COURT
Court judges file complaint against red shirts leaders
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Three Constitutional Court judges yesterday filed a complaint with police against three leaders of a red-shirt group, alleging they filed a false compliant with police.

The three judges, who voted to accept a petition against the Article 68 amendment, had officials of the Office of the Constitutional Court submit their compliant to Thung Song Hong police station.

The complaint alleges that Pongpisit Kongsena, alias Lek Bandon, Malairak Thonchai and Charn Chaiya, filed a complaint with police which was based on a false statement, thus damaging the judges' reputation. The three red shirts are leaders of the People's Radio for Democracy Group, which earlier held a protest in front of the court, demanding the three judges resign.

The three accused the judges of sedition and malfeasance for accepting the petition for review.

In the judges' complaint yesterday, they insisted they had the authority to review the petition. It said the three leaders of the small red-shirt group had also damaged their reputations by giving interviews to the media, during which they claimed they would send copies of their complaint to other red-shirt groups nationwide and urge those groups to also file complaints at police stations around the country.

The judges allege the move by the three red shirts was a malicious attempt to harm their reputations.


-- The Nation 2013-05-11

Great ! Now let's see how the government, PTP, the reds, DSI et al wriggle out of dealing with this

There must thousands of lawyers in America thinking they are working in the wrong country.

Deliberate misrepresentation with intent, perjury under oath and making false statements. A law school student could make that stick. Throw these red 'leaders' in with the rest of the great unwashed and treat them the way they deserve. Contempt of judicial process but let's wait and see if Chalerm intervenes to keep them out of incarceration. The police may not act and the whole thing becomes yet another political football.

There must thousands of lawyers in America thinking they are working in the wrong country.

Ambulance chasers become Politician Chasers

The judges allege the move by the three red shirts was a malicious attempt to harm their reputations.

By alleging the above, aren't the judges guilty of defaming the red shirts?

30 - 15.

The judges allege the move by the three red shirts was a malicious attempt to harm their reputations.

By alleging the above, aren't the judges guilty of defaming the red shirts?

30 - 15.

That would be up to a judge to decide.

Inflammatory post and quoted replies removed

These fabricted issues of conflict between the Thai Judiciary and Lawmakers is absurd.

Across the spectrum of Judicial and and Democratic responsibility Thai professionals seem unable to adopt appropriate conduct or apply themselves to the tenets of their profession.

Among the few of Thailand's ruling class that can meet the onerous standards required of Law makers and the Judiciary Prem Tinsolanada and Yingluck Shinawatra are notable exceptions for their dignity, integrety, and statesmanship.

Thailand should identify others of suffiecient education and composure to silence the deafening noise of the trouble makers that disrupt the govenance of Thailand with dignity.

These fabricted issues of conflict between the Thai Judiciary and Lawmakers is absurd.

Across the spectrum of Judicial and and Democratic responsibility Thai professionals seem unable to adopt appropriate conduct or apply themselves to the tenets of their profession.

Among the few of Thailand's ruling class that can meet the onerous standards required of Law makers and the Judiciary Prem Tinsolanada and Yingluck Shinawatra are notable exceptions for their dignity, integrety, and statesmanship.

Thailand should identify others of suffiecient education and composure to silence the deafening noise of the trouble makers that disrupt the govenance of Thailand with dignity.

But it's the Constitutional Courts judges who are filing complaint against this rally's representatives.

In short they seek to stimy these peoples representatives , protesting outside their court about the court's perceived partisan support for the opposition party, and have arrested all those who "doth protest."

"Freedom of Speech" is being challenged.

It's not as if there is amongst the court's adversaries an "esteemed" cartoonist comparing them "in the name of free speech" to....

A return to "Double standards" if they ever went away.

indyuk, on 11 May 2013 - 14:23, said:

.............notable exceptions for their dignity, integrety, and statesmanship.

Haha...yes... erm...

These fabricted issues of conflict between the Thai Judiciary and Lawmakers is absurd.

Across the spectrum of Judicial and and Democratic responsibility Thai professionals seem unable to adopt appropriate conduct or apply themselves to the tenets of their profession.

Among the few of Thailand's ruling class that can meet the onerous standards required of Law makers and the Judiciary Prem Tinsolanada and Yingluck Shinawatra are notable exceptions for their dignity, integrety, and statesmanship.

