Scrapping AEC Rulings Would Spell Doom For Thailand: Chairman

[volk666]

It doesn't matter how much the land was sold for. AEC tried to prove there was corruption but they couldn't and it's not what Thaksin was judged guilty of.

The wife of a Prime Minister cannot buy government land, it's abuse of power on behalf of the PM (not the wife). So wife got off scott free, the PM got busted.

It wasn't five months between the sale and AEC investigation, it was more like five years. Why the delay? Because no government agency in its right mind would file a case against a sitting Prime Minister, they all have to follow the chain of command and they value their jobs.

When this case was discussed in parliament during no confidence debate back in 2003 the opposition wasn't even allowed to mention Thaksin's name. Let me repeat that - the opposition wasn't allowed to utter Thaksin's name in parliament. When someone says that Thaksin could have been investigated and brought to court by his subordinates I think to myself - just how stupid do you think we are?

All the rest is just smoke and mirrors - oh, AEC didn't listen to all 300 defense witnesses.. Why stop at 300? Why not go for 3,000? Why not delay the proceedings for years trying to get all those 300 to testify when they start asking for delays? AEC thought they had enough information to go to court already, it's not their job to sit and listen to the endless array of defense witnesses.

Why did AEC force FIDF to file the charges even if it didn't think it lost anything from the deal? Procedural stuff - who gets to file the complaint with the court. Perhaps the law wasn't very clear on that in cases of abuses of power by politicians. AEC, as I remember had the power to lodge the complaints itself but it wasn't the first, preferred choice. What does it matter anyway?

You could argue these trivialities for ages, it doesn't change the fact that the wife of a sitting Prime Minister bought the land from a government agency.

After the case was lost the defense could have gone for mistrial, they had three years already. Why didn't they? This is the first sign that the case is/was waterproof and there aren't any legal options left.

Zoning is another issue that is generally overlooked here for the lack of information - allegedly at the time of the auction the plot was classified as residential land but later was re-zoned to allow construction of high rise condominiums or office towers. Obviously that changed the value of the land but I bet it's extremely hard to find proof that the Prime Minister indeed knew all along what the zoning decision would be. Yeah, it was a proposal from BMA, not the central government, as if it means there's no way BMA made this proposal, or included this land, on Thaksin's request. Let's not forget that BMA was headed by Samak at that time, the guy who later became the leader of post TRT and who boldly declared that there's nothing wrong with him being Thaksin's proxy.

Ditto for the "auction". Yes, there were other bidders, two anonymous real estate developers, but who's to say with any confidence that they had no idea they were bidding against Pojamarn? We just had Yingluck having a private meeting with eight real estate developers in a hotel, the whole country talked about it but the agenda of the meeting has never been disclosed anyway.

Just how naive do they expect us to be to believe that Thaksin and Pojamarn (because they have such high moral standards?) could not have negotiated the outcome of that auction before hand in some other swanky hotel? Who's to say that it wasn't a dog and pony show where bid prices were decided among the participants long before they were put into sealed envelopes - the only paper trail available in this case?

At the end of the day AEC decided to play it safe and leave all other possible transgressions out of the picture. They tried to pin corruption but even that didn't pass, just the simplest case of abuse of power.

And now people are trying to argue that that simplest case was the only wrong thing about this deal and everything else was just peachy. No, it wasn't, there was just never enough evidence to satisfy the courts. In public mind, however, the deal stinks to high heavens.

[WackySomchai]

The fugitive broke the law and althugh he may be able to buy himself free that fact will never change.

[hellodolly]

Perhaps I am missing something here. I understood the charges against Pojaman not to be that she should have paid more, but rather that she should not have been allowed to bid in the first place. Let's look at this in the abstract: If God were to place a bid on a piece of land, how many would bid against him? How much God bids would not be the issue. The bidding would have to be considered unfair no matter what the price, since other bidders would feel pressured to abstain.

If I have that concept right, then comparing prices with other properties completely misses the point.

That was my thoughts on the bidding. The way Thaksin was running the country what sensible corporation was going to bid against him. And make no mistake about it if they had a different PM the bidding would have been different.

[hellodolly]

What an indictment on a broken legal system.

Can no-one be charged with corruption just because everyone is corrupt? Where are you supposed to start?

Yes it is broken. Yes they are all corrupt. There is nothing to be gained by going through multiple circuses of pretending to serve justice but continued conflict and uncertainty.

Thaksin won, he bought the country again fair and square. Put the old constitution back, let him return, drop all charges and wipe the slate clean on all sides.

That's the definition of reconciliation and the only way the government can start to actually try to be effective at taking care of all the other real problems the country is facing, it obviously doesn't work for Thaksin to have to try to manage everything by remote control from Dubai.

If people want to try to go through the motions of having a "fair and just rule of law" legal system, good luck IMO that's impossible to the fundamental flaws at a social/cultural level, nothing to do with "politics" and again IMO they shouldn't even bother trying.

Well as I see it if they do that it will not help the country one bit just make it easier for Thaksin to continue to rape the country.

Now if you were to propose throwing the lot of them out and replacing them with honest men and women from all parties I believe you would see a reconciliation in a short order of time.

