Reds Press Charge Against Court For Annulling Election
By Khaosod English

Chinag Rai

BANGKOK: -- Pro-government supporters in many province have simultaneously filed complaint against the Constitutional Court for invalidating 2 February general election.

The court has deemed the poll unconstitutional since the election was not completed in a single day as required in the 2007 Constitution, but Redshirts activists have argued that the verdict is unfair, as it was anti-government protesters who have blocked election venues in many districts, causing the election in those affected areas to be canceled.

The People's Committee for Absolute Democracy With the King As Head of State (PCAD) has denounced and boycotted the 2 February election as fraudulent, and insisted that "reforms" are needed before any election can be held.

Termed "The National Complaint Day", the campaign encouraged the Redshirts to file charge of treason and attempt to overthrow sovereign power of the Legislative Branch under Article 113 of the Criminal Codes against the 6 majority Constitutional Court judges who ruled in the election verdict.

At Mueang Police Station in Nakhon Panom province, over 200 Redshirts gathered to file complaint to the police, led by Mr. Praong Boonpong, former Minister of Labour, and Ms. Monpon Charoensri, a former MP.

The demonstrators wore black to symbolise their disagreement with the court, and brought placards which read "How come 6 judges have more power than 20 million votes?" and "They robbed the people's rights".

After filing complaint with the police, Mr. Prasong told reporters that he finds it unacceptable that the government has spent over 3.8 billion bahts in organising the elections, many citizens have sacrificed their money and time to travel to their hometowns for voting, and candidates have dedicated their funds in the vote-canvassing campaign, only to have their efforts annulled by the Constitutional Court.

"The court rules without listening to the voices of more than 20 million people who went out to vote," Mr. Prasong fumed, "It's a grave crime against democracy".

Mr. Baworn Buppavet, a 77-years old Redshirt supporter at the rally, said the Constitutional Court should have listened more to the people, especially those who live in the countryside "where the judges have always neglected".

Around 40 Redshirts also rallied in Bang Phlat district of Bangkok to urge the police to take legal action against the Constitutional Court.

In Chiang Mai province, "Love Chiang Mai 51" group has mobilised their supporters to file complaint at local police stations, and planned to hold candle-lit vigils in front of the police stations this evening to voice their support for democracy in Thailand.

The group will also hold religious ceremony on 3 April to give blessing to thousands of local Redshirts who would join mass rally called by the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) on 5 April, one of its group leaders said.

Many Redshirts demonstrators in Ubon Ratchathani province also rallied in front of provincial police stations and lodged their complaint against the Constitutional Court judges.

Source: http://en.khaosod.co.th/detail.php?newsid=1396339922&section=11&typecate=06


-- Khaosod English 2014-04-01

Did they coordinate that all by themselves? If so, well done.... jolly good show.

Now what?

PDCR really doesn't need to do anything. Just let degenerates perform their stunts with brownish matter and hygienic towels. Just look at all those old fellas and ladies and their gestures. How classic. Some idiots told them it's cool to act like that. All they do is bring the shame onto the movement, their families and themselves.

" ...Termed "The National Complaint Day", the campaign encouraged the Redshirts to file charge of treason

and attempt to overthrow sovereign power of the Legislative Branch

under Article 113 of the Criminal Codes against the 6 majority Constitutional Court judges who ruled in the election verdict... "

SOVEREIGNTY.

The union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state; it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability; to make laws, to execute and to apply them: to impose and collect taxes, and, levy, contributions; to make war or peace; to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like. Story on the Const. Sec. 207.

2. Abstractedly, sovereignty resides in the body of the nation and belongs to the people. But these powers are generally exercised by delegation.

3. When analysed, sovereignty is naturally divided into three great powers;

namely, the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary;

the first is the power to make new laws, and to correct and repeal the old;

the second is the power to execute the laws both at home and abroad;

and

the last is the power to apply the laws to particular facts; to judge the disputes which arise among the citizens, and to punish crimes.

Te obvious point being that sovereign power devolves into ALL THREE

and each answerable to the other through their Differing POWERS of function.

So the Legislative has no sovereign power if not

used in delegation legally with The People.

used in concert with the other 2 branches,and their independent functions with in soverignty.

And under the constitutional framework The People have decide to implement.

They should in the big picture direct their complaints to not at the protestors,

nor the courts making a verdict on if the Executive branch has done it's job.

