Chalerm Rules Out Thaksin Extradition

[GentlemanJim]

A problem here is that there is a law that all the politicians love, and that is the defamation law. The defamation laws in Thailand are the strictest in the world, so much so that you can be jailed for defaming someone by stating for example they were involved in a crime, even when they were. It leads to all the statements we get such as '1/2 a billion transferred to Hong Kong by someone with the initials Ch'. For God sake name him and get him slammed up....the thing is they can't name him, or regardless of any subsequent guilty conviction they will be sued successfully for defamation. You won't see the likes of Chalerm getting rid of that law for a while.

A few years ago there was a televised broadcast of where HM had a PM down on his knees and bollocked him in front of the entire nation. If HM were only strong enough now he would have all these bast**ds down on the floor and give them what for, for dragging a developing country in to the sewer. The whole situation is a crying shame. There will be big trouble here one day. The population and the social culture is all very volcanic in nature, and the pressure is building and building and eventually ...bang. It's not if anymore, it's simply when!

[55Jay]

Convictions Shmavicksions.

The court members are put in place by the hi-so's. They ascend to hi-so status.

The democrats (and their lap dog Army) are the hi-so's.

Thus the court members are beholdened to the hi-so's.

You can put the crayon to stone and copy this model for many countries around the world.

LOS just happens to be one of them.

[Skywalker69]

Chalermalise Legalis

Not all the "ear medicine" in the World would help to cure Charlem.

[Skywalker69]

Here is a government minister, DPM and former police officer openly and publicly stating he will not support laws he doesn't personally like. How many countries in the world would allow a politician to remain in office after statements like this?

It's frightening to see the current government here getting more blatant in flaunting the law, misappropriating funds and scamming, lying and treating the electorate with more and more contempt. Sadly, the old maxim that "people get the government they deserve" seems to hold. Most Thais I know simply accept this is how it is, how governments behave and don't think they can change it. There just doesn't seem to be any passion to change things here, enforce the rule of law, attack corruption and mismanagement etc as there is in other countires. Everyone is too busy eating, shopping and watching the soaps!

Maybe it was a little white lie.

There OK according to this Government.

They all standing on a high mountain of withe lies, lets hope they fall down one day.

[yoshiwara]

Convictions Shmavicksions.

The court members are put in place by the hi-so's. They ascend to hi-so status.

The democrats (and their lap dog Army) are the hi-so's.

Thus the court members are beholdened to the hi-so's.

You can put the crayon to stone and copy this model for many countries around the world.

LOS just happens to be one of them.

It is of course a complete fake to push the idea that Thaksin is not a member of the ruling class. Deluded members of the left have for years tried to peddle the idea of Thaksin wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt but it doesn't quite wash when one considers Thaksin's strtegic alliance with the North-Eastern landowners. Rice subsidies anyone? Also the attack on the legal system is redolent somewhat more of a brownshirt position undermining legal institutions presumably to be replaced by people's courts under the leadership of Jatuporn and his myriad thug team. As has been pointed out a number of times, Thaksin never appealed the evidence presented to court showing the money laundering by Thaksin through both his family and family employees while he was PM. In short he used his political position to undertke common criminal activities. Convictions based on evidence. Not one of Thaksin's forum apologists have dared to question the evidence. Only bogus attacks on coup laws unconnected to his prosecution unless you think that the laws relating to money laundering were magically introduced post-coup. Now that the challenge to the legal underpinning of Thakin's convictions has failed even with the current government in power, we escalate to the next stage namely the slogan proclaiming 'down with the law'. I have always maintained that Thaksin's strategic agenda is about the capture of state power and the smashing of the legal system would be an essential prop on that journey. occasionally, just occasionally a Thakin apologist will reveal the utter reactionary pretensions of the Thaksin project. The nastiness of it is a sight to behold.

[55Jay]

LIke I said, crayons and stones and herein, lots of ulcers, which still eludes me.

If Thaksin keeled over and died tomorrow, many would, no doubt, be over-joyed and nery a "RIP' to be had here.

Shudder to think how quiet a place it would be. Probably not, we always have Yingluck.

Gooood night.

J

[OzMick]

LIke I said, crayons and stones and herein, lots of ulcers, which still eludes me.

