Kaewsun To Launch Campaign Against Yingluck On June 18

[webfact]

Kaewsun to launch campaign against Yingluck on June 18

By THE NATION

A signature campaign will be started later this month to seek legal action against the Pheu Thai Party's No 1 candidate, Yingluck Shinawatra, the head campaigner said yesterday.

Kaewsun Atibodhi told a press conference at Parliament building that the signature campaign would begin at Thammasat University in the afternoon on June 18. He said the signature list and the complaint against Yingluck would be submitted to the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) on June 21.

He accused Yingluck of making a false statement before a court in last year's asset-concealment case against her brother, former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

In February last year, the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders seized Bt46 billion of Thaksin's assets found to have been earned dishonestly while he was in office. The court dismissed testimonies by Yingluck and other defence witnesses as unconvincing.

Kaewsun said yesterday he had to lead the campaign because Thaksin clearly stated he would push for amnesty for himself by pulling strings using Yingluck.

"There should be no amnesty to people in corruption cases. Although you may win 500 seats [all in the House of Representatives], you can't do it. Corruption is a crime against the country," he said, denying he held a personal grudge against Yingluck.

Kaewsun also denied his campaign was for the benefit of Pheu Thai's arch-rivals the Democrat Party, which is hoping to win the July 3 election.

"I just wonder why people who oppose Thaksin are always linked to the Democrat Party. My view is that if you could rely on the Democrat Party, all the problems [about Thaksin] would not have existed until these days," said Kaewsun.

He is a legal expert and former member of the post-coup Assets Examination Committee, which investigated graft allegations against Thaksin's Cabinet and brought many cases to court.

"I am conducting the campaign because I was directly responsible for the investigation in the case. I know many facts but I cannot talk about them. I know that if he [Thaksin] comes back, it means doom," Kaewsun said.

He said his plan was to make it more complicated for Pheu Thai to seek amnesty for Thaksin as Yingluck would get entangled in legal problems. "We hope the DSI will do its duty, or we will seek action from the NCCC against them for dereliction of duty," he said, referring to the National Counter-Corruption Commission.

Dr Tul Sitthisomwong, a leader of the multi-coloured-shirts group, joined Kaewsun at yesterday's press conference. He threatened legal action against people who post abusive messages against him for campaigning against Yingluck. He said the messages were posted by people hired to do so.

Yingluck, while campaigning in Nakhon Phanom yesterday, said she was ready for public scrutiny under existing rules. "I will explain all the facts," she said.

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday rejected a claim by yellow-shirt leader Sondhi Limthongkul that the action by Kaewsun and Tul was linked to the Democrat Party.

Pheu Thai spokesman Prompong Nopparit said he would file a police complaint today against Kaewsun and ask the Election Commission to investigate the matter to see if there was anything fishy about it.

-- The Nation 2011-06-08

Related topic:

Academic To Press Charges Against Yingluck For Trying To Seek Amnesty For Thaksin

[timekeeper]

it should not matter who started it or who is behind it or how to justify it or wether other people lied in the case or any other damned reason

this person is running for PM and needs to be trusted by other world leaders if she succeeds

so the relevent question is ''did Yingluck lie in a court of law?''

if it can be proven that she did then she should be prosecuted and removed as a candidate

simple.........

[Phuket Stan]

By the time the wheels turn here she will be PM...her brother will have his pardon and be back steering the ship...well maybe

[Buchholz]

the complaint against Yingluck would be submitted to the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) on June 21

June 21st is Yingluck's birthday.

She'll be 44.