In this case, the Executive did not for what ever reasons successfully fulfil

'it's mandate to run an election country wide in one day.' Even with the aide of early voting days.

It's not like other nations do NOT have protestors on election days, nor violence,

but it seems Thailands executive did a particularly bad job of keeping order to run the election,

in spite pf truck loads of talk that they would.

In the end they did not and the Court ruled it was insufficient in fulfilling

it's sovereign duty as the executive.

.

I see the new redshirt leadership is bring out their 25 most educated supporters.

A classic..

At least they used some of TS payment to buy some new shirts

They have nothing else to do anyhow.

On a more serious note. Even though it is organized by their leaders, only a few people seem to file a complain.

Is that their new greeting? The international community will be deeply impressed

The Thai smile now replaced ...

I see the new redshirt leadership is bring out their 25 most educated supporters.

That's some intellectual firepower right there.

I just think they are showing the ink stain on their finger from the previous annulled election!

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Amazing Thailand. It begins with the people.

They have nothing else to do anyhow.

On a more serious note. Even though it is organized by their leaders, only a few people seem to file a complain.

It's because there will be no result.

Unfortunately the only way for the judges to be removed from office is for a 3/5 vote of the senate. As just under half the senate is appointed (2007 change) it's almost impossible.

Indeed, even if 3/5's of the senate voted to remove them, they may well just refuse - like Jaruwan (now a senator) - when she was removed by the constitutional court as Auditor General she simply refused their authority.

EDIT - I should add, beware of those you have removed all hope of justice from. If each judge was required to produce and release explanations of their reasons in making a decision it would go a long way towards restoring faith in them. That is the common practice in many countries for the highest courts.

Lily Allen would be very, very much impressed ...

The name of the photographer was apparently Suthep.

The Thai smile now replaced ...

Just the new normal.

Is the flipping of the bird the new red shirt salute now the Jatuporn has been passed the conch?

Or is it a gesture towards the CC?

Either way I don't see any court in the land telling the constitution court how to interpret the constitution. Some people will pick up a legal bill for failure

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Love the middle finger salute. It is refreshingly honest. At least we finally got a statement of their political beliefs, after all these years.

This photo is going in my album.

Not pro democracy.

Pro THUGocracy.

Did they coordinate that all by themselves? If so, well done.... jolly good show.

Now what?

Shopping guess they have 500 THB to spend.

Yet another classic from Khaosod. It is comforting, though, to think that the red shirts were looking directly at Khaosod when they posed for this photo. Perhaps Ko Tee was right - perhaps they have developed " intellectual weapons ", after all.

This preposterous lawsuit - which purports to impeach the highest court in the land - is going straight to the Twilight Zone. Voyager I will make contact with extra-terrestrial life sooner, before this gets to any court of law that manages to even look at it without breaking into howls of laughter. The sadness of Pheu Thai's and the UDD's strategies is that they're all like this one. They have that maniacal Jatuporn ring about them. If only Pheu Thai were somewhat removed from the crazies. But alas, they're on the same page.

" ...Termed "The National Complaint Day", the campaign encouraged the Redshirts to file charge of treason

and attempt to overthrow sovereign power of the Legislative Branch

under Article 113 of the Criminal Codes against the 6 majority Constitutional Court judges who ruled in the election verdict... "

SOVEREIGNTY.

The union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state; it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability; to make laws, to execute and to apply them: to impose and collect taxes, and, levy, contributions; to make war or peace; to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like. Story on the Const. Sec. 207.

2. Abstractedly, sovereignty resides in the body of the nation and belongs to the people. But these powers are generally exercised by delegation.

3. When analysed, sovereignty is naturally divided into three great powers;

namely, the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary;

the first is the power to make new laws, and to correct and repeal the old;

the second is the power to execute the laws both at home and abroad;

and

the last is the power to apply the laws to particular facts; to judge the disputes which arise among the citizens, and to punish crimes.

Te obvious point being that sovereign power devolves into ALL THREE

and each answerable to the other through their Differing POWERS of function.

So the Legislative has no sovereign power if not

used in delegation legally with The People.

used in concert with the other 2 branches,and their independent functions with in soverignty.

And under the constitutional framework The People have decide to implement.

They should in the big picture direct their complaints to not at the protestors,

nor the courts making a verdict on if the Executive branch has done it's job.

In this case, the Executive did not for what ever reasons successfully fulfil

'it's mandate to run an election country wide in one day.' Even with the aide of early voting days.

