Court Names 81 Red Shirts In Judges' Intimida

[webfact]

Court names 81 red shirts in judges' intimida

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Office of the Constitution Court yesterday filed six separate police complaints naming some 81 red shirts as suspects on charges related to offending and intimidating the high court in connection with the verdict on the charter-amendment bill.

The complaints were lodged at the Crime Suppression Division.

"The filing of complaints is the only way to shield the judiciary against intimidation," court spokesman Somrit Chaiwong said.

In the first complaint, red-shirt leader Yotwarit Chooklom, aka Jeng Dokjik, was named for allegedly offending the high court's judges in the line of duty as per Articles 136 and 198 of the Criminal Code. He is also charged with intimidation by inciting fear as per Article 392 of the Criminal Code.

For the second complaint, red-shirt leader and Pheu Thai MP Kokaew Pikulthong is named for coercion by threatening the use of force in order to obstruct judicial review. His alleged violations fall under Articles 139, 140, 198 and 292.

The third complaint cites charges against Pheu Thai MP and red supporter Prasit Chaisrisa. The charges are based on Articles 136 and 198.

In the fourth complaint, red-shirt Anurak Jentawanit is named for allegedly fabricating charges against the judges in connection with his police complaint filed on July 5.

The charges against him are based on Articles 172, 173 and 174.

In the fifth complaint, a group of 26 red shirts face fabrication charges as per Articles 172, 173 and 174 after filing a complaint against the judges at Khu Khot police station, Pathum Thani, on July 14.

In the sixth complaint, red ally Wuthipong Kotchathamkhun and some 50 unidentified red shirts have been named as suspects for offending the judges in the line of duty. Their charges, based on Articles 83, 136 and 198, stemmed from protest activities at the high court building on July 16.

In a related development, Somrit said the verdict and individual opinions of eight judges clearly spelled out the conclusion of the judicial decision on charter change.

The eight judges relied on two approaches to form their individual opinions before reaching the same conclusion, he said.

In the first judgement, four judges - court president Wasan Soypisudh, Boonsong Kulbupar, Chat Chonlaworn and Udomsak Nitimontree - issued the opinion that Article 291 of the Constitution gives Parliament the mandate to amend the charter either by provision or in whole, whichever is deemed necessary.

In the second approach, the remaining four justices - Charoon Intachan, Chalermpon Ake-uru, Nurak Marpraneet and Suphot Khaimuk - found that Article 291 allows Parliament to amend specific charter provisions but not to overhaul the entire charter.

The judges drew the same conclusion to dismiss the case on grounds there was no evidence of a threat to topple the political system. Although the eight judges chose two approaches to form a decision, the verdict had outlined the meshing of the two approaches.

-- The Nation 2012-07-31

[GentlemanJim]

Well, where will this go? I agree that the courts/Judges must be protected but I am unsure of the robustness of complaints about 'offending' the Judges. Is that a crime? and what exactly will cause offence. I agree about getting the MP for naming the Judges and their families, but sadly his parliamentary immunity will kick in to place and no doubt the eventual amnesty will set him free!

[Buchholz]

Red Shirt/Government Employee Jeng Dokjik is facing 8 years in prison,

Red Shirt/Government Employee Kokaew Pikulthong is facing 23 years in prison,

Red Shirt/Government Employee Prasit Chaisrisa is facing 8 years in prison,

Red Shirt Anurak Jentawanit is facing 8 years in prison,

26 Unnamed Red Shirts are facing 8 years in prison, and

Red Shirt Wuthipong Kotchathamkhun and 50 unnamed Red Shirts are facing 8 years in prison.

Congratulations to Korkaew for being the most offensive.

.

[FOODLOVER]

He wins a Red medal!

[Reasonableman]

For anyone interested in the detail of each Article/Section, an unofficial translation of the Thai Criminal Code is here:

http://www.samuifors...penal-code.html

Edited July 31, 2012 by Reasonableman

[jonclark]

This provides the ideal opportunity for PTP to rid itself of some the more radical elements of the governments freeing up space for some of the TRT MPs that have just returned.

Whilst also throwing a couple of sacrificial lambs the yellows way.

Edited July 31, 2012 by jonclark

[SuneeTH]

Good for them.

All Red-shirts leaders should be put into political jail for life.

[maidu]

Check tomorrow's 'Letter to Editor' column in the Nation. There will be a letter addressing this issue from Kip Keino.

[phiphidon]

"In the fifth complaint, a group of 26 red shirts face fabrication charges"..................

............................"The judges drew the same conclusion to dismiss the case on grounds there was no evidence of a threat to topple the political system."

So are there any moves afoot for fabrication charges to be brought against the "democratic" party for citing Section 68 against the bills put forward by the government?

In the first judgement, four judges - court president Wasan Soypisudh, Boonsong Kulbupar, Chat Chonlaworn and Udomsak Nitimontree - issued the opinion that Article 291 of the Constitution gives Parliament the mandate to amend the charter either by provision or in whole, whichever is deemed necessary.

In the second approach, the remaining four justices - Charoon Intachan, Chalermpon Ake-uru, Nurak Marpraneet and Suphot Khaimuk - found that Article 291 allows Parliament to amend specific charter provisions but not to overhaul the entire charter.

Which appears to me as 4 - 4 result. So why was the second approach decided upon as the verdict?

Edited July 31, 2012 by phiphidon

[Nickymaster]

"In the fifth complaint, a group of 26 red shirts face fabrication charges"..................

............................"The judges drew the same conclusion to dismiss the case on grounds there was no evidence of a threat to topple the political system."

So are there any moves afoot for fabrication charges to be brought against the "democratic" party for citing Section 68 against the bills put forward by the government?

In the first judgement, four judges - court president Wasan Soypisudh, Boonsong Kulbupar, Chat Chonlaworn and Udomsak Nitimontree - issued the opinion that Article 291 of the Constitution gives Parliament the mandate to amend the charter either by provision or in whole, whichever is deemed necessary.

In the second approach, the remaining four justices - Charoon Intachan, Chalermpon Ake-uru, Nurak Marpraneet and Suphot Khaimuk - found that Article 291 allows Parliament to amend specific charter provisions but not to overhaul the entire charter.

Which appears to me as 4 - 4 result. So why was the second approach decided upon as the verdict?

You clearly don't support accountability and the rule of law.

Why don't you just take of your glasses and say: "Good! Punish these guys for their despicable acts".

Or are you just being kind by giving us "another view...."

[phiphidon]

"In the fifth complaint, a group of 26 red shirts face fabrication charges"..................

............................"The judges drew the same conclusion to dismiss the case on grounds there was no evidence of a threat to topple the political system."

So are there any moves afoot for fabrication charges to be brought against the "democratic" party for citing Section 68 against the bills put forward by the government?

In the first judgement, four judges - court president Wasan Soypisudh, Boonsong Kulbupar, Chat Chonlaworn and Udomsak Nitimontree - issued the opinion that Article 291 of the Constitution gives Parliament the mandate to amend the charter either by provision or in whole, whichever is deemed necessary.

In the second approach, the remaining four justices - Charoon Intachan, Chalermpon Ake-uru, Nurak Marpraneet and Suphot Khaimuk - found that Article 291 allows Parliament to amend specific charter provisions but not to overhaul the entire charter.

Which appears to me as 4 - 4 result. So why was the second approach decided upon as the verdict?

You clearly don't support accountability and the rule of law.

Why don't you just take of your glasses and say: "Good! Punish these guys for their despicable acts".

Or are you just being kind by giving us "another view...."

The only "despicable" acts I see here are the the giving out of judges addresses and inciting violence on those judges - if that is the case and when proven - I still believe in trials unlike some of the "voices of reason" on here .

As far as the rest goes, the reaction to the symbolic "burning of coffins" is emotional hyperbole by people who really think that they are not "ordinary" people. As such the reports are ideal partners for the faux emotionality displayed on these forums - did you ever write to forums back home gushing "Punish these guys for their despicable Acts", actually you probably did.

Get over it, some red shirts burnt some paper coffins over their understandable frustration with the Judiciary getting involved where they shouldn't.

[tlansford]

"In the fifth complaint, a group of 26 red shirts face fabrication charges"..................

............................"The judges drew the same conclusion to dismiss the case on grounds there was no evidence of a threat to topple the political system."

So are there any moves afoot for fabrication charges to be brought against the "democratic" party for citing Section 68 against the bills put forward by the government?

In the first judgement, four judges - court president Wasan Soypisudh, Boonsong Kulbupar, Chat Chonlaworn and Udomsak Nitimontree - issued the opinion that Article 291 of the Constitution gives Parliament the mandate to amend the charter either by provision or in whole, whichever is deemed necessary.

In the second approach, the remaining four justices - Charoon Intachan, Chalermpon Ake-uru, Nurak Marpraneet and Suphot Khaimuk - found that Article 291 allows Parliament to amend specific charter provisions but not to overhaul the entire charter.

Which appears to me as 4 - 4 result. So why was the second approach decided upon as the verdict?

There is the charge of fabrication, which as I recall was a complaint that the court had overstepped their mandate by taking the case. Of course they ruled that the did not do that, so this evidently means that the same court can bring fabrication charges against these folks.

Regarding the democratic party, ..... you must be joking.

While there was intimidation which could have been violent against the justices, and taking legal action seems warranted, bringing charges against people protesting smacks of censorship. No, it is censorship.

[Buchholz]

These laws have been in place since 1956.

Perhaps if Parliament wasn't busy with reconciliation bills to exonerate the Dubai Dude, then they might have had time to set to work on revamping those laws they feel unjust.

As for censorship, the ever greater curtailment of the internet with Chalerm in charge is a fair indicator of how the current government views censorship. "it's ok as long as we're in charge of it"

.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Buchholz

[Moruya]

The only "despicable" acts I see here are the the giving out of judges addresses and inciting violence on those judges - if that is the case and when proven - I still believe in trials unlike some of the "voices of reason" on here .

As far as the rest goes, the reaction to the symbolic "burning of coffins" is emotional hyperbole by people who really think that they are not "ordinary" people. As such the reports are ideal partners for the faux emotionality displayed on these forums - did you ever write to forums back home gushing "Punish these guys for their despicable Acts", actually you probably did.

Get over it, some red shirts burnt some paper coffins over their understandable frustration with the Judiciary getting involved where they shouldn't.

Don't you think that given the current political landscape here in Thailand, having groups of people, shown on TV, burning effigies of the judges as well as coffins was an incitement to violence?

[Nickymaster]

Amazing twister PPD is.

The only "despicable" acts I see here are the the giving out of judges addresses and inciting violence on those judges - if that is the case and when proven.

What is there to proof? We have all seen it with our own eyes.

As far as the rest goes, the reaction to the symbolic "burning of coffins" is emotional hyperbole by people who really think that they are not "ordinary" people. As such the reports are ideal partners for the faux emotionality displayed on these forums - did you ever write to forums back home gushing "Punish these guys for their despicable Acts", actually you probably did. Yes.

Where I come from people get punished for despicable acts otherwise we would soon have a lawless state run by a few.

Get over it, some red shirts burnt some paper coffins over their understandable frustration with the Judiciary getting involved where they shouldn't.

I think they did more then burn paper coffins. UNDERSTANDABLE frustration!? You are amazing.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Nickymaster

[phiphidon]

The only "despicable" acts I see here are the the giving out of judges addresses and inciting violence on those judges - if that is the case and when proven - I still believe in trials unlike some of the "voices of reason" on here .

As far as the rest goes, the reaction to the symbolic "burning of coffins" is emotional hyperbole by people who really think that they are not "ordinary" people. As such the reports are ideal partners for the faux emotionality displayed on these forums - did you ever write to forums back home gushing "Punish these guys for their despicable Acts", actually you probably did.

Get over it, some red shirts burnt some paper coffins over their understandable frustration with the Judiciary getting involved where they shouldn't.

Don't you think that given the current political landscape here in Thailand, having groups of people, shown on TV, burning effigies of the judges as well as coffins was an incitement to violence?

Simply put, No. Did you see any violence happening as a result? If that was the intended result it seems to have been a resounding failure.

[phiphidon]

These laws have been in place since 1956.

Perhaps if Parliament wasn't busy with reconciliation bills to exonerate the Dubai Dude, then they might have had time to set to work on revamping those laws they feel unjust.

As for censorship, the ever greater curtailment of the internet with Chalerm in charge is a fair indicator of how the current government views censorship. "it's ok as long as we're in charge of it"

.

The laws may well have been in existence since 1956. However the constitutional court has only been in existence since 1997, the adversarial non independant version of it since 2007. This is only the 2nd time I am aware of it being involved in "pressing charges" against ordinary citizens (the first being against Jatuporn) so it's a bit of a new situation for everybody.

Not sure this is what the writers of "The Peoples Charter" envisioned when they set up the first Constitutional Court to concentrate entirely on constitutional matters.....................

[GentlemanJim]

Phiphidon said in post number 9

So are there any moves afoot for fabrication charges to be brought against the "democratic" party for citing Section 68 against the bills put forward by the government?

Well the fact is, it doesn't matter does it, it has nothing to do with the charges against the red thugs! I think you will find it is the rest of their behaviour that has led to the 'fabrication' charges.

If you are flagged down for speeding in the UK or USA it is still possible that when the policeman comes over and you apologise profusely, stating you are sorry and were wrong, he will say 'ok, look clear off and keep your speed down', however if when said policeman walks over and you say 'why did you stop me you pig t**t', then the chances are you will be charged with assault on a police officer, disruptive, unruly behaviour, speeding, you will be breathalyzed, your car checked over from top to bottom etc etc etc. Verbally abusing and intimidating judges is the height of folly, especially as all the judges know each other and are friends with each other. Simply stupid.

[Babcock]

Amazing twister PPD is.

The only "despicable" acts I see here are the the giving out of judges addresses and inciting violence on those judges - if that is the case and when proven.

What is there to proof? We have all seen it with our own eyes.

As far as the rest goes, the reaction to the symbolic "burning of coffins" is emotional hyperbole by people who really think that they are not "ordinary" people. As such the reports are ideal partners for the faux emotionality displayed on these forums - did you ever write to forums back home gushing "Punish these guys for their despicable Acts", actually you probably did. Yes.

Where I come people get punished for despicable acts otherwise we would soon have a lawless state run by a few.

Get over it, some red shirts burnt some paper coffins over their understandable frustration with the Judiciary getting involved where they shouldn't.

I think they did more then burn paper coffins. UNDERSTANDABLE frustration!? You are amazing.

This court lacks credibility.

We saw in the videos uploaded on YouTube exposing their contempt for the pheu Thai opposition during abhisit's reign with their consorting with the dems and their open discussions of placing relatives in key jobs in the court after releasing text answers to admission exams for them.

The members of this court were installed by the junta after the coup precisely to prevent any reform to the coup enforced rewrite of the 1997 constitution.

Let's not forget also the unelected senators placed by the coup who resigned en masse days before their 1 term was due to expire and then en masse reapply and take up their jobs for a further term.

So now we have "contempt of court" charges from the constitutional court interfering into the democratic process.

An alignment of the pad, unelectable dems, unelected placed senators and unelected placed judges against an elected government.

This government is bad because the right side didn't win and then of course there's always the bogeyman/scapegoat to remind the dumber loyalist members of Thai society what the purpose of all this is.

[Buchholz]

These laws have been in place since 1956.

Perhaps if Parliament wasn't busy with reconciliation bills to exonerate the Dubai Dude, then they might have had time to set to work on revamping those laws they feel unjust.

As for censorship, the ever greater curtailment of the internet with Chalerm in charge is a fair indicator of how the current government views censorship. "it's ok as long as we're in charge of it"

.

The laws may well have been in existence since 1956. However the constitutional court has only been in existence since 1997, the adversarial non independant version of it since 2007. This is only the 2nd time I am aware of it being involved in "pressing charges" against ordinary citizens (the first being against Jatuporn) so it's a bit of a new situation for everybody.

Not sure this is what the writers of "The Peoples Charter" envisioned when they set up the first Constitutional Court to concentrate entirely on constitutional matters.....................

The defendants are charged with violating the law, as established in 1956 and applicable to all courts that have been in existence since then.

The plaintiffs have alleged they have been threatened due to the actions of the plaintiffs, which is illegal, irregardless of who the plaintiffs are.

That the plaintiffs have not had to previously deal with being threatened is a testament to the reality that sane people normally resist the notion of ever lowering themselves to threatening judges and their families.

.

.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Buchholz

[whybother]

This court lacks credibility.

We saw in the videos uploaded on YouTube exposing their contempt for the pheu Thai opposition during abhisit's reign with their consorting with the dems and their open discussions of placing relatives in key jobs in the court after releasing text answers to admission exams for them.

Actually, what we saw with the videos was a court employee who now works for the government setting up and then recording meetings to make it look like the Democrats were conspiring with the courts.

In reality, all he did was show once again PTPs involvement with concocting evidence.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Maestro
Deleted troll comment about a shoe.

[Skywalker69]

Phiphidon said in post number 9

So are there any moves afoot for fabrication charges to be brought against the "democratic" party for citing Section 68 against the bills put forward by the government?

Well the fact is, it doesn't matter does it, it has nothing to do with the charges against the red thugs! I think you will find it is the rest of their behaviour that has led to the 'fabrication' charges.

If you are flagged down for speeding in the UK or USA it is still possible that when the policeman comes over and you apologise profusely, stating you are sorry and were wrong, he will say 'ok, look clear off and keep your speed down', however if when said policeman walks over and you say 'why did you stop me you pig t**t', then the chances are you will be charged with assault on a police officer, disruptive, unruly behaviour, speeding, you will be breathalyzed, your car checked over from top to bottom etc etc etc. Verbally abusing and intimidating judges is the height of folly, especially as all the judges know each other and are friends with each other. Simply stupid.

Good post. Thanks.

[Moruya]

The only "despicable" acts I see here are the the giving out of judges addresses and inciting violence on those judges - if that is the case and when proven - I still believe in trials unlike some of the "voices of reason" on here .

As far as the rest goes, the reaction to the symbolic "burning of coffins" is emotional hyperbole by people who really think that they are not "ordinary" people. As such the reports are ideal partners for the faux emotionality displayed on these forums - did you ever write to forums back home gushing "Punish these guys for their despicable Acts", actually you probably did.

Get over it, some red shirts burnt some paper coffins over their understandable frustration with the Judiciary getting involved where they shouldn't.

Don't you think that given the current political landscape here in Thailand, having groups of people, shown on TV, burning effigies of the judges as well as coffins was an incitement to violence?

Simply put, No. Did you see any violence happening as a result? If that was the intended result it seems to have been a resounding failure.

And you would feel the same if people started burning effigies of your family in such a way?

[phiphidon]

This court lacks credibility.

We saw in the videos uploaded on YouTube exposing their contempt for the pheu Thai opposition during abhisit's reign with their consorting with the dems and their open discussions of placing relatives in key jobs in the court after releasing text answers to admission exams for them.

Actually, what we saw with the videos was a court employee who now works for the government setting up and then recording meetings to make it look like the Democrats were conspiring with the courts.

In reality, all he did was show once again PTPs involvement with concocting evidence.

Sent from my shoe phone.

PM says Consitutional Court should defend itself against the footage.

Following the release of one scandalous footage after another, implicating certain constitutional court judges of skewing the court recruitment process in favor of their staff’s family members, the Constitutional Court has flatly denied abusing its power as alleged.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said that it was difficult to monitor what was going on in the cyber world. He, however, asserted that the Court, too, needed to clarify the issue and defend their innocence.

http://thainews.prd....id=255311020005

They never did, the ICT blocked the videos as best they could (not very well), arrest warrants were issued, Pasit went walkabout to Hong Kong for a couple of months, the President of the CC resigned eventually, Pasit came back, was sued by the CC judges for libel and the case was extended until Jun 18th as Buchholz told us here

Posted 2012-04-03 04:41:14

Evidence check for constitution court libel case postponed

The court and plaintiff considered the matter and agreed to reschedule the appointment to 9.30am on June 18.

http://www.thaivisa....er/page__st__50

Alas, no follow up, so who knows?

Edited July 31, 2012 by phiphidon

[rubl]

From #11 phiphidon

Get over it, some red shirts burnt some paper coffins over their understandable frustration with the Judiciary getting involved where they shouldn't.

All is explained by the simple assumption "Judiciary getting involved where they shouldn't". It has been indicated but not proven and certainly not in a legal sense that this assumption is valid. doesn't stop people from using it, of course

[Babcock]

The only "despicable" acts I see here are the the giving out of judges addresses and inciting violence on those judges - if that is the case and when proven - I still believe in trials unlike some of the "voices of reason" on here .

As far as the rest goes, the reaction to the symbolic "burning of coffins" is emotional hyperbole by people who really think that they are not "ordinary" people. As such the reports are ideal partners for the faux emotionality displayed on these forums - did you ever write to forums back home gushing "Punish these guys for their despicable Acts", actually you probably did.

Get over it, some red shirts burnt some paper coffins over their understandable frustration with the Judiciary getting involved where they shouldn't.

Don't you think that given the current political landscape here in Thailand, having groups of people, shown on TV, burning effigies of the judges as well as coffins was an incitement to violence?

Simply put, No. Did you see any violence happening as a result? If that was the intended result it seems to have been a resounding failure.

And you would feel the same if people started burning effigies of your family in such a way?

Well in my country the UK we had mass protests against the gulf war and effigies were burnt of our politicians but noone was charged.

The fact is the court is seen by a significant portion of the electorate as biased, corrupt and now it seems to think it has powers to interfere in the democratic process by potentially allowing frivolous charges (as we have just seen) to be made against the ruling governement to be pursued whilst

disregarding Article 68 of the thai constitution in the process. In short making up the rules as suits them and attempting to set themselves up above the law.

Their latest attempt at perverting the course of justice is to claim that any changes, rewrite to the coup imposed constitution will require a reerendum first on the need for any changes.

Actually that's why we had an election in order to make these changes.

The "Coup for the rich" didn't work but the right people for these didn't get elected (well they never can be can they) so extra parliamentary methods have to be used.

But now they truly have a foe in the redshirts who see right through them.

[phiphidon]

From #11 phiphidon

Get over it, some red shirts burnt some paper coffins over their understandable frustration with the Judiciary getting involved where they shouldn't.

All is explained by the simple assumption "Judiciary getting involved where they shouldn't". It has been indicated but not proven and certainly not in a legal sense that this assumption is valid. doesn't stop people from using it, of course

Yes it has been proven - it is just the fact that the CC has chosen to reverse judgement or interpret differently from established and agreed procedure.

[rubl]

From #11 phiphidon

Get over it, some red shirts burnt some paper coffins over their understandable frustration with the Judiciary getting involved where they shouldn't.

All is explained by the simple assumption "Judiciary getting involved where they shouldn't". It has been indicated but not proven and certainly not in a legal sense that this assumption is valid. doesn't stop people from using it, of course

Yes it has been proven - it is just the fact that the CC has chosen to reverse judgement or interpret differently from established and agreed procedure.

If you say so it must be true It has not been proven, it has been indicated with the same articles, laws and what have you to try to prove both sides of the medal. No need to start that discussion here again, nor a need to post links to former discussions. Nothing changed, only more emphasize on 'judges wrong', protesters justified, etc., etc.

[Reasonableman]

What will be will be, regardless of PPD and Babcock's (welcome to the Dream Team, BC!) frothing.

[Babcock]

Well I think the CC are setting themselves up for another fall.

Do you think mass arrests are the way forward?