Chalerm asks Civil Court judges to clarify ruling

[Robby nz]

Wonder if the judges remember the cake box fiasco ?

Seems Chalerm doesn't or he would realize that the judges don't bribe easily, nor do they like threats or intimidation no matter how obscure.

Wonder if he still has property where he ran away to last time, Denmark wasn't it?

If he does it will be getting a spruce up ready for his return.

[khunken]

When the redshirts fight for democracy 2010. The court put there leaders in jail for 9 month. Many still sitting in jail. The history is full of double standard. This is just one more case.....So, the majority dont have the same law....they dont have right to have there elected goverment, they dont have the right to vote.....Whats next? -Read history. -Check the news about Syria....What a future! Ha Ha

None are in jail - did you get this from the red shirt propaganda script? In fact some were appointed to the government as deputy ministers.

Voting is only a part of democracy. The rule of law, the constitution, the courts, an opposition allowed to have their say and a properly constituted senate are all part of it. Using the police (normally independent in a real democracy), the DSI, the Attorney General's office to specifically target all opposition is dictatorial.

Thankfully Thailand hasn't come near the crisis in Syria but it is in danger of following the Ukraine government in suppressing the opposition (protestors) with violence. If the drunken Chalerm is given any more power, Ukraine is where Thailand will be like.

[kikoman]

Who appoints these so called judges?

The military Junta of the 2006 coup , made up the constitution, the Court act more as a junta court than a court of law

[aussieinthailand]

"Please, your Honors, is it ok to for us to shoot people or not?"

How about Please your honors, when "peaceful protesters are throwing rocks, shooting, throwing grenades, can we defend ourselves?

also a fair question's, if the police are not allowed to defend themselves or innocent people going about their business, will we be charged with neglect of duty?

the courts can not have it both ways, support the laws of the land or interpret then as ordered to by higher powers.

[Robby nz]

Who appoints these so called judges?

The military Junta of the 2006 coup , made up the constitution, the Court act more as a junta court than a court of law

Sorry wrong again, there were very few changes made to the constitution by the military Govt and those were taken to a referendum and approved by a majority of the people.

You still don't seem to realize that regardless of PT being the government they are still bound by the law of the country and when they break that law, as they have done, then it is the job of the judges to secrutenise their actions under the law and make their judgments according to the law not according to what (in this case) Chalerm wants.

[The Boz]

He is so right, the court seem to forget about the little people who just want to move on with their lives, but are blocked to enter many government officers, face road blocks and some could no even vote because they were blocked by the peaceful protesters.

Can somebody please get that snake out of the yard....please!

It's not venomous but it is absolutely ridiculous.

Somebody get a stick!

[kikoman]

Who appoints these so called judges?

The Military as a result of the 2006 coup, wrote up the present constitution,

-made the senate half appointed,

-it also passed a law that it was illegal to discuss the draft constitution in public,

-The military also threatened prior to the vote on the constitution, that if it was not approved they would not step down and hand the government over to civilian control.

- It is also widely understood Source that the military forced other party members to vote for Abhisit for PM.

Published in the New York times!

"Wide circulation of photographs of heavily armed men among the protesters, the protest movement increasingly resembles an armed insurrection against the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra"

Sardin Lertbutr, a protest leader, said wednesday on Thai Television that "very professional" men with weapons were assisting the protesters and "making the police retreat"

The court however "found that the protesters were being carried out peacefully without weapons"

"On Tuesday, protesters attacked the police with a grenade, an action protest leaders initially denied but acknowledged when footage of the detonation circulated on the internet"

Mr Verapat Pariyawong, a Harvard trained lawyer and a prominent commentator stated the court ruling allowed protesters to claim "pseudo legitimacy to overthrow the government"

Source www.nytimes.com

Chalerm is not the only one seeking clarification of the ruling!

Cheers

[hubahuba]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"He then recalled the days when he was justice minister and had done many things beneficial to the judges.

He said he was not asking for a debt of gratitude from the court but he just wanted to have clarification."