[vont]

it should not matter who started it or who is behind it or how to justify it or wether other people lied in the case or any other damned reason

this person is running for PM and needs to be trusted by other world leaders if she succeeds

so the relevent question is ''did Yingluck lie in a court of law?''

if it can be proven that she did then she should be prosecuted and removed as a candidate

simple.........

the court which Yingluck gave testimonials

already rejected her testimonials as full of holes and unreliable,

but since the court did not directly rule on this issue about her giving false or falsified testimonials at the hearing....

it remains to be seen if the litigation this time directly involving the issue of, if or when.... did Yingluck lie under oath....?

her brother's future is already decided in the court of law,

and now she is unwisely subjecting herself to addition possibly imprisonment amongst other very ultimate personal unpleasanties....

where are all her otherwise sensible and brilliant legal counsels.... who would remind her.... enough should be enough....

and then.... also the public would demand to know, among other interesting vista:

the when, where, how, how often, with who and with whom....

other than the blood father of her 10 yrs old boy....

she has been secretly entertaining some decades ago....

ma ma mia.... PLS JUST STEP ASIDE MY DEAR LADY.... for the present time anyway....

Edited June 8, 2011 by vont

[Buchholz]

The seemingly obligatory lawsuit from the Thaksin camp...

Red-shirt leader Nattawut to file suit against former AEC member Kaewsan and multicolored shirt leader Tul for defaming Yingluck.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=473260&view=findpost&p=4474431

[OzMick]

Why don't they push to have Thaksin's share nominees charged with conspiracy to defraud the Taxation Office?

[Buchholz]

Why don't they push to have Thaksin's share nominees charged with conspiracy to defraud the Taxation Office?

As per the other paper today, Kaewsun yesterday petitioned the Senate to follow-up with the NACC, the Attorney-General's office, and the Securities Exchange Commission on the results relative to the Supreme Court's finding in the Thaksin asset case. Specifically, Thaksin's false statements to the NACC, the Thaksin nominees (aka family members) false statements to the SEC, the false financial transaction statements that Shin Corporation filed with the SEC, and lastly Thaksin's abuse of power to profit Shin.

Yingluck, for her part, said she was willing to testify over the perjury allegations.

In the game of "Hot Potato", the Attorney-General's office has tossed the tater to the NACC saying it is up to them to act first and that they would prosecute if and when they file a complaint.

.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

Thaksin's Sister Case Rests with Anti-graft Body

The Deputy Attorney-General has pointed out that the National Anti-Corruption Commission is responsible for indicting Yingluck Shinawatra for having allegedly committed perjury to help her brother, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, in the assets seizure case.

Deputy Attorney-General Waiyawut Lotrakul commented on the petition filed by a civic network for the Department of Special Investigation to investigate Yingluck Shinawatra, the Pheu Thai Party's number one Party-list MP candidate, for having allegedly committed perjury to help her brother, ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, in the assets seizure case.

Waiyawut said it is outside state prosecutors' responsibility to bring charges over such a case.

He pointed out that the assets seizure case file has already been transferred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, or NACC, adding any matter related to the case should be directly referred to the anti-graft body.

However as the civic network that filed the complaint is not the plaintiff, the case details must be reviewed to determine whether the DSI is authorized to launch an investigation into the perjury case.

Waiyawut said that the Attorney-General Office could only bring charges against a certain person once it receives the case file from the investigation authority.

He refused to make any further comment as the NACC has yet to complete its investigation into the corruption allegations against Thaksin.

-- Tan Network 2011-06-08

[Buchholz]

The seemingly obligatory lawsuit from the Thaksin camp...

Red-shirt leader Nattawut to file suit against former AEC member Kaewsan and multicolored shirt leader Tul for defaming Yingluck.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=473260&view=findpost&p=4474431

And now Pheu Thai Party Spokesman Promphong has filed a petition with the Election Commission against the two citing the Election Act for causing damage to Yingluck's popularity.

Furthermore, he will file another suit tomorrow with the police for defamation and violating the Computer Crime Act (the two have a Facebook page detailing their allegations).

.

[kutjebu]

Corruption is a crime against the country," he said,........oeps,we have to fire a part of the police force then and maybe a lot more.

[OzMick]

Why don't they push to have Thaksin's share nominees charged with conspiracy to defraud the Taxation Office?