Alas not in yours or my life time.

[hellodolly]

phiphidon

you say and I quote

"Perhaps if you could take time off from throwing insults around and read the background and the witness statements on both sides (such as there is on the defence side) it might enlighten you, but I doubt it."

Perhaps if you would take the time to see where the pay checks for most of the defense witnesses was coming from you might be enlightened.

[Siam Simon]

It doesn't matter how much the land was sold for. AEC tried to prove there was corruption but they couldn't and it's not what Thaksin was judged guilty of.

The wife of a Prime Minister cannot buy government land, it's abuse of power on behalf of the PM (not the wife). So wife got off scott free, the PM got busted.

It wasn't five months between the sale and AEC investigation, it was more like five years. Why the delay? Because no government agency in its right mind would file a case against a sitting Prime Minister, they all have to follow the chain of command and they value their jobs.

When this case was discussed in parliament during no confidence debate back in 2003 the opposition wasn't even allowed to mention Thaksin's name. Let me repeat that - the opposition wasn't allowed to utter Thaksin's name in parliament. When someone says that Thaksin could have been investigated and brought to court by his subordinates I think to myself - just how stupid do you think we are?

All the rest is just smoke and mirrors - oh, AEC didn't listen to all 300 defense witnesses.. Why stop at 300? Why not go for 3,000? Why not delay the proceedings for years trying to get all those 300 to testify when they start asking for delays? AEC thought they had enough information to go to court already, it's not their job to sit and listen to the endless array of defense witnesses.

Why did AEC force FIDF to file the charges even if it didn't think it lost anything from the deal? Procedural stuff - who gets to file the complaint with the court. Perhaps the law wasn't very clear on that in cases of abuses of power by politicians. AEC, as I remember had the power to lodge the complaints itself but it wasn't the first, preferred choice. What does it matter anyway?

You could argue these trivialities for ages, it doesn't change the fact that the wife of a sitting Prime Minister bought the land from a government agency.

After the case was lost the defense could have gone for mistrial, they had three years already. Why didn't they? This is the first sign that the case is/was waterproof and there aren't any legal options left.

Zoning is another issue that is generally overlooked here for the lack of information - allegedly at the time of the auction the plot was classified as residential land but later was re-zoned to allow construction of high rise condominiums or office towers. Obviously that changed the value of the land but I bet it's extremely hard to find proof that the Prime Minister indeed knew all along what the zoning decision would be. Yeah, it was a proposal from BMA, not the central government, as if it means there's no way BMA made this proposal, or included this land, on Thaksin's request. Let's not forget that BMA was headed by Samak at that time, the guy who later became the leader of post TRT and who boldly declared that there's nothing wrong with him being Thaksin's proxy.

Ditto for the "auction". Yes, there were other bidders, two anonymous real estate developers, but who's to say with any confidence that they had no idea they were bidding against Pojamarn? We just had Yingluck having a private meeting with eight real estate developers in a hotel, the whole country talked about it but the agenda of the meeting has never been disclosed anyway.

Just how naive do they expect us to be to believe that Thaksin and Pojamarn (because they have such high moral standards?) could not have negotiated the outcome of that auction before hand in some other swanky hotel? Who's to say that it wasn't a dog and pony show where bid prices were decided among the participants long before they were put into sealed envelopes - the only paper trail available in this case?

At the end of the day AEC decided to play it safe and leave all other possible transgressions out of the picture. They tried to pin corruption but even that didn't pass, just the simplest case of abuse of power.

And now people are trying to argue that that simplest case was the only wrong thing about this deal and everything else was just peachy. No, it wasn't, there was just never enough evidence to satisfy the courts. In public mind, however, the deal stinks to high heavens.

"The wife of a Prime Minister cannot buy government land, it's abuse of power on behalf of the PM (not the wife). So wife got off scott free, the PM got busted."

"scott (sic) free" A term which means 'got away with it'. So the tone of your post is established.

" It wasn't five months between the sale and AEC investigation, it was more like five years. Why the delay? Because no government agency in its right mind would file a case against a sitting Prime Minister, they all have to follow the chain of command and they value their jobs."

Why the delay? Maybe something to do with the fact that the AEC didn't exist at the time of the deal? It was created by the coup-makers to investigate corruption by previous governments, remember? But it's sole objective was to try to pin anything on Thaksin that didn't implicate any of the uglies still in favour. Chain of command and valuing of jobs had, of course, changed by this time.

"When this case was discussed in parliament during no confidence debate back in 2003 the opposition wasn't even allowed to mention Thaksin's name. Let me repeat that - the opposition wasn't allowed to utter Thaksin's name in parliament. When someone says that Thaksin could have been investigated and brought to court by his subordinates I think to myself - just how stupid do you think we are?"

This had to be for legal reasons, right? One either advocates the rule of law as a concept, or one advocates breaking the law when it suits one's purposes. Some posters on this forum seem to want to have it both ways.

"smoke and mirrors" and "trivialities"

What an utterly appalling way justify the short-circuiting of justice.

"After the case was lost the defense could have gone for mistrial, they had three years already. Why didn't they? This is the first sign that the case is/was waterproof and there aren't any legal options left."