Is he for real? Drunk again? alt=bah.gif width=19 height=19>

"​and had done many things beneficial to the judges". op's that in itself is an admission of CORRUPTION in the first degree.

[Mentors]

A silence coup made by the invisible hands behind the curtain.

[Emptyset]

This shows how sincere yingluck is and how much her ministers listen to her. This highlights yingluck is a puppet that is packaged and unpackaged when required. She is then hidden in a room until such time as she is required to say a scripted speech again on TV.

yingluck said all along never to use force on protestors. Never will we use force on the protestors and she reiterated it ever few days starting on the 25th of November. Not once did chalerm say to her sarcastically “If yingluck says this is right, we won’t have to work anymore as we have to abide by the yinglucks order". He never said that. He knew it was words for the media. Words to make her unaccountable when violence did break out. It wasn't directed at him. They won't be able to put yingluck up on murder charges if she told charlerm not to use force.

So you listen to yingluck when told not to use force, but you don't listen to the courts when told not to use force? Seems like this is a natural PTP trait to just ignore, query or be sarcastic with the courts. So the courts are biased when they state not to use force. yingluck must be biased too then? Can't have it both ways…PTP can though.

Yeah, reminds me of when Suthep said CRES was going appeal the Civil Court injunction against dispersing the red shirts in 2010. This despite the fact Abhisit had stated earlier that day that the government wasn't going to use force to disperse the red shirts, so, indeed, why should Suthep have found it necessary to appeal the court's injunction against the use of force? Of course, it turned out upon clarification that the court ruling did actually allow for the use of force:

Civil Court’s injunction on crowd dispersal measures clarified

Amporn Samosorn

BANGKOK, 23 April 2010 (NNT) - Following the UDD’s petition to the Civil Court, seeking an injunction on the use of violent crowd dispersal measures in the ongoing rally, for which they claimed victory, the court’s ruling has been revealed and clarified to the contrary.

The Center for the Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES) issued an announcement on the matter, pointing out that the Civil Court ruled that the rally at Ratchaprasong Intersection and related area disrupted traffic and damaged the people’s livelihood and normalcy in the society. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister needed to reclaim the area for public use. The petition for the Civil Court to ban the two leaders from breaking down the rally with military force was thus unreasonable. However, any measures used must be appropriate, in line with international practices.

CRES stressed that it had treated protesters with leniency and in line with international practices, as ordered by the Civil Court on 5 April 2010, which cited that the rally had caused damages to the public and national security, thus the right to assemble had been taken too far.

CRES underlined the fact that the UDD core leaders and protesters had been violating the law, and CRES deemed it their tasks to enforce the law and bring back normalcy to the country.

thainews.prd.go.th

Wonder if there'll be a similar clarification this time - perhaps that force can be used but only in certain specific circumstances? I find it unlikely, but I guess it's possible.

[mrtoad]

He is so right, the court seem to forget about the little people who just want to move on with their lives, but are blocked to enter many government officers, face road blocks and some could no even vote because they were blocked by the peaceful protesters.

Can somebody please get that snake out of the yard....please!

It's not venomous but it is absolutely ridiculous.

Somebody get a stick!

It's more like a large one eyed snake

[Emptyset]

Where was the esteemed Court decision when the Democrat and Army were blowing the red shirts to smithereens?

Do you really want us to rehash 2010 again? When 'unknowns' were blowing non-red-shirts to smithereens by lobbing grenades on and at them?

BTW who is 'the' Democrat you refer to?

Well, as I've just posted, the court gave permission for use of force by CRES in 2010. So why is it OK to use force against those firing grenades at the army, but not at those throwing grenades at the police? Seems a reasonable question.

[Mosha]

When the redshirts fight for democracy 2010. The court put there leaders in jail for 9 month. Many still sitting in jail. The history is full of double standard. This is just one more case.....So, the majority dont have the same law....they dont have right to have there elected goverment, they dont have the right to vote.....Whats next? -Read history. -Check the news about Syria....What a future! Ha Ha

Of course a slight oversight in the orders to burn it down can be ignored,

[SABloke]

"He then recalled the days when he was justice minister and had done many things beneficial to the judges.