If Thaksin keeled over and died tomorrow, many would, no doubt, be over-joyed and nery a "RIP' to be had here.

Shudder to think how quiet a place it would be. Probably not, we always have Yingluck.

Gooood night.

J

You expect the dummy to be the main act after the ventriloquist dies?

[alanferdi]

Chalerm waiting for better rules.... What an insult to the countries judicial system. Its like a farmer saying he would not plough the field till he has a better buffalo. Thailand will grow if they stop waiting around and act on what they have rather than work with utopian attitudes... and with thugs who thing they could define the law.

[alanferdi]

LIke I said, crayons and stones and herein, lots of ulcers, which still eludes me.

If Thaksin keeled over and died tomorrow, many would, no doubt, be over-joyed and nery a "RIP' to be had here.

Shudder to think how quiet a place it would be. Probably not, we always have Yingluck.

Gooood night.

J

You expect the dummy to be the main act after the ventriloquist dies?

Thaksin would make a good mummie .... The mummie returns

[animatic]

When Thailand has better rules, and not just those that admire the court, then I will ask Thaksin to return," Chalerm said.

It was only 10 days ago that 25 people appeared at court to answer charges Thaksin was also summoned to answer the same charge(s) but he failed to appear, now this clowns comments have surely given the 25 who appeared a way out?

"Let me ask a question: in the case of the Ratchadaphisek land purchase, [Thaksin's] wife bought the land, but you convicted the husband?

"No other country would do this, only Thailand.

If my memory serves me correct, it was shown that Thaksin used his wife and his sons name to make unscrupulous deals, which is fairly common practice in matters like these!

I do however agree with "No other country would do this, only Thailand" if it is applied to the way the matter of Thaksin's extradition and issue of his passport is concerned.

He also said that he did not need to explain when and where he met the former leader because it was a private matter and that the opposition Democrat Party was welcome to file a censure motion against him.

So Yingluck's assurance of transparency now does not apply?

Thailand's politics are the laughing stock of the world and rank alongside the likes of Ghana, Somalia and Nigeria.

All women in Thailand are either the chattel of their fathers or their husbands,

and are not allowed to sign certain contracts, such as land purchase,

without the counter signature of the 'male protector'.

Thaksin regardless of who provided his wife with the money was legally obliged to counter sign.

He did, expecting that the two part fantasy;

that he as Prime minister, would not be considered boss of the boss of

the government authority that was selling the land to his wife.

And that his 'power' would prevent that from becoming an issue.

At best, a power backed semantics dodge.

But when he no longer had the hands on power to prevent the dodge from being unraveled,

he was charged for that signature and the potential abuse of power it represented.

So no, the husband was not convicted for his wife buying the land,

but because he co-signed for her to do it, his action, not hers.

Thus making his subordinates under pressure to please their highest level boss.

He could have fired their bosses boss, and his boss, all along the chain.

Was it political, well he was a politician,

and political will was needed to make the prosecution,

because he was using political will to prevent his prosecution.

But he was prosecuted under laws in Thailand from BEFORE the coup,

for actions done before the coup. So totally legitimate conviction,

no matter what whining excuses he makes.

Edited October 20, 2012 by animatic

[hellodolly]

55jay

Sounds like some wannabe noodle stand owner who with his Thai wife as a partner couldn't get a license to open the noodle stand in the parliament right behind the speakers seat. When the Dems were in power and now blames his failure on the Dem's

Edited October 20, 2012 by hellodolly

[yoshiwara]

But he was prosecuted under laws in Thailand from BEFORE the coup,

for actions done before the coup. So totally legitimate conviction,

no matter what whining excuses he makes.

Exactly.

[AleG]

But he was prosecuted under laws in Thailand from BEFORE the coup,

for actions done before the coup. So totally legitimate conviction,

no matter what whining excuses he makes.

Exactly.

Furthermore, that it took a coup to get justice rolling is, if anything, an indictment on Thaksin's government.

[Chads]

one of them drives a pink Bentley.

That, sir, should be a chargeable offence!

Edited October 20, 2012 by Chads

[Rimmer]

Inflammatory post and quoted reply removed

[OzMick]

Hopefully, in the not so distant future, there will be prosecution for corruptly failing to carry out the duties of a government position. There is a clear conflict of interest here, and personal interest is being being given preference to carrying out his duties by upholding the law of the land - the definition of corruption.

