- to be abolished over the accusations, as well as a separate case alleging an undeclared political donation.

Since the EC has made the recommendation to abolish the Democrat Party and since the Constitutional Court judges are under more pressure than normal (from all parties) due to the recent video clips, my guess is the court is going to hand down some heavy penalties on the Democrat Party. And if it results in the PM having to step down, then he will just become another PM who has had to step down over issues like this...the Thai political system swaps out PM's like it is just having its yearly oil change. Yes, Virginia, I fully expect some near term by-elections after next week's ruling. But, at the same time, I won't be suprised if no to light penalties are handed down....nothing surprises me anymore regarding Thai politics.

Take a read of the back page of the main section of the unmentionable news source today. If that is true we may be seeing more than by-elections in the near future. A disolution or not a disolution may both trigger the event that it seems some are a lot better prepared for than others though the change in constituency representation may be deemed advantageous by those first.

[webfact]

Crucial verdict could be handed down tomorrow

By The Nation on Sunday

The Constitution Court will deliver a crucial verdict tomorrow that could make or break the ruling Democrat Party and its leader, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

The country is on edge as legal representatives of the Election Commission and Democrat Party will each have 30 minutes to deliver closing statements to the court on the case, in which the party is accused of misusing Bt29 million of public funds.

Both the EC and the Democrat Party have already submitted their documents to the court so it's possible the court will hand down a verdict in the afternoon after hearing the closing statements.

Constitution Court Judge Jaran Phukditanakul, meanwhile, expressed concern that the court was left with only six judges after Charoon Intrajarn was allowed on Friday to avoid making a ruling on the dissolution case due to the video clip scandal.

With six judges, there could be an split vote on the verdict.

Prime Minister Abhisit asked all key party members and Cabinet ministers yesterday to travel together to the court tomorrow to hear the verdict.

The party's chief adviser Chuan Leekpai, a former premier, would deliver the closing statement to the court.

"We don't know yet when the court will make its ruling, but we're prepared for a same-day ruling," Abhisit said, adding that he would have nothing to do with the party's preparation to appoint a caretaker premier in the event that he is disqualified by the court in connection with the case.

Asked if the Thai Khem Khaeng Party registered in Songkhla is the Democrats' back-up party, Abhisit said he had no knowledge of the new party.

"Whose party is that? I don't even know. However, in the political circumstances and according to the Constitution, it's not so difficult for remaining MPs to switch to other parties if their party is dissolved," he said.

Commenting on whether his deputy Suthep Thaugsuban, the party's secretary-general, would fill in the caretaker seat, Abhisit said he did not know.

"Suthep's voting right might also be revoked," he said adding that the selection of a new prime minister would be up to the Parliament.

He said the party had not discussed preparing a back-up party for the remaining MPs and party members to move to. He believed party members would just meet to discuss what to do next if the party was dissolved.

He said the court must clarify the ruling in detail although some groups would be dissatisfied with the ruling whether the party was ruled to be dissolved or not.

Judge Jaran said the law did not state what to do or how to decide if the same number of the judges rule differently. It did not say to give the benefit to the defendant either.

"It is the duty of the Parliament to find a solution and issue an organic act on the charter on the Constitution Court's ruling," he said.

Moreover, he was concerned that three out of the nine judges had withdrawn from the case.

A ruling must come from the votes of at least five judges, not the majority of the remaining judges, Jaran said.

A Constitution Court judge, who asked not to be named, proposed that court president Chat Chonlavorn decide on the case if the same number of judges rule differently.

Deputy Democrat leader Suthep also said the party had not prepared any back-up party or a new prime minister. He was convinced the party was innocent in this case.

As deputy prime minister in charge of national security, Suthep said he had not learnt about any rallies to pressure the Constitution Court. Police would be mainly in charge but the military would support if necessary.

PM's Office Minister Ong-art Klampaiboon, head of the party's Bangkok MPs, said key members of the party including Abhisit would attend to hear the closing statements at the court tomorrow, and even if the court ruled on the same day, the party would accept the court's ruling without any condition.

He said the party had no necessity to prepare a back-up party as many political parties had registered with the Election Commission. The Democrats could contact and join them. However, he was still confident the party was innocent.

Besides calling on people not to put pressure against the court, Democrat spokesman Buranaj Smutharaks said it was normal for party MP Thepthai Sennapong to say Suthep would be Abhisit's caretaker, as he was Abhisit's deputy.

