Criminal Court Issues Warrant For Jatuporn's Arrest

[Buchholz]

Verdict Reading against Red-shirt MP Scheduled for Dec 17

The Criminal Court is scheduled on Friday to hand down the ruling on a defamation case which the prime minister has filed against a red-shirt core leader.

Jatuporn Promphan has been accused of libel by the premier for allegedly stating that the premier had considered himself an equal to His Majesty the King.

The Criminal Court today held the hearing into the last defendant witness who represents the Royal Household Bureau in the libel suit filed by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva against red-shirt core leader Jatuporn Promphan, who is also a Pheu Thai MP.

The charge stemmed from Jatuporn's remark on January 13 last year that the prime minister had behaved inappropriately by sitting at the same level as His Majesty the King during one of the royal audiences with the Monarch.

However, the court canceled the hearing since this witness has already given his testimony.

The court then scheduled to hand down its ruling in the case on Friday.

On the same day, the Criminal Court deliberated the evidence submitted in another libel case in which PM Abhisit has lodged against Jatuporn.

In this case, the red-shirt leader had publicly accused the premier of ordering the massacre on red-shirt protesters in April this year.

Abhisit's lawyer will present a total of five witnessess in three hearings.

Jatuporn's lawyer will put 40 witnesses on the stand in ten hearings.

The court then scheduled the first hearing into the plaintiff's witness on July 6, 2011.

In an unrelated development, the Criminal Court has re scheduled the libel case between Wassamon Pengdit, wife of Director General for the Department of Special Investigation Tharit Pendit, against Jatuporn to be settled out of court on January 20.

The charge stemmed from Jatuporn's speech that she demanded a 150,000 baht kickback from a businessman in exchange for his tax evasion lawsuit to be dropped.

-- Tan Network 2010-12-13

[hanuman1]

In an unrelated development, the Criminal Court has re scheduled the libel case between Wassamon Pengdit, wife of Director General for the Department of Special Investigation Tharit Pendit, against Jatuporn to be settled out of court on January 20.

The charge stemmed from Jatuporn's speech that she demanded a 150,000 baht kickback from a businessman in exchange for his tax evasion lawsuit to be dropped.

-- Tan Network 2010-12-13

Settling out of court? Does this mean they couldn't nail the vile Jatuporn in this case? Surprising that the wife of the DG of the DSI wouldn't press for the maximum inconvenience possible to be exacted on the Evil One. Does this mean Jatuporn really had something on her, I wonder?

No doubt some will think that by bringing up this possibility I am a Jatuporn supporter, so I'd just like to say that I think he is nothing more than a villainous dread-bolted bugbear.

Just tryin' to keep things balanced, folks. Let not the fog of war cloud your eyes.

Any more info on Pengdit, Buchholz?

Edited December 13, 2010 by hanuman1

[rubl]

No doubt some will think that by bringing up this possibility I am a Jatuporn supporter, so I'd just like to say that I think he is nothing more than a villainous dread-bolted bugbear.

Some member may want to read up on defamation cases in Thailand. Luckily things get lost in translation

(edit: add: No I'm not a supporter of k. Jatuporn either )

Edited December 13, 2010 by rubl

[Buchholz]

Any more info on Pengdit, Buchholz?

[hanuman1]

Any more info on Pengdit, Buchholz?

Does this mean that your desire to dig up skullduggery is limited to red shirt leaders only? How disappointingly partizan of you. I would expect better from a 'truth hunter' such as yourself.

Edited December 13, 2010 by hanuman1

[Buchholz]

Any more info on Pengdit, Buchholz?

Does this mean that your desire to dig up skullduggery is limited to red shirt leaders only? How disappointingly partizan of you. I would expect better from a 'truth hunter' such as yourself.

I post with my opinions, the same as you and the other 108,000 members.

[hanuman1]

Any more info on Pengdit, Buchholz?

Does this mean that your desire to dig up skullduggery is limited to red shirt leaders only? How disappointingly partizan of you. I would expect better from a 'truth hunter' such as yourself.

I post with my opinions, the same as you and the other 108,000 members.

You certainly do, samrit.

[jdinasia]

I post with my opinions, the same as you and the other 108,000 members.

You certainly do, samrit.

Pardon me?

[termad]

He, and the Reds, were offered a disolution of Parliment in November 2011 with new elections to be held. If the offer was legitimate, in writing, with a public signing of the agreement, I thought that would have been a fair deal at the time. Especially given the "Thai face" that was on show by both sides. The Prime Minister would have held power for another 6 months and Jutuporn would have acheived his goal by ousting the Government with new elections to be held, all be it, at a later date. In any case, it would have taken months, if not years, under military control, to organise another election. The irony is, he would probably be in power now, with some help from Mr. T who would have splashed some more cash around if he/they took the deal.