[Skywalker69]

Hopefully, in the not so distant future, there will be prosecution for corruptly failing to carry out the duties of a government position. There is a clear conflict of interest here, and personal interest is being being given preference to carrying out his duties by upholding the law of the land - the definition of corruption.

I can´t wait for that distant future, I wish it would come tomorrow.

[Rich teacher]

If the charges are solely based on evidence from the coup plotters

and that is it; 'nothing but ginned up evidence with no basis in fact',

then why was he convicted by POST coup verified evidence

during the tenur of one of his own Thaksin supported friendly governments?

There's the rub,

the CHARGES were made by the Assets Examination Committee,

but that has not existed for several years now.

But the charges are real in legitimate pre-coup in bodies SINCE then.

And have remained so across several governments including 3 pro Thaksin ones.

Regardless of it's origin at the AEC. the actual prosecution of those facts of law is to be

done by the Attorney General and Courts that are well passed that committees tenture,

and have no connection with it, other than taking in collated evidence from it in previous incarnations.

Nothing in Chalerm's whining says the evidence is bad, only that the investigative body is.

There have been 3 Thaksin friendly Samak, Somchai, and Yingluck governments since the coup.

So how would the disbanded AEC have ANY bearing on the prosecution of charges that

they haven't had a hand in in several years?

Basically if there was no basis for the charges being acted on,

why have they not been thrown out ages ago?

Because the evidence is valid.

If there is no basis for the charges to be acted on, then why is Thaksin at ANY RISK by going the

formalities in court and having the judges summarily throw them out for no basis in law?

Because the evidence itself can be re validated in the courts, removing any taint of coup or AEC.

If Thaksin is the only one of a dozen + defendants who have been brought to court on the charges,

that aree presently going through with their cases in court, how can he say that HE ALONE

is the only one that is a victim of these charges stemming from the coup.

Because this is the only legal leg he has to stand on, and that is a false leg made of flimsy balsa wood.

They all should have the same argument, that they are being charged based on a

political vendetta against Thaksin, yet in the other cases others around him at the time

are not successfully making that argument. And all this under Thaksin friendly governments.

He is afraid of these charges, not because of their 'origin at the AEC', that is a smoke screen,

they could redo the charges again and come up with the same charges, they don't bother,

because there is enough evidence collected now, AND because under law there IS

validity to the charges and not only Thaksin, but his cronies of the time, will all go down,

because it is feared that the IS enough evidence to to hang them out to dry for a long time.

So he doesn't return to face them and goes for global amnesty.

So many are connected it would be political carnage if he didn't try to

globally get them dropped and stall them, for his political machines safety.

Would anyone be surprised a certain politician who's initial is C,

might be found tooth and jowl with said defendants of that time?

Thaksin's tentacles reached far an wide, who knows what OTHER avenues of investigation

all these cases could open up, if followed thoroughly through in courts?

More smoke screen and obfuscation from Mr. C. to benefit the liege lord,

the AEC is not the point, but the evidence that it collected is.

General Sonthi's reconciliation plan, supported by PT so consequently Thaksin, included having any convictions brought about from ASC charges TO BE RETRIED not overturned. Therefore, unlike you tenuously claim, Thaksin is not 'afraid of the charges' but quite willing to have them reheard. What stopped this was the Dems throwing their toys out of the cot in parliament and then the yellow extremists taking to the street.

[OzMick]

General Sonthi's reconciliation plan, supported by PT so consequently Thaksin, included having any convictions brought about from ASC charges TO BE RETRIED not overturned. Therefore, unlike you tenuously claim, Thaksin is not 'afraid of the charges' but quite willing to have them reheard. What stopped this was the Dems throwing their toys out of the cot in parliament and then the yellow extremists taking to the street.

So Chalerm would be in charge of collecting the evidence? Who's bringing the doughnuts?

[Rich teacher]

General Sonthi's reconciliation plan, supported by PT so consequently Thaksin, included having any convictions brought about from ASC charges TO BE RETRIED not overturned. Therefore, unlike you tenuously claim, Thaksin is not 'afraid of the charges' but quite willing to have them reheard. What stopped this was the Dems throwing their toys out of the cot in parliament and then the yellow extremists taking to the street.