He said he was not asking for a debt of gratitude from the court but he just wanted to have clarification."

Is he for real? Drunk again?

Did he also inadevertrntly admit to bribing judges?

Sent from my GT-S7270 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[LeamchabangLarry]

"He then recalled the days when he was justice minister and had done many things beneficial to the judges.

He said he was not asking for a debt of gratitude from the court but he just wanted to have clarification."

Is he for real? Drunk again?

Did he also inadevertrntly admit to bribing judges?

Sent from my GT-S7270 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Total disgusting thug move to not have the balls to say it in private to their face but on the public TV pool.

[shiok]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"Please, your Honors, is it ok to for us to shoot people or not?"

that's after they shot at the police.

wake up snake!

[djjamie]

This shows how sincere yingluck is and how much her ministers listen to her. This highlights yingluck is a puppet that is packaged and unpackaged when required. She is then hidden in a room until such time as she is required to say a scripted speech again on TV.

yingluck said all along never to use force on protestors. Never will we use force on the protestors and she reiterated it ever few days starting on the 25th of November. Not once did chalerm say to her sarcastically “If yingluck says this is right, we won’t have to work anymore as we have to abide by the yinglucks order". He never said that. He knew it was words for the media. Words to make her unaccountable when violence did break out. It wasn't directed at him. They won't be able to put yingluck up on murder charges if she told charlerm not to use force.

So you listen to yingluck when told not to use force, but you don't listen to the courts when told not to use force? Seems like this is a natural PTP trait to just ignore, query or be sarcastic with the courts. So the courts are biased when they state not to use force. yingluck must be biased too then? Can't have it both ways…PTP can though.

Yeah, reminds me of when Suthep said CRES was going appeal the Civil Court injunction against dispersing the red shirts in 2010. This despite the fact Abhisit had stated earlier that day that the government wasn't going to use force to disperse the red shirts, so, indeed, why should Suthep have found it necessary to appeal the court's injunction against the use of force? Of course, it turned out upon clarification that the court ruling did actually allow for the use of force:

Civil Court’s injunction on crowd dispersal measures clarified

Amporn Samosorn

BANGKOK, 23 April 2010 (NNT) - Following the UDD’s petition to the Civil Court, seeking an injunction on the use of violent crowd dispersal measures in the ongoing rally, for which they claimed victory, the court’s ruling has been revealed and clarified to the contrary.

The Center for the Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES) issued an announcement on the matter, pointing out that the Civil Court ruled that the rally at Ratchaprasong Intersection and related area disrupted traffic and damaged the people’s livelihood and normalcy in the society. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister needed to reclaim the area for public use. The petition for the Civil Court to ban the two leaders from breaking down the rally with military force was thus unreasonable. However, any measures used must be appropriate, in line with international practices.

CRES stressed that it had treated protesters with leniency and in line with international practices, as ordered by the Civil Court on 5 April 2010, which cited that the rally had caused damages to the public and national security, thus the right to assemble had been taken too far.

CRES underlined the fact that the UDD core leaders and protesters had been violating the law, and CRES deemed it their tasks to enforce the law and bring back normalcy to the country.

thainews.prd.go.th

Wonder if there'll be a similar clarification this time - perhaps that force can be used but only in certain specific circumstances? I find it unlikely, but I guess it's possible.

I'm not referring to 2010. I am referring to now.

yingluck said all along never to use force on protestors. According to Chalerm that is OK.

Courts said never to use force on the protestors. According to Chalerm this not OK.

What's the difference?

[SICHONSTEVE]

good tactic from them.

the more they make the Courts explain themselves in detail, the more the complicity becomes visible..... Not to all, but to enough to call it a coup and bring sanctions down on Thailand if it suceeds.

Make the Courts explain a verdit in detail that yesterday most westen media were calling Bizarre, unfathomable, breathtaking, Now make them squirm as they have to answer nuts and bolts issues that they didn't expect to be having handed back to them

The problems are more now for the Country than PT. PT are the only ones with any right to rule based on democracy. So it's going to be head scratching time at the Courts again tonight.

Then, the fight for democracy starts in earnest against him. the very best Suthep can hope for is a brief stay in power.

The reds got them out every time ever and will get them out again if the Army or Courts let them back!!!

You declared yesterday you were aborting TV and leaving us. Changed you mind again then?

Which Western media would that be? You have any links?

PT lost the legitimacy to govern (His Majesty rules, although many PT supporters seem confused on that one) once they started to lie, cheat, act illegally and openly defy the courts. They are simply clinging on to power, at all costs and regardless of consequences, and are very nervous of what another administration may discover.

Note the little veiled threat throne in from Tarit. Think again or the rs thugs might be let loose. Sadly, the clan and their master are prepared to plunge this wonderful country into civil war if necessary for their own greed and self interest.

I wouldn't bet on the red shirt terrorists lasting long when the farmers all find out where the rice scam money really went and how they have been lied to. But again, sadly likely to lead to violence.

Westen media.. none you would understand.

you also wrong about clinging to power... she disolved the house and it's up to the opposition (all 500 of them) to vote her out.

No danger of that then as we know the only route to power for them has always been coups and idiots like suthep sent out to hoodwink gulible people into joining a mob.

3 months in, and it not looking like it's happening. All support on Yingluck side and FB pleading that she stay on and don't let the democratic rights of the country be removed by these self serving lunatics.

So, not a bad attempt at a post, other than getting everything wrong. Bet all your money on the Reds coming out if there is a coup.... it's safe... they won't coup

I don't think that you understand the workings of government or elections.

"She dissolved the house and its up to the opposition (all 500 of them) to vote her out"!!

Can you explain what you mean by this nonsensical sentence!!

I also like "all the supports on Yingluck's side" - really!!! where did you get that idea as that is simply ridiculous.

[patjem]

He is so right, the court seem to forget about the little people who just want to move on with their lives, but are blocked to enter many government officers, face road blocks and some could no even vote because they were blocked by the peaceful protesters.

Can somebody please get that snake out of the yard....please!

It's not venomous but it is absolutely ridiculous.

Somebody get a stick!

It's more like a large one eyed snake

Please don't feed the resident troll, but we do kinda get a bit of amusement from his posts

[tomacht8]

Who appoints these so called judges?

The Military as a result of the 2006 coup, wrote up the present constitution,

-made the senate half appointed,

-it also passed a law that it was illegal to discuss the draft constitution in public,

-The military also threatened prior to the vote on the constitution, that if it was not approved they would not step down and hand the government over to civilian control.

- It is also widely understood Source that the military forced other party members to vote for Abhisit for PM.

Published in the New York times!

"Wide circulation of photographs of heavily armed men among the protesters, the protest movement increasingly resembles an armed insurrection against the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra"

Sardin Lertbutr, a protest leader, said wednesday on Thai Television that "very professional" men with weapons were assisting the protesters and "making the police retreat"

The court however "found that the protesters were being carried out peacefully without weapons"

"On Tuesday, protesters attacked the police with a grenade, an action protest leaders initially denied but acknowledged when footage of the detonation circulated on the internet"

Mr Verapat Pariyawong, a Harvard trained lawyer and a prominent commentator stated the court ruling allowed protesters to claim "pseudo legitimacy to overthrow the government"

Source www.nytimes.com

Chalerm is not the only one seeking clarification of the ruling!

Cheers

Good points.

But you realy think that the Source www.nytimes.com is the ultimate source of wisdom?

They do also media policy for their clientele.

The judgment of the court is clear.

- No violence on the part of government (CMPO - CAPO - DSI).

- and peaceful demonstrations are ok.

[smedly]

i'm not being funny when I say this but Charlerm's stupidity is actually dangerous, I hand him responsibility for 5 human lives so far and a pile of injured people including police, surely the police realise that they are on a road to destruction and are being used

Can you imagine if he had control of something seriously deadly - falling into a drunken sleep as his head hit the big red button

slurp slurp thud click launch whoosh toilet - ooh that was a good - something really moved slurp slurp thud slurp my ears popped

[Somtamnication]

What part of "you cannot beat them on the head" doesn't he understand?

