Court Dismisses Second Dissolution Case Against Thai Democrat

[kutjebu]

Dems are commit any wrong doing. The court have just prove it. Long live Mark. To hell Thaksin.

What you wish somebody else,you get that many times back.

Good luck.

[afarang]

Dems are commit any wrong doing. The court have just prove it. Long live Mark. To hell Thaksin.

The court did no such thing. The case was not tried. It was rejected on a technicality. Dual standards? Corruption, sort of technically licensed by the Court? Ah well, not much changes , does it?

[webfact]

Thai ruling party survives ban threat

by Daniel Rook

BANGKOK, December 9, 2010 (AFP) - Thailand's ruling Democrats escaped a political ban Thursday for the second time in less than two weeks, clearing the way for premier Abhisit Vejjajiva to lead the party into an election battle next year.

The case, one of two lodged in April during deadly political violence, centred on allegations of an illegal donation to Thailand's oldest party during its 2005 national election campaign, when Abhisit was deputy leader.

The Constitutional Court voted 4-3 to dismiss the charge on the basis that the legal process was not conducted properly, to the disappointment of the government's political opponents.

Thai people "will be angry and it confirms the double standards in justice", the Red Shirts' acting chairwoman Thida Thavornseth told AFP.

The court had the power to disband the Democrats and hand down five-year political bans to senior figures, including the prime minister, if they were found guilty.

The submission of the two cases by the Election Commission coincided with violence that ultimately left more than 90 people dead in clashes between troops and Red Shirt protesters.

The first, involving alleged misuse of a 29-million-baht (960,000-dollar) state election grant in 2005, was dismissed by the same court on November 29 for similar reasons.

The decision to drop the charges on technicalities could upset many people in the politically divided kingdom, said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a politics professor at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University.

"It will add to the sense of rage and pent-up frustration," he said.

The Democrats came to power themselves in a parliamentary vote two years ago after court decisions ousted allies of fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra, a hero to many of the Red Shirts.

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

The Red Shirts accuse Abhisit's government of being an undemocratic elite and were campaigning for immediate elections.

Abhisit refused to hold snap polls, but must call an election before his term finishes at the end of 2011.

Thaksin, himself unseated in a 2006 military coup, remains a deeply divisive figure in Thailand with strong support among the Red Shirts, who were behind the mass opposition protests in Bangkok in April and May.

The two-month rally by the Reds attracted up to 100,000 people demanding immediate elections, but was crushed in May in a deadly military assault on their base.

Most of their leaders -- including Thida's husband Weng Tojirakan -- are in jail facing terrorism charges.

After the crackdown, a small group of hardcore protesters set dozens of major buildings ablaze in the heart of Bangkok, including a shopping mall and the stock exchange.

The Democrat Party, founded in 1946, is a conservative, pro-monarchy and establishment force backed by the military and Bangkok-based elite.

Its main support base is in the capital and southern provinces, while the Red Shirts' stronghold is the poorer, rural north and northeast.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2010-12-09

[asiawatcher]

Simply as expected.

[jdinasia]

Dems are commit any wrong doing. The court have just prove it. Long live Mark. To hell Thaksin.

The court did no such thing. The case was not tried. It was rejected on a technicality. Dual standards? Corruption, sort of technically licensed by the Court? Ah well, not much changes , does it?

"dual standards" how?

Corruption where?

The guy that signs off on cases like this made a ruling on it a long time ago. Insufficient evidence. This case dates back to 2005. The reds threaten the EC in April including printing the addresses of the EC members and suddenly the EC (not the political party registrar who had already made a determination) cower and put the case forward. The courts get the case. The courts note that the person that should have presented it had already ruled that there was no case .. and they reject the case.

That's not a "technicality" in essence. The guy that should have put it forward knew he could not make the prima facie case and it died until the threat of violence against other people brought the case forward illegally.

[animatic]

I rarely if ever make a comment on Thai politics, but really was this all surprising? To me it smacks of the double standards that the 'reds' complain about. A judiciary quickly (and I mean quickly) finding a duly elected P.M. guilty for hosting a cooking show and yet procrastinating about cases brought against the ruling party in power. The reasons given for the dismissals may have been legitimate but I feel the whole procedure to have been highly dubious.

The late k. Samak was not guilty of hosting a cooking show, but of accepting payment for it and lying about it.

Perjury and forgery...

The Nation - September 11, 2008

the court ruling indicated Samak had fabricated back-dated documents to fight his case

Samak was guilty of Amartya arrogance, they that led him think he could get away with;

accepting payment for it and lying about it, and fabricating back-dated documents to fight his case .