Or because they knew they were up against people who " all have to follow the chain of command and they value their jobs"?

"Zoning"

It has already been pointed out that the plot of land in question was outside the zone proposed for de-restriction.

And wasn't Samak Governor of Bangkok, having defeated a TRT candidate, at the time of the land purchase?

"anonymous real estate developers"

No they weren't anonymous: The other two bidders were (as already pointed out in this thread) were Land and Houses plc and Noble development.

[OzMick]

It doesn't matter how much the land was sold for. AEC tried to prove there was corruption but they couldn't and it's not what Thaksin was judged guilty of.

The wife of a Prime Minister cannot buy government land, it's abuse of power on behalf of the PM (not the wife). So wife got off scott free, the PM got busted.

It wasn't five months between the sale and AEC investigation, it was more like five years. Why the delay? Because no government agency in its right mind would file a case against a sitting Prime Minister, they all have to follow the chain of command and they value their jobs.

When this case was discussed in parliament during no confidence debate back in 2003 the opposition wasn't even allowed to mention Thaksin's name. Let me repeat that - the opposition wasn't allowed to utter Thaksin's name in parliament. When someone says that Thaksin could have been investigated and brought to court by his subordinates I think to myself - just how stupid do you think we are?

All the rest is just smoke and mirrors - oh, AEC didn't listen to all 300 defense witnesses.. Why stop at 300? Why not go for 3,000? Why not delay the proceedings for years trying to get all those 300 to testify when they start asking for delays? AEC thought they had enough information to go to court already, it's not their job to sit and listen to the endless array of defense witnesses.

Why did AEC force FIDF to file the charges even if it didn't think it lost anything from the deal? Procedural stuff - who gets to file the complaint with the court. Perhaps the law wasn't very clear on that in cases of abuses of power by politicians. AEC, as I remember had the power to lodge the complaints itself but it wasn't the first, preferred choice. What does it matter anyway?

You could argue these trivialities for ages, it doesn't change the fact that the wife of a sitting Prime Minister bought the land from a government agency.

After the case was lost the defense could have gone for mistrial, they had three years already. Why didn't they? This is the first sign that the case is/was waterproof and there aren't any legal options left.

Zoning is another issue that is generally overlooked here for the lack of information - allegedly at the time of the auction the plot was classified as residential land but later was re-zoned to allow construction of high rise condominiums or office towers. Obviously that changed the value of the land but I bet it's extremely hard to find proof that the Prime Minister indeed knew all along what the zoning decision would be. Yeah, it was a proposal from BMA, not the central government, as if it means there's no way BMA made this proposal, or included this land, on Thaksin's request. Let's not forget that BMA was headed by Samak at that time, the guy who later became the leader of post TRT and who boldly declared that there's nothing wrong with him being Thaksin's proxy.

Ditto for the "auction". Yes, there were other bidders, two anonymous real estate developers, but who's to say with any confidence that they had no idea they were bidding against Pojamarn? We just had Yingluck having a private meeting with eight real estate developers in a hotel, the whole country talked about it but the agenda of the meeting has never been disclosed anyway.

Just how naive do they expect us to be to believe that Thaksin and Pojamarn (because they have such high moral standards?) could not have negotiated the outcome of that auction before hand in some other swanky hotel? Who's to say that it wasn't a dog and pony show where bid prices were decided among the participants long before they were put into sealed envelopes - the only paper trail available in this case?

At the end of the day AEC decided to play it safe and leave all other possible transgressions out of the picture. They tried to pin corruption but even that didn't pass, just the simplest case of abuse of power.

And now people are trying to argue that that simplest case was the only wrong thing about this deal and everything else was just peachy. No, it wasn't, there was just never enough evidence to satisfy the courts. In public mind, however, the deal stinks to high heavens.

"The wife of a Prime Minister cannot buy government land, it's abuse of power on behalf of the PM (not the wife). So wife got off scott free, the PM got busted."

"scott (sic) free" A term which means 'got away with it'. So the tone of your post is established.

" It wasn't five months between the sale and AEC investigation, it was more like five years. Why the delay? Because no government agency in its right mind would file a case against a sitting Prime Minister, they all have to follow the chain of command and they value their jobs."

Why the delay? Maybe something to do with the fact that the AEC didn't exist at the time of the deal? It was created by the coup-makers to investigate corruption by previous governments, remember? But it's sole objective was to try to pin anything on Thaksin that didn't implicate any of the uglies still in favour. Chain of command and valuing of jobs had, of course, changed by this time.

"When this case was discussed in parliament during no confidence debate back in 2003 the opposition wasn't even allowed to mention Thaksin's name. Let me repeat that - the opposition wasn't allowed to utter Thaksin's name in parliament. When someone says that Thaksin could have been investigated and brought to court by his subordinates I think to myself - just how stupid do you think we are?"

This had to be for legal reasons, right? One either advocates the rule of law as a concept, or one advocates breaking the law when it suits one's purposes. Some posters on this forum seem to want to have it both ways.

"smoke and mirrors" and "trivialities"

What an utterly appalling way justify the short-circuiting of justice.