As per the other paper today, Kaewsun yesterday petitioned the Senate to follow-up with the NACC, the Attorney-General's office, and the Securities Exchange Commission on the results relative to the Supreme Court's finding in the Thaksin asset case. Specifically, Thaksin's false statements to the NACC, the Thaksin nominees (aka family members) false statements to the SEC, the false financial transaction statements that Shin Corporation filed with the SEC, and lastly Thaksin's abuse of power to profit Shin.

Yingluck, for her part, said she was willing to testify over the perjury allegations.

In the game of "Hot Potato", the Attorney-General's office has tossed the tater to the NACC saying it is up to them to act first and that they would prosecute if and when they file a complaint.

.

"Yingluck, for her part, said she was willing to testify over the perjury allegations."

when you testify re your perjury allegations, do you expect people to believe you?

[Buchholz]

.

The specifics of her alleged perjury are described beginning at the 2:12 time mark on this news video:

[arrowsdawdle]

So, Kaewsun is a legal expert dabbling in selective enforcement. He was there. He was part of it all. He is sure she committed perjury. So, if Yingluck is found to have perjured herself, what culpability and credibility does a legal expert have for failing his duty to his country by not filing perjury charges when he knew all along that she committed perjury? Is this not borderline extortion because his actiions are predicated on her running for office? Is perjury a crime that is eligible for selective enforcement? If she perjured herself why was there no investigation and no charges, and why have no others in the legal process come forward with charges then or now, or to support Kaewsun?

[lannarebirth]

So, Kaewsun is a legal expert dabbling in selective enforcement. He was there. He was part of it all. He is sure she committed perjury. So, if Yingluck is found to have perjured herself, what culpability and credibility does a legal expert have for failing his duty to his country by not filing perjury charges when he knew all along that she committed perjury? Is this not borderline extortion because his actiions are predicated on her running for office? Is perjury a crime that is eligible for selective enforcement? If she perjured herself why was there no investigation and no charges, and why have no others in the legal process come forward with charges then or now, or to support Kaewsun?

The courts have already determined that she perjured herself but she has not been charged with it so that determination has no standing. Kaewsun is also seeking to indict thai government agencies for being derelict in their duties, having not brought charges thusfar.

[jayboy]

The courts have already determined that she perjured herself but she has not been charged with it so that determination has no standing.

My understanding is that the courts have determined no such thing.Unless you can produce evidence your statement is defamatory, and contrary therefore to forum rules.Even the most ardent Thaksinphobes preface the charge with "alleged" and I suggest you do so as well.

Edited June 8, 2011 by jayboy

[lannarebirth]

The courts have already determined that she perjured herself but she has not been charged with it so that determination has no standing.

My understanding is that the courts have determined no such thing.Unless you can produce evidence your statement is defamatory, and contrary therefore to forum rules.Even the most ardent Thaksinphobes preface the charge with "alleged" and I suggest you do so as well.

The courts determined she provided false testimony (isn't that perjury?). Charges have not been brought so she has not been convicted of perjury but it is alleged.

http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=255405200012

[jayboy]

The courts have already determined that she perjured herself but she has not been charged with it so that determination has no standing.

My understanding is that the courts have determined no such thing.Unless you can produce evidence your statement is defamatory, and contrary therefore to forum rules.Even the most ardent Thaksinphobes preface the charge with "alleged" and I suggest you do so as well.

The courts determined she provided false testimony (isn't that perjury?). Charges have not been brought so she has not been convicted of perjury but it is alleged.

http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=255405200012

No,"false testimony" isn't perjury.As you say charges haven't been brought so strictly speaking "alleged perjury" isn't really correct either, but it would be unreasonable to quibble about this.

[lannarebirth]

No,"false testimony" isn't perjury.

How about we don't take any words of yours regarding laws here as anything more than noise in the background, Mr. 'Many-farangs-work-as-lawyers-here'...

Yeah, there's a difference but I'm not sure which she'll be charged with. I'd guess perjury.