When the next election is eventually held, and Mr. T splashes his cash again, the Reds will have the numbers again and the country will go back to the Yellows protesting. This will continue until the real issues that divide this country are finally addressed.

You forgot to mention that if the offer had been accepted part of the deal was that no charges would be laid against the security forces, the DSI or CRES. No wonder the offer was turned down.

[termad]

Arrest warrant for missing the hearing???

ohh these lovely defamation lawsuits. The PM can be proud how he turns the law into a useful tool to deal with his enemies.

Which one of the many defamation lawsuits Abhisit filed against Jatuporn was it exactly?

No. Just his bail revoked for missing the hearing.

Well, all the news report using the words "arrest warrant". Guess they failed to hire you as the editor who can put the records straight.

In other countries it would be described as a "bench warrant" and is 100% in the purview of the court when a defendant fails to appear. Translation issues arise when you try to use exact language from one system into another but in this case it seems to be clearly a warrant.

The good thing is that rule of law is returning to Thailand and due process is being followed.

I don't think that the rule of law will return to Thailand until the people responsible for the deaths of innocent people are charged. Jatuporn is facing one suit for stating that Abhisit ordered the killings. I don't know how the court can rule on that until the DSI issue the results of their investigation and with new evidence being released every day don't hold your breath until that happens.

[whybother]

He, and the Reds, were offered a disolution of Parliment in November 2011 with new elections to be held. If the offer was legitimate, in writing, with a public signing of the agreement, I thought that would have been a fair deal at the time. Especially given the "Thai face" that was on show by both sides. The Prime Minister would have held power for another 6 months and Jutuporn would have acheived his goal by ousting the Government with new elections to be held, all be it, at a later date. In any case, it would have taken months, if not years, under military control, to organise another election. The irony is, he would probably be in power now, with some help from Mr. T who would have splashed some more cash around if he/they took the deal.

When the next election is eventually held, and Mr. T splashes his cash again, the Reds will have the numbers again and the country will go back to the Yellows protesting. This will continue until the real issues that divide this country are finally addressed.

You forgot to mention that if the offer had been accepted part of the deal was that no charges would be laid against the security forces, the DSI or CRES. No wonder the offer was turned down.

Wasn't the offer on the table and turned down before April 10?

[Buchholz]

I post with my opinions, the same as you and the other 108,000 members.

You certainly do, samrit.

Pardon me?

It's some feeble attempt to diss someone by calling them another member's name.

Some new sort of flame, I suppose.

[jdinasia]

I post with my opinions, the same as you and the other 108,000 members.

You certainly do, samrit.

Pardon me?

It's some feeble attempt to diss someone by calling them another member's name.

Some new sort of flame, I suppose.

So much for discussions coming from that angle I guess....

[termad]

He, and the Reds, were offered a disolution of Parliment in November 2011 with new elections to be held. If the offer was legitimate, in writing, with a public signing of the agreement, I thought that would have been a fair deal at the time. Especially given the "Thai face" that was on show by both sides. The Prime Minister would have held power for another 6 months and Jutuporn would have acheived his goal by ousting the Government with new elections to be held, all be it, at a later date. In any case, it would have taken months, if not years, under military control, to organise another election. The irony is, he would probably be in power now, with some help from Mr. T who would have splashed some more cash around if he/they took the deal.

When the next election is eventually held, and Mr. T splashes his cash again, the Reds will have the numbers again and the country will go back to the Yellows protesting. This will continue until the real issues that divide this country are finally addressed.

You forgot to mention that if the offer had been accepted part of the deal was that no charges would be laid against the security forces, the DSI or CRES. No wonder the offer was turned down.

Wasn't the offer on the table and turned down before April 10?

His first offer stated that they could disband and he would call an election however he would give no guarantee that they wouldn't face terrorism charges.

[whybother]

He, and the Reds, were offered a disolution of Parliment in November 2011 with new elections to be held. If the offer was legitimate, in writing, with a public signing of the agreement, I thought that would have been a fair deal at the time. Especially given the "Thai face" that was on show by both sides. The Prime Minister would have held power for another 6 months and Jutuporn would have acheived his goal by ousting the Government with new elections to be held, all be it, at a later date. In any case, it would have taken months, if not years, under military control, to organise another election. The irony is, he would probably be in power now, with some help from Mr. T who would have splashed some more cash around if he/they took the deal.

When the next election is eventually held, and Mr. T splashes his cash again, the Reds will have the numbers again and the country will go back to the Yellows protesting. This will continue until the real issues that divide this country are finally addressed.