"After the case was lost the defense could have gone for mistrial, they had three years already. Why didn't they? This is the first sign that the case is/was waterproof and there aren't any legal options left."

Or because they knew they were up against people who " all have to follow the chain of command and they value their jobs"?

"Zoning"

It has already been pointed out that the plot of land in question was outside the zone proposed for de-restriction.

And wasn't Samak Governor of Bangkok, having defeated a TRT candidate, at the time of the land purchase?

"anonymous real estate developers"

No they weren't anonymous: The other two bidders were (as already pointed out in this thread) were Land and Houses plc and Noble development.

"smoke and mirrors" and "trivialities" - sums that post up nicely.

Was there a long-standing law in place that forbids government officers from purchasing government assets? Yes

Did Thaksin break that law? Yes

Did he expect to get away with it because of his position? Without a doubt.

Why? Because his position gave him the power to affect others careers, and enough cronies/lackeys/sycophants to deceive, obfuscate and delay any action indefinitely.

SURPRISE!

He is not the first or the last powerful figure to allow hubris to be his downfall. Nor the last prepared to start a war to reverse that position.

[Siam Simon]

"smoke and mirrors" and "trivialities" - sums that post up nicely.

Was there a long-standing law in place that forbids government officers from purchasing government assets? Yes

Was it a government asset?

Did Thaksin break that law? Yes

Did he expect to get away with it because of his position? Without a doubt.

Why? Because his position gave him the power to affect others careers, and enough cronies/lackeys/sycophants to deceive, obfuscate and delay any action indefinitely.

SURPRISE!

He is not the first or the last powerful figure to allow hubris to be his downfall. Nor the last prepared to start a war to reverse that position.

The rest of your post might just as well refer to Thaksin's opponents.

[OzMick]

"smoke and mirrors" and "trivialities" - sums that post up nicely.

Was there a long-standing law in place that forbids government officers from purchasing government assets? Yes

Was it a government asset?

Did Thaksin break that law? Yes

Did he expect to get away with it because of his position? Without a doubt.

Why? Because his position gave him the power to affect others careers, and enough cronies/lackeys/sycophants to deceive, obfuscate and delay any action indefinitely.

SURPRISE!

He is not the first or the last powerful figure to allow hubris to be his downfall. Nor the last prepared to start a war to reverse that position.

The rest of your post might just as well refer to Thaksin's opponents.

Thaksin thinks so - I broke the law but did nothing wrong

Does it apply to his opponents? Of course. But who is trying to kill the watchdog?

[Siam Simon]

"smoke and mirrors" and "trivialities" - sums that post up nicely.

Was there a long-standing law in place that forbids government officers from purchasing government assets? Yes

Was it a government asset?

Did Thaksin break that law? Yes

Did he expect to get away with it because of his position? Without a doubt.

Why? Because his position gave him the power to affect others careers, and enough cronies/lackeys/sycophants to deceive, obfuscate and delay any action indefinitely.

SURPRISE!

He is not the first or the last powerful figure to allow hubris to be his downfall. Nor the last prepared to start a war to reverse that position.

The rest of your post might just as well refer to Thaksin's opponents.

Thaksin thinks so - I broke the law but did nothing wrong

Does it apply to his opponents? Of course. But who is trying to kill the watchdog?

But it isn't/wasn't a watchdog. It was a weapon created by Thaksin's opponents to destroy their rival.

[OzMick]

Thaksin thinks so - I broke the law but did nothing wrong

Does it apply to his opponents? Of course. But who is trying to kill the watchdog?

But it isn't/wasn't a watchdog. It was a weapon created by Thaksin's opponents to destroy their rival.

Can you spell "paranoia"? Even if true, after you kill a dragon (in a land full of dragons) do you throw away your sword?

Thaksin is gone, but the watchdog (mixing metaphors, tut tut) remains vigilant. If the Democrats (and Suthep in particular) were equally guilty of malfeasance as you insist, why kill it instead of using its powers?

[Siam Simon]

Thaksin thinks so - I broke the law but did nothing wrong

Does it apply to his opponents? Of course. But who is trying to kill the watchdog?

But it isn't/wasn't a watchdog. It was a weapon created by Thaksin's opponents to destroy their rival.

Can you spell "paranoia"? Even if true, after you kill a dragon (in a land full of dragons) do you throw away your sword?

Thaksin is gone, but the watchdog (mixing metaphors, tut tut) remains vigilant. If the Democrats (and Suthep in particular) were equally guilty of malfeasance as you insist, why kill it instead of using its powers?

Uh, because the Dems weren't enemies of the uglies who created the AEC?

[OzMick]

Thaksin thinks so - I broke the law but did nothing wrong

Does it apply to his opponents? Of course. But who is trying to kill the watchdog?

But it isn't/wasn't a watchdog. It was a weapon created by Thaksin's opponents to destroy their rival.

Can you spell "paranoia"? Even if true, after you kill a dragon (in a land full of dragons) do you throw away your sword?

Thaksin is gone, but the watchdog (mixing metaphors, tut tut) remains vigilant. If the Democrats (and Suthep in particular) were equally guilty of malfeasance as you insist, why kill it instead of using its powers?