How is perjury different from making false statements? To commit perjury, you have to be under oath, and you have to knowingly fib about something that's relevant to the case at hand. (Your statement must also be literally falselies of omission don't count.) In contrast, you can break the false-statements law by lying about an issue that's "within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government," even if you're not under oath. The false-statements law is worded so broadly that it can apply to almost any interaction a private citizen has with the government; in practice, it's typically used against people who lie to federal investigators or who file false documents with government agencies.

That's how it's described for US law anyway.

Edited June 8, 2011 by lannarebirth

[whybother]

No,"false testimony" isn't perjury.As you say charges haven't been brought so strictly speaking "alleged perjury" isn't really correct either, but it would be unreasonable to quibble about this.

I did a search for "false testimony" and it gave me a link to this:

perjury (redirected from False testimony)

http://legal-diction...False+testimony

I guess they must be wrong.

Edited June 8, 2011 by whybother

[Scott]

One inflammatory post removed.

[Buchholz]

So, Kaewsun is a legal expert dabbling in selective enforcement. He was there. He was part of it all. He is sure she committed perjury. So, if Yingluck is found to have perjured herself, what culpability and credibility does a legal expert have for failing his duty to his country by not filing perjury charges when he knew all along that she committed perjury? Is this not borderline extortion because his actiions are predicated on her running for office? Is perjury a crime that is eligible for selective enforcement? If she perjured herself why was there no investigation and no charges, and why have no others in the legal process come forward with charges then or now, or to support Kaewsun?

Once again, the perjury occurred just last year. Investigations are slow in this country. Case in point, for example, are the still pending charges against Red Shirt leaders for their violence in July 2007 or Potjaman's conviction and prison sentence handed down nearly 3 years ago but which is still under appeal.

He's requesting that action be taken on the evidently rather clear case of perjury (as per the posted video news) that she will likely be unable to defend against.

Anyway, irregardless of anyone's motivations or others lack of action in the past, at the end of the day it comes down to was a criminal act committed or not? The answer to that is all that really matters.

.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Buchholz

[letitbe]

My understanding is that the courts have determined no such thing.Unless you can produce evidence your statement is defamatory, and contrary therefore to forum rules.Even the most ardent Thaksinphobes preface the charge with "alleged" and I suggest you do so as well.

are you kidding shes as guilty as hell or next you will be sating taksins maid etc are not guilty of holding shares as nominee because they have not been found guilty or gadafi is not guilty of war crimes because he has not been found guilty in court - prat or most likely your just a paid employee of taksin clan

[animatic]

basic elements for the crime of perjury:

(1) a false statement is made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a judicial proceeding;

(2) the statement must be material or relevant to the proceeding;

(3) the witness must have the Specific Intent to deceive.

Let's see,

Yingluck said she spent 63 million baht on renovations and buying gold, but can not find ANY receipts for ANY OF IT.

So anyone here, besides Jayboy, imagine spending 63 MILLION in ANY currency, and not having any receipts at all.. proof of purchase, any kind of papertrail at all?

I believe besides that Thai justice IS slow, that these charges were left hanging, 'Sword of Damocles' style, so that the Shinawatra clan might have incentive to do what Potjamin is apparently doing; fall silent and go to ground.

But now that the clan clone of Thaksin is so actively going for the brass ring, the quiescent charges are getting pushed forward.

I suspect Thaksins calculation is:

it will be too slow to stop her winning, and then he can quash the charges by sheer brute force of power behind the scenes as part of the 'amnesty', regardless of if she had ANY political job before hand. Especially of there is a compliant little sister and not an ego maniac Samak fronting his political machine.

She may not have had a political job, but Thaksin sees any and all charges against him as political hatchet jobs, and not because he personally has any responsibility for his actions turning illegal.

Edited June 8, 2011 by animatic

[Maestro]

An off-topic post about DNA and the replies to it have been deleted.

[anterian]

The courts have already determined that she perjured herself but she has not been charged with it so that determination has no standing.

My understanding is that the courts have determined no such thing.Unless you can produce evidence your statement is defamatory, and contrary therefore to forum rules.Even the most ardent Thaksinphobes preface the charge with "alleged" and I suggest you do so as well.