[animatic]

Bad luck for the red shirts and their big boss that their plan to intimidate the EC into filing these two cases has backfired on them. The EC's registrar of political, who had the right to decide the cases by himself had already decided there was no case to answer when the red shirts stormed the EC office and made them pee in their pants and overrule his decision.

Yes, it would appear the duress placed on the EC was sufficient that they made critical errors in a rush to forward the cases, Or they hope that wouldn't be noticed by the reds, at that time, as they tried to save their asses from the threats to life limb and families that Arrisamans crew placed them under.

[animatic]

Dems are commit any wrong doing. The court have just prove it. Long live Mark. To hell Thaksin.

The court did no such thing. The case was not tried. It was rejected on a technicality. Dual standards? Corruption, sort of technically licensed by the Court? Ah well, not much changes , does it?

"dual standards" how?

Corruption where?

The guy that signs off on cases like this made a ruling on it a long time ago. Insufficient evidence. This case dates back to 2005. The reds threaten the EC in April including printing the addresses of the EC members and suddenly the EC (not the political party registrar who had already made a determination) cower and put the case forward. The courts get the case. The courts note that the person that should have presented it had already ruled that there was no case .. and they reject the case.

That's not a "technicality" in essence. The guy that should have put it forward knew he could not make the prima facie case and it died until the threat of violence against other people brought the case forward illegally.

There is the basic point.

Add to this that both cases were nothing more than political hachet jobs to gain revenge and power back.

Both of which were refused for long periods for what they were cases that weren't made to be won.

Until the EC members were threatened.

[webfact]

SECOND DISSOLUTION TRIAL

Democrats make second great escape

By Avudh Panananda

The Nation

The Constitution Court yesterday cited a legal technicality as grounds for dismissing the second Democrat Party dissolution case relating to Bt258 million in campaign finance.

By a majority decision of four to three, the high court ruled that the prosecution had skipped prescribed steps in seeking the judicial review, therefore making the case unlawful. In the majority opinion, the party registrar failed to meet a mandatory requirement to draw a conclusion before petitioning the court.

Yesterday's verdict followed the same line of reasoning as the first dissolution case related to the misuse of Bt29 million in state funds. That case was dismissed on November 29 by a four-to-two decision based on the failure of the party registrar to draw a conclusion to pave the way for the judicial review.

Although the first and the second cases were linked, they were prosecuted and reviewed separately because the first fell under the purview of the party registrar and the second under the mandate of the Election Commission.

Representing the EC, public prosecutors contended the Democrats misused state funds in a bogus deal with a billboard contractor, Messiah Business and Creation, in order to cover up an off-the-record campaign contribution of Bt258 million from TPI Polene.

The state funds and the contribution were both allegedly channelled through the contractor.

The high court has now thrown out both cases because of unlawful procedure without adjudicating on whether to convict or acquit the Democrats.

Opening its session yesterday, the high court informed the prosecution and the defence that legal arguments, evidence and factual details presented in the first case were sufficient to make a judgement on the second case. It proceeded to hand down the verdict after waiving a hearing.

Two of the seven presiding judges, Charan Pakdithanakul and Nurak Marpraneet, jointly read out the decision.

Charan outlined the meetings and steps taken by the EC, mirroring what happened in the first case, before giving the following majority opinions:

l The EC's April 12 vote to disband the Democrat Party was unlawful because the party registrar had not drawn a conclusion on the case before asking for the vote. The party registrar was obliged to rule whether the Democrats were guilty or not but he merely stated his suspicion about an offence under Article 94 of the Political Party Act.

l Without the party registrar's ruling, the EC had no mandate to vote on the case or to seek the judicial review.

In the second part of the verdict, Nurak outlined the following opinions:

l There was no evidence to prove the money from TPI Polene was channelled to the Democrats. Based on witness testimonies, Messiah Business and Creation delivered publicity services to TPI as per their 10 contracts.

l In the EC's December 17, 2009 meeting, EC chairman Apichart Sukhagganond ruled to drop all charges against the Democrats. EC members had differing opinions on his ruling.

l Prapun Naigowit said the case should undergo the judicial review. Sodsri Sattayatham said the case should be prosecuted under Article 94. Somchai Juengprasert said the process was incomplete since Apichart had not drawn a conclusion in his capacity as party registrar. Visut Pothitaen said he believed the bogus deal existed to cover up the campaign contribution.

l The differences among EC members led to further probes before the convening of the April 12 meeting.

l In that meeting, Prapun, Sodsri and Somchai reversed their earlier views by voting to seek the judicial review without the conclusion drawn by the party registrar. In the previous meeting, the three had stated the party registrar must draw a conclusion before the judicial review.

l Due to the absence of the party registrar's ruling as evidenced by the EC meeting records, the case is dismissed on grounds of unlawful process by a majority of four to three.

-- The Nation 2010-12-10