Thailand should identify others of suffiecient education and composure to silence the deafening noise of the trouble makers that disrupt the govenance of Thailand with dignity.

But it's the Constitutional Courts judges who are filing complaint against this rally's representatives.

In short they seek to stimy these peoples representatives , protesting outside their court about the court's perceived partisan support for the opposition party, and have arrested all those who "doth protest."

"Freedom of Speech" is being challenged.

It's not as if there is amongst the court's adversaries an "esteemed" cartoonist comparing them "in the name of free speech" to....

A return to "Double standards" if they ever went away.

Freedom of SPEECH is one thing, but the protesters then filed POLICE COMPLAINTS against the judges. I think that the judges are correct to counter with a complaint, as what had been done by the protest leaders amounts to contempt of court, and is in fact in the longer view, contempt of the constitution as well.

If the constitution court is prevented from ruling on matters affecting the constitution, then who should that be, a politician?

These fabricted issues of conflict between the Thai Judiciary and Lawmakers is absurd.

Across the spectrum of Judicial and and Democratic responsibility Thai professionals seem unable to adopt appropriate conduct or apply themselves to the tenets of their profession.

Among the few of Thailand's ruling class that can meet the onerous standards required of Law makers and the Judiciary Prem Tinsolanada and Yingluck Shinawatra are notable exceptions for their dignity, integrety, and statesmanship.

Thailand should identify others of suffiecient education and composure to silence the deafening noise of the trouble makers that disrupt the govenance of Thailand with dignity.

This issue is not about 'lawmakers' it is about 'lawbreakers'.

Yingluck blew her 'onerous standard' in Ulan Bator.

As for your last sentence - complete nonsense, marginally worse than the rest.

These fabricted issues of conflict between the Thai Judiciary and Lawmakers is absurd.

Across the spectrum of Judicial and and Democratic responsibility Thai professionals seem unable to adopt appropriate conduct or apply themselves to the tenets of their profession.

Among the few of Thailand's ruling class that can meet the onerous standards required of Law makers and the Judiciary Prem Tinsolanada and Yingluck Shinawatra are notable exceptions for their dignity, integrety, and statesmanship.

Thailand should identify others of suffiecient education and composure to silence the deafening noise of the trouble makers that disrupt the govenance of Thailand with dignity.

But it's the Constitutional Courts judges who are filing complaint against this rally's representatives.

In short they seek to stimy these peoples representatives , protesting outside their court about the court's perceived partisan support for the opposition party, and have arrested all those who "doth protest."

"Freedom of Speech" is being challenged.

It's not as if there is amongst the court's adversaries an "esteemed" cartoonist comparing them "in the name of free speech" to....

A return to "Double standards" if they ever went away.

Freedom of SPEECH is one thing, but the protesters then filed POLICE COMPLAINTS against the judges. I think that the judges are correct to counter with a complaint, as what had been done by the protest leaders amounts to contempt of court, and is in fact in the longer view, contempt of the constitution as well.

If the constitution court is prevented from ruling on matters affecting the constitution, then who should that be, a politician?

What then is the constitutional courts role then?

Is it's role to stand forever against reform? It's own reform?

Are its judges inviolate?

If the government of the people wish to reform the constitution is this court (and its supporters) implaccably opposed to any reforms.

it would seem so. It is so.

This is the nub and the hub.

I say "Democracy rules" and a junta apponted court cannot see the wood for the trees.

These fabricted issues of conflict between the Thai Judiciary and Lawmakers is absurd.

Across the spectrum of Judicial and and Democratic responsibility Thai professionals seem unable to adopt appropriate conduct or apply themselves to the tenets of their profession.

Among the few of Thailand's ruling class that can meet the onerous standards required of Law makers and the Judiciary Prem Tinsolanada and Yingluck Shinawatra are notable exceptions for their dignity, integrety, and statesmanship.

Thailand should identify others of suffiecient education and composure to silence the deafening noise of the trouble makers that disrupt the govenance of Thailand with dignity.

But it's the Constitutional Courts judges who are filing complaint against this rally's representatives.

In short they seek to stimy these peoples representatives , protesting outside their court about the court's perceived partisan support for the opposition party, and have arrested all those who "doth protest."

"Freedom of Speech" is being challenged.