-- The Nation 2010-11-28

[mkawish]

It is only some 40+ hours remaining.

Whether or not PM Apisit and some or all of the Demo would be banned.

I can hardly wait, one way or another.

:redcard2: (The remaining 5 judges)

Edited November 28, 2010 by mkawish

[SomTumTiger]

It is only some 40+ hours remaining.

Whether or not PM Apisit and some or all of the Demo would be banned.

I can hardly wait, one way or another.

:redcard2: (The remaining 5 judges)

Don't hold your breath lol.

[asiawatcher]

I wil be surprised if the Dems are disbanded. I think it will be one of those predetermined inhouse solution 5 to 4 against to show that some of the judges are for it and they just got pipped at the post. Be interesting to see.

If they don't find them guilty, they are going to have to explain their decision REALLY well. That wouldn't stop protests of course.

Perhaps you've had not been following this story very long.

Some months ago, the redshirts went to the investigation building, demanded and threatened destruction and lives, if the Demos were not charged.

Some weeks prior, the investigation already concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to take the Demos to court.

If you followed the story, you could probably also conclude that the red has been using the same threatening tactic in several current incidents which include introducing doctored video trying to pursue the public that the Demos have been dealing in secret. But those tactics and incidents backed fire. The general public appears to be more on the ball nowadays and are not easily fooled as before.

The best that could have happened to the reds is for the aging ChowWaLit and JaTuPorn to shut up and to stop blaming everyone else for their own wrong doings.

If these two and others would just mellow down and do their very best in the upcoming election and by-election, perhaps they still could manage to maintain some degree of respect and dignity for themselves and the other remaining reds.

Just shut up and prove their points in the ballots like many other intelligent politicians do.

Don't worry - I have definitely been following all the ongoings since they destroyed my business for 12 months with the airport seizure by yellows, then the compounding of violent reds - kinda figured the putting petrol cans on gas cylinders, burning buses et al., was more than a bunch of loud speakers and sit ins at the airport! Painfully - and financially - aware of the stupidity and the tit for tat retaliation and idle threats between both side.

They are both <deleted>' stupid the way they carry on but that is Thai style and common sense does not seem to exist. Time will tell.

[animatic]

As was stated in testimony, the EC signed off on the changes at the time.

So why are these changes suddenly a broken law, when the EC already OK'd them?

Oh yes; Arissaman invaded and threatened a 'LATER' EC committees offices and lives.

The issue seems to come down to

'believing the failed attempted shake down of the Dems

by the dodgy printers was false' and thus 'a real Dem collusion'.

Or that when the Dems told the printer to stuff it with his demands for more money after non-performance of his contract, he went to the opposition with his ginned up receipts, and a plan to get his end from PTP and screw those who wouldn't play along with his amateurish corruption.

It would be disheartening to see corruption by others, that the Dems DIDN'T play along with, is used as a reason to take them down. Not to say that all Dems have no corruption at all, but this charge is manufactured for effect by an later EC, more than observance of the law.

Edited November 28, 2010 by animatic

[Robby nz]

PM's Office Minister Ong-art Klampaiboon, head of the party's Bangkok MPs, said key members of the party including Abhisit would attend to hear the closing statements at the court tomorrow, and even if the court ruled on the same day, the party would accept the court's ruling without any condition.

The Dems will accept any ruling without condition.

It would seem they have respect for the law and the legal process.

Wouldnt it be great if the same could be said for the PTP and the reds.

But then if you look back you will see that they and their backer Thaksin have never been able to accept any loss gracefully.... to the cost of this country and the people.

I see on another news story that the PM when asked what he would do if he was barred said "Anything but politics"

Personaly I'm amazed he has stuck it out at the job for so long.

What with the threats to his life and family and the abuse, the obvious corruption of those around him and hassles he has had to put up with he must have been asking himself many times "Is it worth it"

So why has he stuck to the job he was asked to do?

The reds will say something like ' because he is obsessed with power or for the money'

But if that were so he wouldnt be sitting back waiting to accept any court verdict, no he would be trying to corrupt the process (as did the reds).

More likely for the love of his country and the wish to see it move forward away from past corruption.

[webfact]

Related topic

AFP: Ban verdict nears for Thai ruling party

Follow this link:

[Buchholz]

With six judges, there could be an split vote on the verdict.

Judge Jaran said the law did not state what to do or how to decide if the same number of the judges rule differently. It did not say to give the benefit to the defendant either.