Uh, because the Dems weren't enemies of the uglies who created the AEC?

And the members can't be changed? Has anyone suggested a replacement for the perceived biased organisation? No because they don't want oversight; they are quite happy to use influence to prevent investigation and prosecution.

IMHO this government is nothing short of a criminal conspiracy. I'll change my mind when members of the Shinawatra clan are prosecuted for what was a blatant case of perjury in the Thaksin assets trial.

[volk666]

"The wife of a Prime Minister cannot buy government land, it's abuse of power on behalf of the PM (not the wife). So wife got off scott free, the PM got busted."

"scott (sic) free" A term which means 'got away with it'. So the tone of your post is established.

No, the fact is established - she was brought before the court and charged along with her husband but AEC lost the case against her and she was let off scott free, or scot free, if you insist.

" It wasn't five months between the sale and AEC investigation, it was more like five years. Why the delay? Because no government agency in its right mind would file a case against a sitting Prime Minister, they all have to follow the chain of command and they value their jobs."

Why the delay? Maybe something to do with the fact that the AEC didn't exist at the time of the deal? It was created by the coup-makers to investigate corruption by previous governments, remember? But it's sole objective was to try to pin anything on Thaksin that didn't implicate any of the uglies still in favour. Chain of command and valuing of jobs had, of course, changed by this time.

Not at all, they brought several cases that included dozens of members of Thaksin's cabinet to the court, they lost won they lost some.

"When this case was discussed in parliament during no confidence debate back in 2003 the opposition wasn't even allowed to mention Thaksin's name. Let me repeat that - the opposition wasn't allowed to utter Thaksin's name in parliament. When someone says that Thaksin could have been investigated and brought to court by his subordinates I think to myself - just how stupid do you think we are?"

This had to be for legal reasons, right? One either advocates the rule of law as a concept, or one advocates breaking the law when it suits one's purposes. Some posters on this forum seem to want to have it both ways.

It doesn't matter whether they were legal reasons or not for not mentioning Thaksin's name in parliament - the point is it was impossible to prosecute the sitting Prime Minister, even parliamentary opposition had no rights to debate his case. This point is made in response to suggestions that Thaksin's cases should have followed the normal judicial process.

Maybe that would have been legal, but in public eyes justice was denied and the politician was allowed to circumvent the law using his position.

"smoke and mirrors" and "trivialities"

What an utterly appalling way justify the short-circuiting of justice.

It's not short circuiting, it's avoiding artificial barriers elected by the defense in order to win on procedural points. List of demands that the defense puts on trying the case are not the standard that AEC should aspire to, we all know that the defense will never be satisfied and admit Thaksin's guilt, ultimately it's up to the court to judge if judicial procedures were followed correctly.

Now the defense has lost its procedural arguments in court and are re-trying the case on public forums where there are no judges, no prosecution, no witnesses and no rebuttals. They hope that if they convince the public they can override the court decision. For us, TV members, in court of "public opinion", on larger scale via the parliament and amnesty/reconciliation.

[volk666]

"After the case was lost the defense could have gone for mistrial, they had three years already. Why didn't they? This is the first sign that the case is/was waterproof and there aren't any legal options left."

Or because they knew they were up against people who " all have to follow the chain of command and they value their jobs"?

Actually I take my words back - they could only appeal if they had any new information, they hadn't. They still don't and never will because the case is clear cut - the wife of the sitting Prime Minister cannot buy land from government agencies. They can try to get away on technicalities but it will never change the fact that Thaksin broke the law and the court verdict upheld the law. Exonerating Thaksin on legal technicalities or via parliament vote would be seen as travesty of justice.

"Zoning"

It has already been pointed out that the plot of land in question was outside the zone proposed for de-restriction.

And wasn't Samak Governor of Bangkok, having defeated a TRT candidate, at the time of the land purchase?

It has been claimed here but I have never seen any sources. I might just as well claim that it wasn't outside the zone. Back in 2003 I read that it was included for de-restriction but, as I said earlier, there never was enough information available to the public.

Samak won governor race running for himself before TRT has entered (and won) their first parliament elections.

"anonymous real estate developers"

No they weren't anonymous: The other two bidders were (as already pointed out in this thread) were Land and Houses plc and Noble development.

I believe they were anonymous at the time of the auction. If they weren't, and people have all the reasons to believe that Thaksin or Pojamarn knew their identity considering how close they were to the government at that time, it's even worse for the transparency of the auction.

Here's an old quote with opinion of Visanu Krua-ngam, govt chief legal wiz at that time:

"Deputy PM Vishanu Krua-ngam said the law could have been broken if Thaksin had been finance minister, directly overseeing the FIDF. "The law says state officials with authority to oversee an agency, investigate or take legal action [when it comes to the agency's affairs] are prohibited from becoming such agency's contract partner," said Vishanu. "In this case, the prime minister does not directly oversee the FIDF."

http://www.nationmul...NCCC-99466.html

On the highlighted point the court ruled 6:3 that Thaksin was de-facto overseeing FIDF. If that point was established apparently even Visanu thought that buying that land was against the law.

[animatic]

...More important, the AEC's work was not final. We had to pass it on for the attorney-general's consideration. If approved, the case was filed to the Supreme Court's division of criminal cases for political office holders. If a case was not approved, we set up a joint panel. If we agreed, we submitted the case to court; if not, the AEC filed the case alone. So the cases investigated by the AEC were completed at the court, not the AEC itself. ...

This says it all here, the COURTS are the ones getting data collated by the AEC,

AFTER being passed the Attorney Generals Office, and/or a joint committee of both AEC and AG offices. And in a few cases an AEC direct filing to the court,

but then the COURT is making any decisions of legality.

The AEC NEVER convicted anyone of anything.

There is no legal reason to invalidate their investigative work.

They were investigators and public accountants, and nothing more.

They were a group motivated enough to stand up to Thaksins Machine

in spite of spurious lawsuits, bribery, intimidation and baldfaced harassment.

Regardless of who appointed them their WORK was done within the laws,

and then adjudicated by courts in place before the coup.

And if they found sufficient evidence of a crime in speaking to two witnesses,

there is no pressing need for the other 298 to be spoken too.

Just lawyers attempts at stalling the business at hand.

The main reason a lawyers stalls, is because he thinks his client IS likely guilty,

so he can't beat the charges, but the client pays on time and a lot.

This is no more than another way for Thaksin to try and wriggle of the hook he was legal hooked by.

Edited April 7, 2012 by animatic

[geriatrickid]

phiphidon

you say and I quote

"Perhaps if you could take time off from throwing insults around and read the background and the witness statements on both sides (such as there is on the defence side) it might enlighten you, but I doubt it."

Perhaps if you would take the time to see where the pay checks for most of the defense witnesses was coming from you might be enlightened.

Evidence please.

Would you be so kind as to show me the documentation to support your allegation. Did see the documentation? Yes or no, please.

Edited April 7, 2012 by geriatrickid

[geriatrickid]

...More important, the AEC's work was not final. We had to pass it on for the attorney-general's consideration. If approved, the case was filed to the Supreme Court's division of criminal cases for political office holders. If a case was not approved, we set up a joint panel. If we agreed, we submitted the case to court; if not, the AEC filed the case alone. So the cases investigated by the AEC were completed at the court, not the AEC itself. ...

This says it all here, the COURTS are the ones getting data collated by the AEC,

AFTER being passed the Attorney Generals Office, and/or a joint committee of both AEC and AG offices. And in a few cases an AEC direct filing to the court,

but then the COURT is making any decisions of legality.

The AEC NEVER convicted anyone of anything.

There is no legal reason to invalidate their investigative work.

They were investigators and public accountants, and nothing more.

They were a group motivated enough to stand up to Thaksins Machine

in spite of spurious lawsuits, bribery, intimidation and baldfaced harassment.

Regardless of who appointed them their WORK was done within the laws,

and then adjudicated by courts in place before the coup.

And if they found sufficient evidence of a crime in speaking to two witnesses,

there is no pressing need for the other 298 to be spoken too.

Just lawyers attempts at stalling the business at hand.

This is no more than another way for Thaksin to try and wriggle of the hook he was legal hooked by.

The very fact that the case arose because of the military coup taints the entire process. Maybe the investigation itself was adequate, maybe the evidence is overwhelming, maybe the courts intended to be impartial, but the fact remains that this was a politically motivated action with alleged interference and influence brought upon the AEC and the courts. Even if everyone was unbiased, the very fact that there is a perception of bias is sufficient to declare a mistrial. This is the crux of the issue.

The issue isn't the evidence itself, nor even if Thaksin is guilty or not guilty. The process was corrupted at the start.

This is a fundamental legal issue involving impartiality. This is why the international community, particularly the west, has not attached validity to the judgement.

[animatic]

The cases didn't 'arise because of the coup', but were one of the reasons the coup happened. Thaksin had been so grossly manipulating justice against the lions share of these case, it was necessary to take extraordinary measures to ALLOW the cases to be investigated. They were free to follow the evidence with in the law and not be unduly influenced by the Thaksin Political Machine.

The IMPARTIALITY was imposible because it was 100% PARTIAL on the other side.

Investigators are meant to investigate and courts to find legal fact, but investigators are supposed to find evidence, being PARTIAL to the side being investigated defeats the purpose 100%.

The fact remains that if you go into Politics you can expect to be watched for improprieties, and investigated for them, if sufficient evidence can be found, and then prosecuted. 'It was politically motivated' is a ridiculous argument, because if the charges are true, then they are politically motivated by the guilty, since the guilty entered politics to be able to gain advantage over others.

As equally as those finding out the truth about their crimes might be political

The arguments balance each other put; Null Sum Game..

How many here willingly and continuously kept their blinders on during the whole AEC investigation era.

It seems a sizable percentage of TVF members remember little about what was happening. But certainly regurgitate huge amounts of bilious misinformation, and then when refuted by more observant types, demand evidence from 4-5 years back that was fully in the public domain and now, for all to see/read.

Go look yourself, even if it destroys a faux image over-constructed on the truth.

Edited April 7, 2012 by animatic

[birdpooguava]

At the time, Bank of Thailand Governor Pridyathorn Devakula directly supervised the FIDF, not Thaksin. Section 29 of the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 stated that the Prime Minister did not have jurisdiction to oversee the FIDF, because those managing the fund had sole authority for policies, control, oversight and regulations governing the agency. Pridiyathorn's testimony to the court occurred in secret - Thaksin's legal team was not allowed in the room.

And people are honestly trying to defend this as justice? Lol

Edited April 7, 2012 by birdpooguava

[geriatrickid]

Animatic, it is you that has conveniently neglected to consider the motives for the investigation and the role of the military junta, it's allies and supporters and of course the Democrats who did not protest the coup.

The arguments go round and round. I am comfortable having the same position as western governments who have the benefit of qualified international and impartial Thai criminal and constitutional law experts at their disposal. I am also comfortable maintaining a position that supports the concept of judicial impartiality.

I don't know why so many people are afraid to acknowledge that there were overwhelming grounds to declare a mistrial.

[bigbamboo]

...More important, the AEC's work was not final. We had to pass it on for the attorney-general's consideration. If approved, the case was filed to the Supreme Court's division of criminal cases for political office holders. If a case was not approved, we set up a joint panel. If we agreed, we submitted the case to court; if not, the AEC filed the case alone. So the cases investigated by the AEC were completed at the court, not the AEC itself. ...

This says it all here, the COURTS are the ones getting data collated by the AEC,

AFTER being passed the Attorney Generals Office, and/or a joint committee of both AEC and AG offices. And in a few cases an AEC direct filing to the court,

but then the COURT is making any decisions of legality.

The AEC NEVER convicted anyone of anything.

There is no legal reason to invalidate their investigative work.

They were investigators and public accountants, and nothing more.

They were a group motivated enough to stand up to Thaksins Machine

in spite of spurious lawsuits, bribery, intimidation and baldfaced harassment.

Regardless of who appointed them their WORK was done within the laws,

and then adjudicated by courts in place before the coup.

And if they found sufficient evidence of a crime in speaking to two witnesses,

there is no pressing need for the other 298 to be spoken too.

Just lawyers attempts at stalling the business at hand.

This is no more than another way for Thaksin to try and wriggle of the hook he was legal hooked by.

The very fact that the case arose because of the military coup taints the entire process. Maybe the investigation itself was adequate, maybe the evidence is overwhelming, maybe the courts intended to be impartial, but the fact remains that this was a politically motivated action with alleged interference and influence brought upon the AEC and the courts. Even if everyone was unbiased, the very fact that there is a perception of bias is sufficient to declare a mistrial. This is the crux of the issue.

The issue isn't the evidence itself, nor even if Thaksin is guilty or not guilty. The process was corrupted at the start.

This is a fundamental legal issue involving impartiality. This is why the international community, particularly the west, has not attached validity to the judgement.

You claim the trial was tainted because the political rulers were biased against the defendant and then suggest a re-trial wouldn't be when the political rulers are on the payroll of the defendant!

[rubl]

The very fact that the case arose because of the military coup taints the entire process. Maybe the investigation itself was adequate, maybe the evidence is overwhelming, maybe the courts intended to be impartial, but the fact remains that this was a politically motivated action with alleged interference and influence brought upon the AEC and the courts. Even if everyone was unbiased, the very fact that there is a perception of bias is sufficient to declare a mistrial. This is the crux of the issue.

The issue isn't the evidence itself, nor even if Thaksin is guilty or not guilty. The process was corrupted at the start.

This is a fundamental legal issue involving impartiality. This is why the international community, particularly the west, has not attached validity to the judgement.

The very fact that no cases were deemed valid or sufficient to proceed in court during k. Thaksin's tenure as PM taints the entire process. It started with the very honest mistake of having forgotten a maid and driver held some of his shares. With some (slight) pressure and a judge remarking 'he was just elected, how could we find him guilty'.

The case may be tainted by all this, but surely not corrupted. Just correcting what should have been done long time ago already. A fugitive criminal who jumped bail and who needs regular help from the current government when wanting to travel.

The Western world may not attach much value to the judgement in the sense that the West may have given up on Thailand as being a thoroughly corrupt country. The former Italian president is in hot water, it took a while. K. Thaksin's downfall will come just as surely and slowly.

[geriatrickid]

You claim the trial was tainted because the political rulers were biased against the defendant and then suggest a re-trial wouldn't be when the political rulers are on the payroll of the defendant!

And your statement confuses two issues;

The first issue is whether or not there was the basis upon which to consider the first investigation and trial biased. I believe that it was. My belief follows those of foreign governments. Your statement and those of others is that it does not matter. As well, your statement and those of others is a tacit admission that there was bias.

In law, all that matters is whether or not there was bias. Even the perception of bias is grounds for a mistrial.

The second issue is whether or not another trial would be impartial. You and others clam it would not be and you then state that the judiciary is on the payroll of Thaksin. Do you realize how weak your argument is? The judiciary hasn't changed much since the first trial. If the investigation and trial would be corrupt now, then it would have been for the first trial since the main participants would be unchanged. The whole premise of your argument is that because you feel there would be corruption in a future trial, despite there being no evidence to support such an allegation, the results of a biased judicial process should stand. Again, that is not how the law works.