You forgot to mention that if the offer had been accepted part of the deal was that no charges would be laid against the security forces, the DSI or CRES. No wonder the offer was turned down.

Wasn't the offer on the table and turned down before April 10?

His first offer stated that they could disband and he would call an election however he would give no guarantee that they wouldn't face terrorism charges.

You're talking about the offer near the end of the protest then, not the one offered during the live debate very early in the protests, before there were any deaths.

How would Abhisit be in a position to waive criminal charges?

[Buchholz]

Judge stands down from Jatuporn case

The Criminal Court judge in charge of a defamation case against opposition Pheu Thai MP and red-shirt leader Jatuporn Prompan yesterday withdrew from the proceedings.

Jatuporn had filed a criminal action against Somsak Wongyuen for alleged malfeasance in connection with their legal dispute in a separate criminal case.

The Criminal Court named a panel of judges to handle the defamation case brought by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva against Jatuporn for allegedly claiming the PM ordered the killing of red-shirt protesters in April 2009 and that the premier was a "murderer whose hands were soaked with blood".

The court postponed the trial till December 24 to examine the list of witnesses proposed by both sides. The defence has submitted a supplementary list.

Jatuporn's attorney Karom Ponthaklang said the defence would submit a written protest for Somsak to excuse himself from hearing two more defamation cases filed by the prime minister against Jatuporn.

-- The Nation 2010-12-15

[SamritT]

If Somsak Wongyuen have nothing to hide, why withdraw?

[Buchholz]

Libel verdict for Jatuporn delayed to hear additional testimonies

The Criminal Court on Friday ruled to postpone its verdict on libel involving Pheu Thai MP Jatuporn Promphan until the hearing of additional seven defence witnesses is completed.

The court has scheduled the hearing to commence on January 25 and complete within three sessions. It also allows the testimonies to proceed in the absence of Jatuporn.

Under the court ruling, the verdict postponement was deemed necessary following a review by the chief justice of the Criminal Court who ruled in favour of a defence writ seeking to call additional witnesses. The defence petitioned for the delay citing two issues - the ongoing lawsuit between Jatuporn and one of the three presiding judges and the list of defence witnesses.

Jatuporn is fighting two cases for defamation raised by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. One case is related to his remarks about Abhisit's inappropriate conduct toward the King. Another is about Abhisit's involvement in the crackdown of red protesters in April 2009.

In its legal tactics, the defence first petition to remove a senior judge in the two cases on ground of conflict of interest by citing the wedding invitation to the prime minister to attend the wedding of the judge's daughter.

The petition was dropped.

-- The Nation 2010-12-18

[Buchholz]

Verdict Put Off for Libel Case against Red-shirt Leader

The Criminal Court has postponed its verdict on the libel suit filed by the prime minister against a red-shirt core leader for the latter's remark accusing him of acting equal to His Majesty the King.

The postponement aims to give time for hearings into seven more witnesses.

The case stemmed from a remark made by Pheu Thai MP and red-shirt leader Jatuporn Prompan that Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva conducted himself in an inappropriate manner during his audience with His Majesty the King by sitting at the same level with the King.

The court initially put off the verdict reading on the case to 2 P.M. from 9 A.M. today as the tribunal still had not finished the memorandum to the chief judge over the defendant's request asking for one of the judges to be replaced given his close personal relationship with the plaintiff.

Jatuporn said he will respect the court's ruling whatever it will be, but will ask the new judge to be appointed to approve the hearing into 40 more witnesses.

He also said his request for the removal of one of the judges responsible for his trial was from the latter's bias against him.

The red-shirt MP also said if he was found guilty, he would seek bail during the appeal process, but if the court rejected his request, he would be ready to go to prison.

The court finally decided to ask both the defendant and the plaintiff to show up for another hearing on January 25 as the judge in question will be replaced according to Jatuporn's request.

Moreover, the new team of judges will be allowing more defendant witnesses' testimonies.

-- Tan Network 2010-12-17

[whybother]

I'm sure I've heard them say this before:

Jatuporn said he will respect the court's ruling whatever it will be

And it doesn't really match this:

The red-shirt MP also said if he was found guilty, he would seek bail during the appeal process

[animatic]

If Somsak Wongyuen have nothing to hide, why withdraw?

Par for the course.

If the SOB sues enough judges, there won't be anyone left to judge him...

[termad]

If Somsak Wongyuen have nothing to hide, why withdraw?

Par for the course.

If the SOB sues enough judges, there won't be anyone left to judge him...

Which Judges is he suing?

[Buchholz]

If Somsak Wongyuen have nothing to hide, why withdraw?

Par for the course.

If the SOB sues enough judges, there won't be anyone left to judge him...

Which Judges is he suing?

As of 5 days ago, he's suing 4 of them up to that point...

Jatuporn's been busy today... now he's filing a charge against the judge in his case. This makes his fourth lawsuit against judges:

Red-shirt MP Presses Charge against Court Judge

A red-shirt core leader files malfeasance charge against a court judge responsible for the libel suit against him.

Pheu Thai MP Jatuporn Prompan, also a red-shirt core leader, has filed a malfeasance suit against Criminal Court judge Somsak Wongyuen, who is presiding over the libel trial filed by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva against him, following last year's address in which he alleged the premier of ordering a massacre on his group's protesters.

The red-shirt MP said he earlier filed a same complaint twice against the Supreme Court president, who is also the head of the judicial branch, and once against the president of the Criminal Court

-- Tan Network 2010-12-13

[animatic]

If Somsak Wongyuen have nothing to hide, why withdraw?

Par for the course.

If the SOB sues enough judges, there won't be anyone left to judge him...

Which Judges is he suing?

Jatuporn had filed a criminal action against Somsak Wongyuen for alleged malfeasance in connection with their legal dispute in a separate criminal case.

And the other dispute is because of....

a wedding invitation. 555555.

[jdinasia]

If Somsak Wongyuen have nothing to hide, why withdraw?

Par for the course.

If the SOB sues enough judges, there won't be anyone left to judge him...

When involved in a lawsuit with a given defendant or plaintiff it isn't just "par for the course" it is only appropriate to recuse yourself. If the person files enough frivolous lawsuits he'll end up in court again for different charges. (Defamation or contempt or perverting the legal system)

[hanuman1]

I'm sure I've heard them say this before:

Jatuporn said he will respect the court's ruling whatever it will be

And it doesn't really match this:

The red-shirt MP also said if he was found guilty, he would seek bail during the appeal process

The seeking of bail is not incongruous with respecting the court's ruling. Whilst waiting for the judgment of the appelate judge, it is well within the legal framework. Suing judges is another matter.

I thought that before a case for libel is brought before the court there is a preliminary session where a judge decides if there is a case to answer or not in general legal terms, before launching into the full scale examination of the case with witnesses etc. This is usually a convenient way to nip frivolous cases in the bud and prevents everyone's time being wasted. Is this procedural step not part of the Thai legal process?

[whybother]

I'm sure I've heard them say this before:

Jatuporn said he will respect the court's ruling whatever it will be

And it doesn't really match this:

The red-shirt MP also said if he was found guilty, he would seek bail during the appeal process

The seeking of bail is not incongruous with respecting the court's ruling. Whilst waiting for the judgment of the appelate judge, it is well within the legal framework. Suing judges is another matter.

I thought that before a case for libel is brought before the court there is a preliminary session where a judge decides if there is a case to answer or not in general legal terms, before launching into the full scale examination of the case with witnesses etc. This is usually a convenient way to nip frivolous cases in the bud and prevents everyone's time being wasted. Is this procedural step not part of the Thai legal process?

Appealing isn't really respecting the courts decision, is it? And saying you're going to appeal even before a decision is made isn't either.

[animatic]

I'm sure I've heard them say this before:

"Jatuporn said he will respect the court's ruling whatever it will be"

And it doesn't really match this:

The red-shirt MP also said if he was found guilty, he would seek bail during the appeal process

The seeking of bail is not incongruous with respecting the court's ruling. Whilst waiting for the judgment of the appelate judge, it is well within the legal framework. Suing judges is another matter.

I thought that before a case for libel is brought before the court there is a preliminary session where a judge decides if there is a case to answer or not in general legal terms, before launching into the full scale examination of the case with witnesses etc. This is usually a convenient way to nip frivolous cases in the bud and prevents everyone's time being wasted. Is this procedural step not part of the Thai legal process?

Appealing isn't really respecting the courts decision, is it? And saying you're going to appeal even before a decision is made isn't either.

If he loses he intends to appeal, not an unusual statement.

He has the right to appeal, the reason to appeal is IF

there is believed to be legal or procedural mistakes.

But it often is merely a delaying tactic to stave of prison by

throwing Lawyers Guns and Money at the problem.

Well not the guns ..

JD I thought by now you'd know I was being ironic.

Edited December 18, 2010 by animatic

[jdinasia]

Appealing is the right of every defendant (however I think in Thailand (not sure of it is some or all cases) there must be new evidence to mount an appeal.

[whybother]

Appealing is the right of every defendant (however I think in Thailand (not sure of it is some or all cases) there must be new evidence to mount an appeal.

I don't have a problem with him appealing, but it doesn't really match with the "respect the court's ruling" statement if he is already saying he is going to appeal if he is found guilty.