"It is the duty of the Parliament to find a solution and issue an organic act on the charter on the Constitution Court's ruling," he said.

A ruling must come from the votes of at least five judges, not the majority of the remaining judges, Jaran said.

Tomorrow's ruling could very well be anti-climatic if a near unanimous decision (5 out of 6) for either acquittal or conviction is not reached.

IF it isn't, then it all goes back to Parliament to find a solution in an unspecified amount of time.

[whybother]

With six judges, there could be an split vote on the verdict.

Judge Jaran said the law did not state what to do or how to decide if the same number of the judges rule differently. It did not say to give the benefit to the defendant either.

"It is the duty of the Parliament to find a solution and issue an organic act on the charter on the Constitution Court's ruling," he said.

A ruling must come from the votes of at least five judges, not the majority of the remaining judges, Jaran said.

Tomorrow's ruling could very well be anti-climatic if a near unanimous decision (5 out of 6) for either acquittal or conviction is not reached.

IF it isn't, then it all goes back to Parliament to find a solution in an unspecified amount of time.

Do they need a majority of the original 9 judges for a verdict, not just a majority of the remaining 6?

[Buchholz]

With six judges, there could be an split vote on the verdict.

Judge Jaran said the law did not state what to do or how to decide if the same number of the judges rule differently. It did not say to give the benefit to the defendant either.

"It is the duty of the Parliament to find a solution and issue an organic act on the charter on the Constitution Court's ruling," he said.

A ruling must come from the votes of at least five judges, not the majority of the remaining judges, Jaran said.

Tomorrow's ruling could very well be anti-climatic if a near unanimous decision (5 out of 6) for either acquittal or conviction is not reached.

IF it isn't, then it all goes back to Parliament to find a solution in an unspecified amount of time.

Do they need a majority of the original 9 judges for a verdict, not just a majority of the remaining 6?

By Constitution Court Judge Jaran Phukditanakul's words, that would seem to be the situation. The 5 judges needed for a decision, one way or the other, is based on a majority of 9 (three of the judges have dropped from the case).

With only 6 judges remaining, it will require a near unanimous decision by them to reach a final decision on either guilt or innocence.

[Buchholz]

Meanwhile, MP Jatuporn Promphan, from the opposition Pheu Thai Party, said yesterday what he had learned about the court was "more than that on YouTube". He expected more damaging clips would be posted about the court.

What's the status of k. Pasit, still in Hong Kong ? When he comes back the court should also request he return his salary of the last months (years?). It doesn't seem he did his assigned work, he was mostly videotaping to build up a library.

Here's an update on the movie maker still running after six weeks.

'Former court official' warns judges in new video clip

A video of a man claiming to be Pasit Sakdanarong, the former secretary to the Constitution Court president, has been posted on YouTube. In the six-minute clip, he uses an analogy to warn the court's judges to be righteous and impartial.

Pasit, who was allegedly involved in video clips related to top court, is thought to have left the country for Hong Kong about six weeks ago but his whereabouts are not known.

The video clip was posted under the name "Judo585". It features six minutes of a speech by the man and a letter supposedly endorsed by Pasit on Friday.

The man, in jacket suit and necktie, sits at a table, introduces himself and says: "I have a story to tell you. There is a company in an industrial estate. This company has a chairman and a board and officials. One day the manager of the industrial estate instructed this company to stop any communication and relations with certain suppliers. The chairman was ordered to keep contact with only certain suppliers but some suppliers should not be allowed to continue, even though these companies violated the same or almost the same regulations set by the industrial estate.

"The chairman then ordered the company's high-ranking officials that there has been a sentiment from the industrial estate manager and the chairman also talked to a panel how to interact with certain suppliers in a distorted way. If the officials stick to righteousness, they probably won't survive. The outside sentiment from outside the company can tell the company to turn left or right. It is awful. This turning left or right should not happen. Every thing should be handled in a straightforward manner in dealing with suppliers under the same standard. I am only an alarm clock and hope I am understood. I hope that the board and the chairman will not use the words 'waiting for a punishment to be imposed' for certain suppliers that the manager supports,'' he said.

After the clip, there was a message saying the Constitution Court ruling is legally binding on all agencies and is final, but does not bind every citizen to think and accept the ruling if it is not righteous.

-- The Nation 2010-11-28

===============================================================================================================================

Judo585's video: