gosh, I hope someone posts an update on this thread when that happens.

Amsterdam could do with a large amount of BoTox if you ask me. Administered orally of course

has our man in Dubai not been paying his bills I wonder

they certainly havent parted ways on moral grounds

They haven't parted way : " ... Amsterdam said, adding that Thaksin remains a client of the firm."

Most probably, due to the current situation, the lobbying services are no longer needed.

Good to note too that the former prime minister, was convicted in absentia on a conflict-of-interest charge. It's a legal blog so there a bit more precise in their wording that our Sondhi's boys. The only thing Thaksin has ever been convicted for is a controversial land deal To be even more precise, for a land deal his wife did when he was in office.

the land deal was not controversial, it was corrupt and forbidden by law. All the million other cases against can't proceed without him.

Not exactly the truth. It's not that there wasn't a will to destroy Thaksin by any means possible, even the more futile, it's just that the courts couldn't find anything else that this very minor land deal.

The courts cannot commence to proceed with other cases against a defendant if the defendant is not present to defend himself, this is the reason why Thaksin ran away from Thailand to avoid the cases starting against him; the efforts of Thaksin at the moment are focused not on getting another court case, but having the proceedings used to file the charges against him dismissed; I am sure you completely understand this, and are merely attempting to deflect.

You didn't mention the confiscation of assets case either, which is the one that the former PM cares about (he doesn't care about the false asset declarations, or so on, just the 46 billion) where both the former PM and his ex wife concealed their assets and abuse of power in aiding Shin Corp, AIS and Shin Sat.

While Thaksin may claim to his supporters he is innocent and didn't get a fair trial, and continues to mislead by saying things like "The Democrats convicted him" as he did last week, a person with basic intelligence and ability to think logically would ask why, if he is innocent, doesn't he ask for a new trial, rather than asking that all parties relating to the coup get an amnesty. His cowardice in fleeing and focused efforts of using lobbiests and the like rather than actually growing some stones and facing his accusers, is the same mode of action as the son of Chalerm, who also fled in the Club 20 murder case, only reappearing when his dad had finished cleaning up an easy path to a not guilty verdict.

Chalerm's clean up still is underway...hence the former PM again lies when saying he doesn't have a VISA to return to Thailand....as a Thai citizen he required no such document.

I don't doubt that Amsterdam has probably had his hands full dealing with this case; no doubt he is happy to contiue billing with a more limited scope of work for the future.

So contrary to opinion it appears that Thaksin does have a visa for the United States, though the Amsterdam Office did not have any involvement with this matter. Well thats cleared that matter up at least.

Actually, it doesn't, as just like the original thread, there's been no proof offered. Amsterdam's word is as equally credible (un-credible) as Noppadon's.

It'll be cleared up when Thaksin actually enters the USA.

.

The way I read it the confirmation of the visa comes from the Bangkok Post as reported by the "legaltimes blog" (itself a source obviously as credible or non credible as Amsterdam, Noppodon or PhiPhiDon, for that matter)

Thaksin is scheduled to visit the United States in August to promote U.S. investment opportunities in Thailand, the Bangkok Post reported on Tuesday. The former prime minister, who was convicted in absentia on a conflict-of-interest charge brought in Thailand, secured a visa to travel to the United States, which generally won't let convicted felons enter the country.

But I forget myself! What am I doing offering up a viewpoint that differs from yours, of course you're right!..............

Lawyers know how to phrase their statement in such a way as to limit a possible responsibility for their words. "Amsterdam said his firm didn't assist Thaksin in obtaining the visa and isn't involved with the trip." doesn't mean a 'visa' is acknowledged. It's only that if k. Thaksin has a visa for the USA A&P were not involved.

So I guess we'll have to wait and see, only 30 more days in this month

You're so argumentative these days - take animatics advice, follow the link and read it, slowly, methodically, analytically.

Maybe he's got some new clients who demand more of his focus, like Syria's Assad, or Ghadafi's sons.

So contrary to opinion it appears that Thaksin does have a visa for the United States, though the Amsterdam Office did not have any involvement with this matter. Well thats cleared that matter up at least.

Actually, it doesn't, as just like the original thread, there's been no proof offered. Amsterdam's word is as equally credible (un-credible) as Noppadon's.

It'll be cleared up when Thaksin actually enters the USA.

.

The way I read it the confirmation of the visa comes from the Bangkok Post as reported by the "legaltimes blog" (itself a source obviously as credible or non credible as Amsterdam, Noppodon or PhiPhiDon, for that matter)

Thaksin is scheduled to visit the United States in August to promote U.S. investment opportunities in Thailand, the Bangkok Post reported on Tuesday. The former prime minister, who was convicted in absentia on a conflict-of-interest charge brought in Thailand, secured a visa to travel to the United States, which generally won't let convicted felons enter the country.

But I forget myself! What am I doing offering up a viewpoint that differs from yours, of course you're right!..............

You're erroneously presuming I'm of the viewpoint that he doesn't have one. I've not said that. I've said there's been no verifiable proof, eg. a photo of a proud Thaksin prominently displaying his travel documents for PR purposes, the same as he has on several other occasions..

Short of that documentary proof, the proof of action (actually entering the USA), is necessary to definitively prove he has a USA visa.

Until such time as one or the other occurs, I'm of the viewpoint that we don't know if he has it or not.

I agree with you when you say that viewpoint is "right!"

.

So I guess we'll have to wait and see, only 30 more days in this month

You're right.

.

Lawyers know how to phrase their statement in such a way as to limit a possible responsibility for their words. "Amsterdam said his firm didn't assist Thaksin in obtaining the visa and isn't involved with the trip." doesn't mean a 'visa' is acknowledged. It's only that if k. Thaksin has a visa for the USA A&P were not involved.

So I guess we'll have to wait and see, only 30 more days in this month

You're so argumentative these days - take animatics advice, follow the link and read it, slowly, methodically, analytically.

Look who's writing!

My dear, dear phiphidon, if you had followed the link yourself and read it you would have noticed that at the end of the article you have this "Amsterdam said his firm didn't assist Thaksin in obtaining the visa and isn't involved with the trip."

So, clarify my remark, I do like to believe that A&P had nothing to do with k. Thaksin's alleged visa, I do believe as lawyers and legal entity A&P tries to clearly minimize any possible backlash from having representated k. Thaksin in the USA. Furthermore only 30 more days this month, anyday now we'll be able to read all about one more country welcoming k. Thaksin with open arms as countries normally do with k. Thaksin if I remember correctly what I think nurofiend told me a few weeks ago.

Now offering my opinion here is surely argumentative as my opinion is provocative, controversial and against all some other members declare to believe. Some of those even speak out for freedom of speech (they like), against internet censureship, and above all against courts who do interfere with their freedom

Lawyers know how to phrase their statement in such a way as to limit a possible responsibility for their words. "Amsterdam said his firm didn't assist Thaksin in obtaining the visa and isn't involved with the trip." doesn't mean a 'visa' is acknowledged. It's only that if k. Thaksin has a visa for the USA A&P were not involved.

So I guess we'll have to wait and see, only 30 more days in this month

You're so argumentative these days - take animatics advice, follow the link and read it, slowly, methodically, analytically.

Look who's writing!

My dear, dear phiphidon, if you had followed the link yourself and read it you would have noticed that at the end of the article you have this "Amsterdam said his firm didn't assist Thaksin in obtaining the visa and isn't involved with the trip."

So, clarify my remark, I do like to believe that A&P had nothing to do with k. Thaksin's alleged visa, I do believe as lawyers and legal entity A&P tries to clearly minimize any possible backlash from having representated k. Thaksin in the USA. Furthermore only 30 more days this month, anyday now we'll be able to read all about one more country welcoming k. Thaksin with open arms as countries normally do with k. Thaksin if I remember correctly what I think nurofiend told me a few weeks ago.

Now offering my opinion here is surely argumentative as my opinion is provocative, controversial and against all some other members declare to believe. Some of those even speak out for freedom of speech (they like), against internet censureship, and above all against courts who do interfere with their freedom

Thats why I said read it carefully - I never maintained that amsterdam or his firm had anything to do with the visa - my point was the BP appeared to confirm that a visa had been procured as I said in my post.

Thaksin is scheduled to visit the United States in August to promote U.S. investment opportunities in Thailand, the Bangkok Post reported on Tuesday. The former prime minister, who was convicted in absentia on a conflict-of-interest charge brought in Thailand, secured a visa to travel to the United States, which generally won't let convicted felons enter the country

It's hard work here at times, jeez.

Lawyers know how to phrase their statement in such a way as to limit a possible responsibility for their words. "Amsterdam said his firm didn't assist Thaksin in obtaining the visa and isn't involved with the trip." doesn't mean a 'visa' is acknowledged. It's only that if k. Thaksin has a visa for the USA A&P were not involved.

So I guess we'll have to wait and see, only 30 more days in this month

You're so argumentative these days - take animatics advice, follow the link and read it, slowly, methodically, analytically.

Look who's writing!

My dear, dear phiphidon, if you had followed the link yourself and read it you would have noticed that at the end of the article you have this "Amsterdam said his firm didn't assist Thaksin in obtaining the visa and isn't involved with the trip."

So, clarify my remark, I do like to believe that A&P had nothing to do with k. Thaksin's alleged visa, I do believe as lawyers and legal entity A&P tries to clearly minimize any possible backlash from having representated k. Thaksin in the USA. Furthermore only 30 more days this month, anyday now we'll be able to read all about one more country welcoming k. Thaksin with open arms as countries normally do with k. Thaksin if I remember correctly what I think nurofiend told me a few weeks ago.

Now offering my opinion here is surely argumentative as my opinion is provocative, controversial and against all some other members declare to believe. Some of those even speak out for freedom of speech (they like), against internet censureship, and above all against courts who do interfere with their freedom

Thats why I said read it carefully - I never maintained that amsterdam or his firm had anything to do with the visa - my point was the BP appeared to confirm that a visa had been procured as I said in my post.

""Thaksin is scheduled to visit the United States in August to promote U.S. investment opportunities in Thailand, the Bangkok Post reported on Tuesday. The former prime minister, who was convicted in absentia on a conflict-of-interest charge brought in Thailand, secured a visa to travel to the United States, which generally won't let convicted felons enter the country""

It's hard work here at times, jeez.

Jeez man, I was willing to wait till the glorious day later this month when newspapers all over the world start to report on the open armed welcome k. Thaksin received arriving in the US of A.

Well, impatient as you are, and a bit forgetfull maybe (where are your reading glasses?). Your point is that a BP article seems to imply not only that k. Thaksin has a visa, but BP has seen some proof of it. That's not that much different from me saying that I believe A&P saying they had nothing to do with it. Of course all this 'appears' to confirm that allegedly there is a distinct possibility k. Thaksin has secured somehow a visa for the USA. That makes my inital comment (which you didn't like) not really that far off "doesn't mean a 'visa' is acknowledged. It's only that if k. Thaksin has a visa for the USA A&P were not involved."

Your point was that you told me to read an article more carefully and therefor now you say your "point was the BP appeared to confirm that a visa had been procured as I said in my post", which you didn't say before in your post. Remember, look near the top of this or to repeat your comment before:

"You're so argumentative these days - take animatics advice, follow the link and read it, slowly, methodically, analytically."

Any reference to BP, their post, things you didn't say?

My advice, dear phiphidon, get new glasses

REMARK: BP quote changed to "" rather than quote html, too many quotes, sorry

Do you have a link for this news?

they are just keeping his name in the news

so he doesn't get lost in the crowd

5k! You can be sure there were other things traded other that 5k. Money is not the only legal tender. Law firms like any other corporations

also have the full use of legal accounting proceedures under the IRS (Internal Revenue Code) that allow them to bury and shield other

gratuties; some big and some small under the Law.\

When Law Firms take on cases of any representation, it is never about moral or immoral principles/issues. Its soley about

points of Law.

Amsterdam tells Us congress his firm no longer Thaksin's lobbyist

The Nation

WASHINGTON: -- The international law firm Amsterdam and Partners has notified the US Congress that it has terminated its lobbying relationship with former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

The termination of lobbying report was filed on Monday although it came into affect on June 30.

Thaksin will still remain a client of the firm, founding partner Robert Amsterdam said.

Amsterdam also commented on Thaksin's trip to the US this month, saying his firm had no involvement in obtaining Thaksin's visa.

Thaksin's lawyer Noppadon Pattama said his client found the news of the end of lobbying efforts by Amsterdam's firm surprising and funny because it's not true.

"Thaksin never hired [Amsterdam] to be a lobbyist, therefore there's no need to stop hiring him as a lobbyist. Robert Amsterdam has never had any problem with Thaksin either. He is still determined to work to take those responsible for the red-shirt rally dispersal to the International Criminal Court," Noppadon said.

In the congressional document seen by The Nation, the firm's counsel Ronald M Jacobs gives notice that lobbyist Andrew Durkovic will no longer represent Thaksin.

The firm reported receiving less than Bt155,000 for its work since 2010 - fees that Noppadon contends are false.

Previously known as Amsterdam and Peroff, with its principal office in Toronto, the firm was contracted by Thaksin to provide counsel and guidance in the US capitol.

However, for the past two years, the lobbying efforts have focused not on the US but in other countries to aid Thaksin and the red-shirt movement.

At about 2pm yesterday, Amsterdam posted a message on his Twitter account - @robertamsterdam - affirming that he is still the lawyer for the red-shirt movement.

"Rumours I no longer work for the Red Shirts are completely false. I remain as committed as ever to making sure my clients receive justice. I should also confirm I remain retained by Dr Thaksin with my main efforts focused on bringing the 2010 Thai regime to account at the ICC."

Red-shirt leader Thida Thavornseth also confirmed that Amsterdam was still the group's lawyer and that Amsterdam had always had a good relationship with the red shirts and communicated often with them.

She did not acknowledge Amsterdam's status as a lobbyist.

-- The Nation 2012-08-02

Thaksin's lawyer Noppadon Pattama said his client found the news of the end of lobbying efforts by Amsterdam's firm surprising and funny because it's not true.

One Thaksin lawyer saying another Thaksin lawyer is lying.

.

"the firm has done "virtually nothing" in the United States for Thaksin"

Well they manage to get Thaksin a tourist visa to the USA.

That's priceless.

They say they had nothing to do with it in the article.

Do you honestly believe what they say?

"Thaksin never hired [Amsterdam] to be a lobbyist, therefore there's no need to stop hiring him as a lobbyist. Robert Amsterdam has never had any problem with Thaksin either. He is still determined to work to take those responsible for the red-shirt rally dispersal to the International Criminal Court," Noppadon said.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Replace the word 'dispersal' with 'riots,' and you have an interesting scenario.

Noppadon declaring that T never hired Amsterdam as a lobbyist, what a crack up that guy is. If Noppadon or T ever told the truth about anything, that would be headline news. They're genetically wired to tell lies.

As I understand it, a lobbying firm has an obligation to inform the justice department of his foreign customers, beginning and end of the contract and fees paid. The published fees concerned only the the activities related to the action of the firm in the USA and as R Amsterdam said "the firm has done "virtually nothing" in the United States", probably also the reason why other Thaksin's legal advisers were not aware of this activity.

Regarding other comments from the Nation, when you take into account their poor grasp of the english language and their obvious bias, they are as usual of very little interest.

As I understand it, a lobbying firm has an obligation to inform the justice department of his foreign customers, beginning and end of the contract and fees paid. The published fees concerned only the the activities related to the action of the firm in the USA and as R Amsterdam said "the firm has done "virtually nothing" in the United States", probably also the reason why other Thaksin's legal advisers were not aware of this activity.

Regarding other comments from the Nation, when you take into account their poor grasp of the english language and their obvious bias, they are as usual of very little interest.

You must have that wrong, because Thaksin never hired Amsterdam as a lobbyist.

5k! You can be sure there were other things traded other that 5k. Money is not the only legal tender. Law firms like any other corporations

also have the full use of legal accounting proceedures under the IRS (Internal Revenue Code) that allow them to bury and shield other

gratuties; some big and some small under the Law.\

When Law Firms take on ca

ses of any representation, it is never about moral or immoral principles/issues. Its soley about

points of Law.

I am a managing partner us a mid size, 45 lawyer, law firm and I haven't a clue what you are talking about. Hide fees for services? Barter for legal services? IRS loop holes for fees?

We take on cases when our clients have been sued and many times principles place a large role. Not sure about points of law. More factually driven, but it would amaze you how many people would not sue their doctors or hospitals if they were apologized to or treated appropriately after an issues arises.

Thaksin's lawyer Noppadon Pattama said his client found the news of the end of lobbying efforts by Amsterdam's firm surprising and funny because it's not true.

"Thaksin never hired [Amsterdam] to be a lobbyist," Noppadon said.

This official Lobbying Report Form submitted by Amsterdam & Peroff must have been filed for a "fake" Thaksin.

http://soprweb.senat...99-348AF313923E

Google is your friend, Noppadon.

.

.

Khun Noppadon.

You are exposed with your trausers down.

These guys should get together and get their bullshit straight.

Although this news item is a bit ambivalent, stating Amsterdam and Thaksin have parted ways but he remains on their books. The clue seems to be in the timing. June 30th is the last day of the financial year and that an incredably small amout is mentioned for 2 years work, therefore, it may have tax ramifications in the US.......

The international law firm Amsterdam and Partners has notified the US Congress that it has terminated its lobbying relationship with former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

The termination of lobbying report was filed on Monday although it came into affect on June 30.

Does this mean that our financially supported red shirt apologists might have vanished from this forum?

Let's see!

Does this mean that our financially supported red shirt apologists might have vanished from this forum?

Let's see!

They never have been financially supported, don't attack them for this, it's against forum rules.

They are lonely ignorants and we have an ear for them to make them happy.

Does this mean that our financially supported red shirt apologists might have vanished from this forum?

Let's see!

Are you implying that posters on this forum are being paid to post?

Does this mean that our financially supported red shirt apologists might have vanished from this forum?

Let's see!

They never have been financially supported, don't attack them for this, it's against forum rules.

They are lonely ignorants and we have an ear for them to make them happy.

Ah, it is the TVF pity-party.

Thanks.

Does this mean that our financially supported red shirt apologists might have vanished from this forum?

Let's see!

They never have been financially supported, don't attack them for this, it's against forum rules.

They are lonely ignorants and we have an ear for them to make them happy.

Ah, it is the TVF pity-party.

Thanks.

No problem.