The courts determined she provided false testimony (isn't that perjury?). Charges have not been brought so she has not been convicted of perjury but it is alleged.

http://thainews.prd....id=255405200012

No,"false testimony" isn't perjury.As you say charges haven't been brought so strictly speaking "alleged perjury" isn't really correct either, but it would be unreasonable to quibble about this.

Perjury is KNOWINGLY giving false testimony. If a person's statements are false but the person making them believes them, it is not perjury. The Court in its wisdom may decide the testimony is false and deny it, but it is not perjury.

[Samuian]

it should not matter who started it or who is behind it or how to justify it or wether other people lied in the case or any other damned reason

this person is running for PM and needs to be trusted by other world leaders if she succeeds

so the relevent question is ''did Yingluck lie in a court of law?''

if it can be proven that she did then she should be prosecuted and removed as a candidate

simple.........

Agreed, it's just more mudslinging to prevent ANYONE to "tarnish the golden" image of this front runner of "impeccable reputation", there is absolutly no question about this - especially she's his sister and was entagled in the concealment case which was already an act of virtually spitting in the face of the law, the judicary and the public!

Ovations for the man to stand up, it's about timethat thepubli,the citizens wake up and take such cases in their very own hands!

Rampant corruption is like malignant cancer to the nation!

Edited June 9, 2011 by Samuian

[Arkady]

I am curious to know how the Thaksin legal team intends to deal with Thaksin's two convictions in the amnesty. It is clear that they will argue that will argue any investigations made by bodies formed under either of the two post coup constitutions (incl the temporary one) were unlawful. However, quashing exist criminal convictions made by the Supreme Court seems to attack the entire legal system. You can argue that the ASC should never have been set up and thus should never have collected the evidence against him. But the evidence was collected and was accepted as damning by the country's Supreme Court. The Democrats, for their part, seem to have been negligent in pursuing the SC Assets ownership concealment case against Thaksin. Since that was the only case brought against him by the DSI and not by the ASC, nullifying the post coup constitutions would have had no effect on this charge, since the DSI already existed under the 1997 constitution. Under Somchai the DSI dropped this case unconvincingly citing difficulty obtaining evidence from overseas. Once the Democrats got into power and installed their own man at the DSI, they could have revived this case and produced the necessary evidence.

In Yingluck's case, it also seems irrelevant whether the entity that collected the evidence for the assets case was in existence under the 1997 constitution or not. As night follows day, the Supreme Court's guilty verdict against Thaksin means that she lied in open court. This was spelled out in the judgment. But anyway, with money and power anything can be arranged in Thailand.

[rubl]

Perjury is KNOWINGLY giving false testimony. If a person's statements are false but the person making them believes them, it is not perjury. The Court in its wisdom may decide the testimony is false and deny it, but it is not perjury.

That may be as it is, but here we're talkng about a court statement given by Ms. Yingluck which was seen as false. Since the statement reflected she had in safekeeping for her brother (as it was ruled), it's difficult to believe she didn't knowingly gave a false testimony. She may have made an honest mistake though runs in the family 'Oh THOSE shares, well I have so many, difficult to keep track'

[anterian]

Perjury is KNOWINGLY giving false testimony. If a person's statements are false but the person making them believes them, it is not perjury. The Court in its wisdom may decide the testimony is false and deny it, but it is not perjury.

That may be as it is, but here we're talkng about a court statement given by Ms. Yingluck which was seen as false. Since the statement reflected she had in safekeeping for her brother (as it was ruled), it's difficult to believe she didn't knowingly gave a false testimony. She may have made an honest mistake though runs in the family 'Oh THOSE shares, well I have so many, difficult to keep track'

The legal definition of perjury involves intent, not correctness of information. If the information is know to be false by the witness and is intended to deceive, then it is perjury. If the information is shown to be false but an intention to deceive cannot be established, then it is not perjury.

It is the intention to deceive which is important to prosecute for perjury. As short of using polygraphs or other witnesses who report intent, this is difficult to prove, it is a subjective assessment. Thus reasonable doubt normally applies.