It's not like other nations do NOT have protestors on election days, nor violence,

but it seems Thailands executive did a particularly bad job of keeping order to run the election,

in spite pf truck loads of talk that they would.

In the end they did not and the Court ruled it was insufficient in fulfilling

it's sovereign duty as the executive.

.

A great many words that boil down to this: It is OK by you that a few people, who disrupted the election in certain parts of the country to prevent citizens from lawfully exercising their right to vote, stole the election from the great many people who did vote for the candidate of their choice irrespective of which party that was, other than the Dems who chose not to field any candidates. It is OK by you to blame the government knowing full well they asked the army to support the police in ensuring all the ballot boxes were delivered, polling stations were open and able to receive votes and the army refused that request. It is OK by you that the Constitutional Court penalized those who voted by declaring the whole election void without any sanction against those who prevented people from voting.

Clearly, you have no respect for the democratic wishes of the people who did vote.

A great many people are angry that the election has been stolen from them and see the Election Commission and the Constitutional Court as supporting the PRDC. These people have seen and understand the big picture much better than you do.

A great many words that boil down to this: It is OK by you that a few people, who disrupted the election in certain parts of the country to prevent citizens from lawfully exercising their right to vote, stole the election from the great many people who did vote for the candidate of their choice irrespective of which party that was, other than the Dems who chose not to field any candidates. It is OK by you to blame the government knowing full well they asked the army to support the police in ensuring all the ballot boxes were delivered, polling stations were open and able to receive votes and the army refused that request. It is OK by you that the Constitutional Court penalized those who voted by declaring the whole election void without any sanction against those who prevented people from voting.

Clearly, you have no respect for the democratic wishes of the people who did vote.

A great many people are angry that the election has been stolen from them and see the Election Commission and the Constitutional Court as supporting the PRDC. These people have seen and understand the big picture much better than you do.

That characterization is like putting lipstick on a pig ... on steroids.

I never knew that the argumentation "that the verdict is unfair" would easily be accepted by a criminal court. Good the red-shirts think they have other arguments as well.

The Thai smile now replaced ...

When in doubt as to what may be appropriate in a given situation, flip a bird.

It's just a matter of time before the red shirts discover mooning. Never would've thought of them riding the bleeding edge of westernization in Thailand.

Is the flipping of the bird the new red shirt salute now the Jatuporn has been passed the conch?

Or is it a gesture towards the CC?

Either way I don't see any court in the land telling the constitution court how to interpret the constitution. Some people will pick up a legal bill for failure

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

"I don't see any court in the land telling the constitution court how to interpret the constitution", maybe not, but it is not the interpretation that is being challenged. It is how that interpretation was made. The courts are now in a very difficult position.If they refuse to accept the charges, they will be perceived as being against the people and that would undermine public confidence in the judicial system upon which it relies for its legitimacy.

The Constitutional Court might have a way out of the mess they created by referring its decision back to itself for review. If done quickly enough, that would also avoid the need for another court to consider criminal charges against members of the Constitutional Court. Will it happen? I don't know. Nor do I know if the result will be any different even if it did happen.

Is the flipping of the bird the new red shirt salute now the Jatuporn has been passed the conch?

Or is it a gesture towards the CC?

Either way I don't see any court in the land telling the constitution court how to interpret the constitution. Some people will pick up a legal bill for failure

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

"I don't see any court in the land telling the constitution court how to interpret the constitution", maybe not, but it is not the interpretation that is being challenged. It is how that interpretation was made. The courts are now in a very difficult position.If they refuse to accept the charges, they will be perceived as being against the people and that would undermine public confidence in the judicial system upon which it relies for its legitimacy.

The Constitutional Court might have a way out of the mess they created by referring its decision back to itself for review. If done quickly enough, that would also avoid the need for another court to consider criminal charges against members of the Constitutional Court. Will it happen? I don't know. Nor do I know if the result will be any different even if it did happen.

Rubbish and you know it.

If you think that was a successful election, then you have been sniffing something from the top shelf in the garage.

Irrespective of who stood in the way of the election. The CC was asked to consider whether it was contitutional or not, and logically under the circumstances they voted it was not. It is as simple as that.

The elections could have adhered to hundreds of articles of the constitution, they are not the issue, if so much as one article gets breached, it is unconstitutional... very simple.

The court had no choice but to rule it as being void.

That election would have dragged on for months and still not produced a parliament, everyone knows that..... EVERYONE!!!!!