So Chalerm would be in charge of collecting the evidence? Who's bringing the doughnuts?

So obviously you are against having the Ratchada cases, where prosecution witnesses and lawyers were allowed private counsel with the judges, reheard.

[OzMick]

General Sonthi's reconciliation plan, supported by PT so consequently Thaksin, included having any convictions brought about from ASC charges TO BE RETRIED not overturned. Therefore, unlike you tenuously claim, Thaksin is not 'afraid of the charges' but quite willing to have them reheard. What stopped this was the Dems throwing their toys out of the cot in parliament and then the yellow extremists taking to the street.

So Chalerm would be in charge of collecting the evidence? Who's bringing the doughnuts?

So obviously you are against having the Ratchada cases, where prosecution witnesses and lawyers were allowed private counsel with the judges, reheard.

I see no reason to have it reheard as the defendant stated he would accept the decision of the court and failed to lodge an appeal. He also has quite a few other cases to be tried, on more serious matters.

OTOH i can see why he wouldn't be AFRAID to have the case re-heard, with his criminal cronies handling the prosecution and the bribery.

[Rich teacher]

General Sonthi's reconciliation plan, supported by PT so consequently Thaksin, included having any convictions brought about from ASC charges TO BE RETRIED not overturned. Therefore, unlike you tenuously claim, Thaksin is not 'afraid of the charges' but quite willing to have them reheard. What stopped this was the Dems throwing their toys out of the cot in parliament and then the yellow extremists taking to the street.

So Chalerm would be in charge of collecting the evidence? Who's bringing the doughnuts?

So obviously you are against having the Ratchada cases, where prosecution witnesses and lawyers were allowed private counsel with the judges, reheard.

I see no reason to have it reheard as the defendant stated he would accept the decision of the court and failed to lodge an appeal. He also has quite a few other cases to be tried, on more serious matters.

OTOH i can see why he wouldn't be AFRAID to have the case re-heard, with his criminal cronies handling the prosecution and the bribery.

Well u r certainly showing your bias here. It needs to be reheard because of serious lapses in the due process. I'm sure you know the details of the case.

[whybother]

So obviously you are against having the Ratchada cases, where prosecution witnesses and lawyers were allowed private counsel with the judges, reheard.

What is to be reheard? He was PM. He signed off on the purchase of the land. The land was owned by the FIDF. The FIDF was under the control of the government. He was the head of the government. The law says he can't be personally part of a deal involving the government.

[MikeOboe57]

Well u r certainly showing your bias here. It needs to be reheard because of serious lapses in the due process. I'm sure you know the details of the case.

The only lapse in due process was that your darling got convicted.

[smedly]

how this man can survive in politics after this pile of sh.....te is beyond me, for me he has hung himself out to dry..........................another step closer to the demise of this government, but who would honestly like to take up the reins after the utter mess they have created, TS is destroying Thailand and the people don't see it, just like they still haven't realised he raped them for billions through his office..................Thailand is waiting for an honest hero to rise up and lead this country to prosperity, it certaintly isn't Thaksin or anyone in his family...........unfortunately not too many Thais see it quite like that

[OzMick]

So Chalerm would be in charge of collecting the evidence? Who's bringing the doughnuts?

So obviously you are against having the Ratchada cases, where prosecution witnesses and lawyers were allowed private counsel with the judges, reheard.

I see no reason to have it reheard as the defendant stated he would accept the decision of the court and failed to lodge an appeal. He also has quite a few other cases to be tried, on more serious matters.

OTOH i can see why he wouldn't be AFRAID to have the case re-heard, with his criminal cronies handling the prosecution and the bribery.

Well u r certainly showing your bias here. It needs to be reheard because of serious lapses in the due process. I'm sure you know the details of the case.

I have no problems being biased against a thief of monumental amounts of money from the people of Thailand. I know not only the details, but the interesting parts like the bribery attempt when the evidence was against him, the granting of bail and fleeing the country, the lack of an appeal, and the claims of political motivation in a criminal case - who cares about the motivation when he is guilty?

So could you please explain your apparent bias?