It's not as if there is amongst the court's adversaries an "esteemed" cartoonist comparing them "in the name of free speech" to....

A return to "Double standards" if they ever went away.

Freedom of SPEECH is one thing, but the protesters then filed POLICE COMPLAINTS against the judges. I think that the judges are correct to counter with a complaint, as what had been done by the protest leaders amounts to contempt of court, and is in fact in the longer view, contempt of the constitution as well.

If the constitution court is prevented from ruling on matters affecting the constitution, then who should that be, a politician?

What then is the constitutional courts role then?

Is it's role to stand forever against reform? It's own reform?

Are its judges inviolate?

If the government of the people wish to reform the constitution is this court (and its supporters) implaccably opposed to any reforms.

it would seem so. It is so.

This is the nub and the hub.

I say "Democracy rules" and a junta apponted court cannot see the wood for the trees.

I think you have a case of premature evocation, the CC is doing its mandated role of ruling on the constitutional issue submitted to it in accord with article 63. However, it has not made a ruling yet, it is not standing against reform, it is making a determination.

You can lie, twist and spin it any way you like but this attempt at perverting the constitutional rights of Thai citizens is a slap in the face of democracy by red agitators and party list MPs who represent no one but Thaksin.

These fabricted issues of conflict between the Thai Judiciary and Lawmakers is absurd.

Across the spectrum of Judicial and and Democratic responsibility Thai professionals seem unable to adopt appropriate conduct or apply themselves to the tenets of their profession.

Among the few of Thailand's ruling class that can meet the onerous standards required of Law makers and the Judiciary Prem Tinsolanada and Yingluck Shinawatra are notable exceptions for their dignity, integrety, and statesmanship.

Thailand should identify others of suffiecient education and composure to silence the deafening noise of the trouble makers that disrupt the govenance of Thailand with dignity.

But it's the Constitutional Courts judges who are filing complaint against this rally's representatives.

In short they seek to stimy these peoples representatives , protesting outside their court about the court's perceived partisan support for the opposition party, and have arrested all those who "doth protest."

"Freedom of Speech" is being challenged.

It's not as if there is amongst the court's adversaries an "esteemed" cartoonist comparing them "in the name of free speech" to....

A return to "Double standards" if they ever went away.

Freedom of SPEECH is one thing, but the protesters then filed POLICE COMPLAINTS against the judges. I think that the judges are correct to counter with a complaint, as what had been done by the protest leaders amounts to contempt of court, and is in fact in the longer view, contempt of the constitution as well.

If the constitution court is prevented from ruling on matters affecting the constitution, then who should that be, a politician?

What then is the constitutional courts role then?

Is it's role to stand forever against reform? It's own reform?

Are its judges inviolate?

If the government of the people wish to reform the constitution is this court (and its supporters) implaccably opposed to any reforms.

it would seem so. It is so.

This is the nub and the hub.

I say "Democracy rules" and a junta apponted court cannot see the wood for the trees.

Judging from your post you don't seem to have any idea what democracy means or is.

The role of the CC is, as a part of very important checks & balances under democracy, to protect the country from self-serving

political changes to the constitution. It also upholds the current constitution.

The court was not appointed by any junta - a google search will help you understand their role. And no, they have not prevented any changes to the constitution - only making some (easy to understand) guidelines about how it should be done. They have also accepted a petition that argues against the current regime's attempt to prevent other petitions.

The constitution does not belong to any one party but the people of Thailand who voted to accept the current constitution. That is something that the PTP party & their petty dictator in Dubai don't want to understand.

waza sayz:

I think you have a case of premature evocation, the CC is doing its
mandated role of ruling on the constitutional issue submitted to it in
accord with article 63. However, it has not made a ruling yet, it is
not standing against reform, it is making a determination.

You can lie, twist and spin it any way you like but this attempt at
perverting the constitutional rights of Thai citizens is a slap in the
face of democracy by red agitators and party list MPs who represent no
one but Thaksin.

I say:

What cxck with an O!

Dressed up righteous and proud you wish to lecture on the efficacy of the CC court and its honourable "work."

The court can be judged though through its previous adjudgements.

Not really helping their case I warrant.

This court was apponted way back in 2006 by the junta (obviously unopposed, hahha,)

These fabricted issues of conflict between the Thai Judiciary and Lawmakers is absurd.