[HD 205]

"Please, your Honors, is it ok to for us to shoot people or not?"

So by evidently putting the blame on Charlem for violence against protesters, I assume you use the same logic and accusation against Abhisit and Suthep?

Because it's clear there has been violence from the PDCR/Anti gov side too - just preemting you pointing out that there was violence from the anti-gov's in 2010.

[steven100]

Court 2 - Chalerm 0

Sent from my TR736 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[The Deerhunter]

Judicial coup in progress. Those judges keep turning up the heat with their decisions tying the hands of the govt.

Military coup on the street. Soldiers with automatic weapons claiming to be peace-loving protest security guards.

Civil Service coup almost complete. Public sector workers want their unofficial perks.

The rent-seekers have joined forces to ensure they keep their disproportionate share of the national wealth and unofficial immunity from any prosecution. The other rent-seekers, the provincially-based ones, have their backs against the wall with this lot all collaborating.

yes a coup in the making by:

the courts

military

bangkok middle class

southeners

north and northeastern rice farmer

business owner

state enterprise staff

Buddhist monks

civil servants

labor unions

part of the police force

anti coup: Shinawatra family

It is a bit like Ceaușescu and Romania....

Yeah, but it won't end like that, fortunately or unfortunately. The mob executed them!

[captspectre]

setting Charlerms attitude to one side for a moment, I am actually surprised at the courts ruling, you either have an SOE or you don't, it would have made much more sense for the court to either support the SOE or rule to have it discontinued, as it is it has created unnecessary confusion.

Charlerms tactics have led to 5 deaths and many injuries on the streets of Bangkok after almost 4 months of generally peaceful protests, the only violence has been nightly attacks on peaceful protest sites which still remain uninvestigated - the events of this week have changed all that, we now have the police attacking protest sites under the orders of Charlerm and Tarit resulting in complete mayhem and deaths

who threw the grenade that the Police Officer kicked out of the way and was wounded? smedley?

[rebelplatoon]

Yeah, come on. . Why can t I shoot protestors at will?

Guess drinking does affect your line of thought. Suramerayamachapamadhattana.

The Buddha was right again.

[theoldgit]

Post containing miss spelt name removed.

[rubl]

Where was the esteemed Court decision when the Democrat and Army were blowing the red shirts to smithereens?

Do you really want us to rehash 2010 again? When 'unknowns' were blowing non-red-shirts to smithereens by lobbing grenades on and at them?

BTW who is 'the' Democrat you refer to?

Well, as I've just posted, the court gave permission for use of force by CRES in 2010. So why is it OK to use force against those firing grenades at the army, but not at those throwing grenades at the police? Seems a reasonable question.

Your questions always sound so reasonable. It's just that they always seem to be put forward from some implied assumtions and/or focussed on certain details only.

I do not think the situation of 2010 and 2013/2014 can be compared. From the start of the anti-government protests in October 2013 the now defunct government has been labelling the anti-government protesters as rebels, terorrists, criminals and had the police, DSI,CAPO, CMPO closely 'guard' them at a time when all was really peaceful. It was just mainly Ms. Yingluck's obfuscation with her henchmen doing the dirty work which created the violence.

Remember that the 'anti-government protesters' in 2010 already started lobbing the odd grenade around the time a court decided on Thaksin's blocked billions and ruled 43 confiscated, 30 to be returned to him and his family. The army got involved much later, about 30 grenades later

Edited February 21, 2014 by rubl

[rubl]

Oh, by the way, how did CMPO Pol. Captain Chalerm ask the 5-member panel of the Civil Court to clarify the banning of the enforcement of the center’s nine orders. Did he talk with them, did he submit a request or did he just go on TV and state he wanted the Civil Court to clarify their ruling?

Interesting is that while accepting the court's ruling k. Chalrm also mentioned "that this country does not belong only to the court but all the people and that the people should know equally." Sounds somewhat ironic coming from the man who took care of the problems his son had 'allegedly' shooting a fellow police officer.

Edited February 21, 2014 by rubl