[rubl]

General Sonthi's reconciliation plan, supported by PT so consequently Thaksin, included having any convictions brought about from ASC charges TO BE RETRIED not overturned. Therefore, unlike you tenuously claim, Thaksin is not 'afraid of the charges' but quite willing to have them reheard. What stopped this was the Dems throwing their toys out of the cot in parliament and then the yellow extremists taking to the street.

The 'reconciliation bill of Gen Sonthi is an interesting read.

It suggests, but doesn't clearly mention re-trials. In a way the bill builds up slowly from section 1 to 5.

Section 1. name

section 2. will apply the day after publishing in the Royal Gazette

Section 3: Any acts related to political protests, or expressions of political opinion between September 15, 2005 and May 10, 2011 that were deemed illegal will no longer be illegal and the persons who committed those acts will be freed from legal responsibility for their acts:

Section 4: Once this Act comes into force, for any person who is under investigation for acts committed per Article 3 the person who has authority to investigate shall suspend the investigation. If the case is in court, then the prosecutor must withdraw the case. If the person has already been convicted, then the person must be deemed as never having been convicted. If the person is serving a penalty, then the penalty must end and the person released.

Section 5: Any person affected by the acts of an organisation appointed under orders of the Council for National Security, or the council’s chairman, which seized power on September 19, 2006, will not be considered suspects or wrongdoers and the statement in Article 4 shall apply. All related organisations will treat the persons affected according to the rule of law.

So, applying section 5 to k. Thaksin means applying section 4. which means no longer can be applied the status of 'criminal fugitive' or 'self-exile former PM', just a proper law abiding citizen

[Tatsujin]

General Sonthi's reconciliation plan, supported by PT so consequently Thaksin, included having any convictions brought about from ASC charges TO BE RETRIED not overturned. Therefore, unlike you tenuously claim, Thaksin is not 'afraid of the charges' but quite willing to have them reheard. What stopped this was the Dems throwing their toys out of the cot in parliament and then the yellow extremists taking to the street.

The 'reconciliation bill of Gen Sonthi is an interesting read.

It suggests, but doesn't clearly mention re-trials. In a way the bill builds up slowly from section 1 to 5.

Section 1. name

section 2. will apply the day after publishing in the Royal Gazette

Section 3: Any acts related to political protests, or expressions of political opinion between September 15, 2005 and May 10, 2011 that were deemed illegal will no longer be illegal and the persons who committed those acts will be freed from legal responsibility for their acts:

Section 4: Once this Act comes into force, for any person who is under investigation for acts committed per Article 3 the person who has authority to investigate shall suspend the investigation. If the case is in court, then the prosecutor must withdraw the case. If the person has already been convicted, then the person must be deemed as never having been convicted. If the person is serving a penalty, then the penalty must end and the person released.

Section 5: Any person affected by the acts of an organisation appointed under orders of the Council for National Security, or the council's chairman, which seized power on September 19, 2006, will not be considered suspects or wrongdoers and the statement in Article 4 shall apply. All related organisations will treat the persons affected according to the rule of law.

So, applying section 5 to k. Thaksin means applying section 4. which means no longer can be applied the status of 'criminal fugitive' or 'self-exile former PM', just a proper law abiding citizen

Exactly, a complete whitewash for the high and mighty Mr Thaksin.

Next time (if) I am arrested, I shall simply state that I don't recognize any laws here that I don't agree with, same as he is doing. Probably won't get me very far tho lol

[Rich teacher]

I have no problems being biased against a thief of monumental amounts of money from the people of Thailand. I know not only the details, but the interesting parts like the bribery attempt when the evidence was against him, the granting of bail and fleeing the country, the lack of an appeal, and the claims of political motivation in a criminal case - who cares about the motivation when he is guilty?

So could you please explain your apparent bias?

The 'thieves of monumental amounts of money from the people of Thailand' if you look at any figures were the instigators and backers of the 2006 coup. Thailand has been unable to climb out of the mess and hatred caused by that self- serving unconstitutional act. Pre-coup the country was doing nicely, but the problem was it was coming at the expense of the army budget, Democrats power base and Bangkok elites stranglehold on the country's wealth.

[Nickymaster]

Do I know Rich teacher..?