Edited April 7, 2012 by geriatrickid

[geriatrickid]

The Western world may not attach much value to the judgement in the sense that the West may have given up on Thailand as being a thoroughly corrupt country. The former Italian president is in hot water, it took a while. K. Thaksin's downfall will come just as surely and slowly.

And the Italian President has had to face the court. Even though he faces allegations of bribery, and influence peddling with the judiciary, those allegations have not stopped the Italian justice system from working. with all due respect to our Italian TVFers, Italy is just as corrupt as Thailand.

[bigbamboo]

You claim the trial was tainted because the political rulers were biased against the defendant and then suggest a re-trial wouldn't be when the political rulers are on the payroll of the defendant!

And your statement confuses two issues;

The first issue is whether or not there was the basis upon which to consider the first investigation and trial biased. I believe that it was. My belief follows those of foreign governments. Your statement and those of others is that it does not matter. As well, your statement and those of others is a tacit admission that there was bias.

In law, all that matters is whether or not there was bias. Even the perception of bias is grounds for a mistrial.

The second issue is whether or not another trial would be impartial. You and others clam it would not be and you then state that the judiciary is on the payroll of Thaksin. Do you realize how weak your argument is? The judiciary hasn't changed much since the first trial. If the investigation and trial would be corrupt now, then it would have been for the first trial since the main participants would be unchanged. The whole premise of your argument is that because you feel there would be corruption in a future trial, despite there being no evidence to support such an allegation, the results of a biased judicial process should stand. Again, that is not how the law works.

I didn't say the judiciary was or would be on the payroll of anyone.... just the political leaders who would push for a retrial. Judges are above mere politicians.

[AleG]

You claim the trial was tainted because the political rulers were biased against the defendant and then suggest a re-trial wouldn't be when the political rulers are on the payroll of the defendant!

It's all part of the Fruit of the Poisoned Tree argument. Which conveniently ignores when the Poisoned Tree branched out, at the point Thaksin was absolved on the assets concealment case on the basis that, yes he is guilty, but applying the law would rise a stink.

That's when all this clusterf*** began, on being elected Thaksin got the veredict of "You are too popular to abide by the law". It's been downhill since then.

Somehow I doubt Thaksin and his supporters would be in favour of having a second go at that trial.

[animatic]

Animatic, it is you that has conveniently neglected to consider the motives for the investigation and the role of the military junta, it's allies and supporters and of course the Democrats who did not protest the coup.

The arguments go round and round. I am comfortable having the same position as western governments who have the benefit of qualified international and impartial Thai criminal and constitutional law experts at their disposal. I am also comfortable maintaining a position that supports the concept of judicial impartiality.

I don't know why so many people are afraid to acknowledge that there were overwhelming grounds to declare a mistrial.

Not at all,

the motive was to prosecute Thaksin for misuse of public funds ande malfeasance in office.

That was very clear from BEFORE the AEC was formed. I watched attempts to get to the TRUTH be stifled by him before that. The judiciary is as relatively impartial, but decrying an investigative body as not being impartial is irrelevant, they need not be, just the judges that hear the case as presented by the AG.

Your attempt to misconstrue reality has fallen flat yet again.

Attempting to say your beliefs are more correct than the Judges that decided to accept the cases or not.

I believe that is an illegal position to take, and extraordinarily biased by the by.

Edited April 7, 2012 by animatic

[FarangTalk]

You claim the trial was tainted because the political rulers were biased against the defendant and then suggest a re-trial wouldn't be when the political rulers are on the payroll of the defendant!

It's all part of the Fruit of the Poisoned Tree argument. Which conveniently ignores when the Poisoned Tree branched out, at the point Thaksin was absolved on the assets concealment case on the basis that, yes he is guilty, but applying the law would rise a stink.

That's when all this clusterf*** began, on being elected Thaksin got the veredict of "You are too popular to abide by the law". It's been downhill since then.

Somehow I doubt Thaksin and his supporters would be in favour of having a second go at that trial.

The tree has been yielding poisoned fruit long before Thaksin's asset concealment case.

[volk666]

At the time, Bank of Thailand Governor Pridyathorn Devakula directly supervised the FIDF, not Thaksin. Section 29 of the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 stated that the Prime Minister did not have jurisdiction to oversee the FIDF, because those managing the fund had sole authority for policies, control, oversight and regulations governing the agency....

Really? Really? Really?

Just a short while ago Deputy PM transferred ALL debts held by FIDF to the Bank of Thailand in one giant swoop without as much as going through parliamentary approval and the court UPHELD government's authority to do so.

And now you ask us to believe that Thaksin had no control whatsoever?

One thing I grant you and Thaksin's defending team - they've got balls to come up with the most outrageous statements ever and keep straight faces while doing it.

>>>>

The idea behind mistrials is to prevent innocents from being judged guilty. In Thaksin's case the guilt is beyond any doubt, his defenders don't give us a single clue why he could be innocent, just complaints of possible holes in judicial proceedings. Their pleas have nothing to do with concept of fairness and justice, just the desire to exonerate the man no matter what.