Across the spectrum of Judicial and and Democratic responsibility Thai professionals seem unable to adopt appropriate conduct or apply themselves to the tenets of their profession.

Among the few of Thailand's ruling class that can meet the onerous standards required of Law makers and the Judiciary Prem Tinsolanada and Yingluck Shinawatra are notable exceptions for their dignity, integrety, and statesmanship.

Thailand should identify others of suffiecient education and composure to silence the deafening noise of the trouble makers that disrupt the govenance of Thailand with dignity.

But it's the Constitutional Courts judges who are filing complaint against this rally's representatives.

In short they seek to stimy these peoples representatives , protesting outside their court about the court's perceived partisan support for the opposition party, and have arrested all those who "doth protest."

"Freedom of Speech" is being challenged.

It's not as if there is amongst the court's adversaries an "esteemed" cartoonist comparing them "in the name of free speech" to....

A return to "Double standards" if they ever went away.

Freedom of SPEECH is one thing, but the protesters then filed POLICE COMPLAINTS against the judges. I think that the judges are correct to counter with a complaint, as what had been done by the protest leaders amounts to contempt of court, and is in fact in the longer view, contempt of the constitution as well.

If the constitution court is prevented from ruling on matters affecting the constitution, then who should that be, a politician?

What then is the constitutional courts role then?

Is it's role to stand forever against reform? It's own reform?

Are its judges inviolate?

If the government of the people wish to reform the constitution is this court (and its supporters) implaccably opposed to any reforms.

it would seem so. It is so.

This is the nub and the hub.

I say "Democracy rules" and a junta apponted court cannot see the wood for the trees.

Not bad - accept PTP are not democratic and refuse to follow the referendum that is necessary on the grounds that it may not support their attempts at dictatorship or whitewashing criminals; or allow them to circumvent the checks and balances that are in place to keep them in order.

See the difference?

These fabricted issues of conflict between the Thai Judiciary and Lawmakers is absurd.

Across the spectrum of Judicial and and Democratic responsibility Thai professionals seem unable to adopt appropriate conduct or apply themselves to the tenets of their profession.

Among the few of Thailand's ruling class that can meet the onerous standards required of Law makers and the Judiciary Prem Tinsolanada and Yingluck Shinawatra are notable exceptions for their dignity, integrety, and statesmanship.

Thailand should identify others of suffiecient education and composure to silence the deafening noise of the trouble makers that disrupt the govenance of Thailand with dignity.

You are joking, right? " notable exceptions for their dignity, integrety, and statesmanship". Do you have any examples to substantiate your assertion of these accolades? If so please supply them. Otherwise it's 0 out of 3.

The judges are right to complain to the authorities.

They have only been doing their job according to the law they operate under, and have been getting intimidated and abused for doing it.

That the clowns with red shirts and the PT MP's are trying to stop them deliberating on the issue and making a decision obviously indicates PT and their boss believe that decision will go against them.

Can be likened to he supporters of one contestant trying to beat up the referee before the fight (game) has even started.

Interestingly both the 1997 and the 2007 Constitution have this section 27

"1997 S27: Rights and liberties recognised by this Constitution expressly, by implication or by decisions of the Constitutional Court shall be protected and directly binding on the National Assembly, the Council of Ministers, Courts and other State organs in enacting, applying and interpreting laws."

"2007 S27: Rights and liberties recognised by this Constitution explicitly, by implication or by decisions of the Constitutional Court shall be protected and directly binding on the National Assembly, the Council of Ministers, the Courts, the Constitutional organisations and all State organs in enacting, applying and interpreting laws."

This court was apponted way back in 2006 by the junta (obviously unopposed, hahha,)

Try again.

This court was appointed on May 28, 2008 during the Samak administration.

Nominated by the Senate and approved through His Majesty the King

(the same as under the 1997 Constitution)

http://www.constitutionalcourt.or.th/english/

Yes...Minister

Baerboxer

sayz:

"Not bad - accept PTP are not democratic and refuse to follow the

referendum that is necessary on the grounds that it may not support

their attempts at dictatorship or whitewashing criminals; or allow them

to circumvent the checks and balances that are in place to keep them in

order.

See the difference?"

quote unquote maestros please note: ie What a joke

More bxllox.

It was PTP who suggested that there should be a referendum.

Straight off the Dems started canvassing for an illegal vote abstention so;

Back to Square One.

If

you and the rest continue to refuse to accept that the nub and the hub

of the current constuitutional problem is solely over a return to

pre-unconstitutional coup 1997 constitution and just give us all this pallava about corruption!! Haha

Who in the real world gives a flying fxck whether Thaskin returns or not.

What are the dems and their allies really afraid of?

If some would only recognize that the contentious issues the Pheu Thai party tries to 'amend' are not substantially different between the 1997 and 2007 versions. Like this section 27 I quoted, or the 2007 Const. having "five year ban added" where 1997 only has party dissolution.

So, the Pheu Thai party doesn't really want to return to the 1997 Constitution it would seem. It looks more like some obfuscation with additionally clarifications to be removed. Imagine the affront, requirements on Senators (elected or appointed) are now much higher than for MPs :-)

Baerboxer

sayz:

"Not bad - accept PTP are not democratic and refuse to follow the

referendum that is necessary on the grounds that it may not support

their attempts at dictatorship or whitewashing criminals; or allow them

to circumvent the checks and balances that are in place to keep them in

order.

See the difference?"

quote unquote maestros please note: ie What a joke

More bxllox.

It was PTP who suggested that there should be a referendum.

Straight off the Dems started canvassing for an illegal vote abstention so;

Back to Square One.

If

you and the rest continue to refuse to accept that the nub and the hub

of the current constuitutional problem is solely over a return to

pre-unconstitutional coup 1997 constitution and just give us all this pallava about corruption!! Haha

Who in the real world gives a flying fxck whether Thaskin returns or not.

What are the dems and their allies really afraid of?

Could you please provide a means of deciphering your post. I'll assume that you're not a native English speaker & try and understand what you are attempting to say.

It was PTP who suggested that there should be a referendum.Straight off the Dems started canvassing for an illegal vote abstention so; Back to Square One.

The referendum was held by the military-appointed government. PTP suggested nothing and the Democrats had no involvement. The military ruled that no canvassing, either for or against, could take place. It was the cleanest & fairest vote ever held in Thailand with no vote buying, partisan intimidation or promises of future goodies.

The 1997 constitution was never voted upon by the Thai electorate.

An off-topic post and reply have been deleted. An inflammatory post was also deleted.

Please stay on topic.

They should be called the Red Lying Thugs instead of red shirts... Really

Baerboxer

sayz:

"Not bad - accept PTP are not democratic and refuse to follow the

referendum that is necessary on the grounds that it may not support

their attempts at dictatorship or whitewashing criminals; or allow them

to circumvent the checks and balances that are in place to keep them in

order.

See the difference?"

quote unquote maestros please note: ie What a joke

More bxllox.

It was PTP who suggested that there should be a referendum.

Straight off the Dems started canvassing for an illegal vote abstention so;

Back to Square One.

If

you and the rest continue to refuse to accept that the nub and the hub

of the current constuitutional problem is solely over a return to

pre-unconstitutional coup 1997 constitution and just give us all this pallava about corruption!! Haha

Who in the real world gives a flying fxck whether Thaskin returns or not.

What are the dems and their allies really afraid of?

Could you please provide a means of deciphering your post. I'll assume that you're not a native English speaker & try and understand what you are attempting to say.

It was PTP who suggested that there should be a referendum.Straight off the Dems started canvassing for an illegal vote abstention so; Back to Square One.

The referendum was held by the military-appointed government. PTP suggested nothing and the Democrats had no involvement. The military ruled that no canvassing, either for or against, could take place. It was the cleanest & fairest vote ever held in Thailand with no vote buying, partisan intimidation or promises of future goodies.

The 1997 constitution was never voted upon by the Thai electorate.

Thank you Khunken. The parrot's understanding is about as clear as his cryptic post. The unfortunate profanities are the clearest to understand.

I think he's refering to some in PTP initially advocating a referendum, which the opposition threatened to boycott. Their advocation was swiftly reversed when more senior decisoon makers realized they were unlikely to win a referendum.

"Who in the real world gives a flying fxck whether Thaskin returns or not" - how about all of PTP and the red shirts for starters? This has been the main focus of their energy and attention since coming to power, even during the flood. Maybe you should to, if you live here with a family.You may write bxllx and spew propoganda, but don't expect everyone to believe it.