Each and every one of these idiots are laying themselves open to defamation charges in the future for filing accusations officially against the six judges for attempting to overthrow the sovereignty. As has already been pointed out above this is laughable. These cases will no even make it past the waste paper bin, leaving the door open for the judges to counter-sue.

" ...Termed "The National Complaint Day", the campaign encouraged the Redshirts to file charge of treason

and attempt to overthrow sovereign power of the Legislative Branch

under Article 113 of the Criminal Codes against the 6 majority Constitutional Court judges who ruled in the election verdict... "

SOVEREIGNTY.

The union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state; it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability; to make laws, to execute and to apply them: to impose and collect taxes, and, levy, contributions; to make war or peace; to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like. Story on the Const. Sec. 207.

2. Abstractedly, sovereignty resides in the body of the nation and belongs to the people. But these powers are generally exercised by delegation.

3. When analysed, sovereignty is naturally divided into three great powers;

namely, the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary;

the first is the power to make new laws, and to correct and repeal the old;

the second is the power to execute the laws both at home and abroad;

and

the last is the power to apply the laws to particular facts; to judge the disputes which arise among the citizens, and to punish crimes.

Te obvious point being that sovereign power devolves into ALL THREE

and each answerable to the other through their Differing POWERS of function.

So the Legislative has no sovereign power if not

used in delegation legally with The People.

used in concert with the other 2 branches,and their independent functions with in soverignty.

And under the constitutional framework The People have decide to implement.

They should in the big picture direct their complaints to not at the protestors,

nor the courts making a verdict on if the Executive branch has done it's job.

In this case, the Executive did not for what ever reasons successfully fulfil

'it's mandate to run an election country wide in one day.' Even with the aide of early voting days.

It's not like other nations do NOT have protestors on election days, nor violence,

but it seems Thailands executive did a particularly bad job of keeping order to run the election,

in spite pf truck loads of talk that they would.

In the end they did not and the Court ruled it was insufficient in fulfilling

it's sovereign duty as the executive.

.

A great many words that boil down to this: It is OK by you that a few people, who disrupted the election in certain parts of the country to prevent citizens from lawfully exercising their right to vote, stole the election from the great many people who did vote for the candidate of their choice irrespective of which party that was, other than the Dems who chose not to field any candidates. It is OK by you to blame the government knowing full well they asked the army to support the police in ensuring all the ballot boxes were delivered, polling stations were open and able to receive votes and the army refused that request. It is OK by you that the Constitutional Court penalized those who voted by declaring the whole election void without any sanction against those who prevented people from voting.

Clearly, you have no respect for the democratic wishes of the people who did vote.

A great many people are angry that the election has been stolen from them and see the Election Commission and the Constitutional Court as supporting the PRDC. These people have seen and understand the big picture much better than you do.

No, that is not what I am saying.

I am saying it was the Executive governments primary responsibility to

get the election done under constitutional restraints, They did not.

So, since this DOES get done in most countries regardless of protests in the streets,

there is obviously a default on the part of the executive branch in doing it's primary caretaker job.

And no one "stole the election", because no one won the election.

There are of course many who believe PTP and it's political machine,

have been stealing elections for years. Which has lead to the reform movement.

The Supreme Courts job is not to sanction the protestors,

its job was simply to rule if the election was carried out constitutionally.

You can't have it both ways, the Constitution Court is not the Criminal Court,

nor the Court of elected/appointed Political Officeholders. Both of which can sanction.

And you keep saying " I " this and " I " that,

with out a shred of evidence that I actually mean what you imply.

Value added argument ad homminum.

And end with this gem " ...Clearly, you have no respect for the democratic wishes of the people who did vote...."

You say this as if it were fact. When it rests solely on your subjective feelings about the above statements.

You can not arbitrarily impress the inverse of your own feelings onto me, because you disagree with

some points for less logical reasonings and make them become my actual feelings, no matter how you try to.

Yes a great many people are angry and a great deal of time and money has been wasted.

We can trace that wastage for the last 10 years to one egomaniacally source. That Kuhn T.

Now to say, that is not to say that I favor Suthep or Abhisit or Chuan or Chalerm or Chavalit or Banharn'

or any of the other old dinosaur kahmans who sell their regions votes as easily as 10 pieces of gold.

It just means I can clearly see Thaksin for the detriment to Thailands progress he is.

His balance sheet ; good versus bad, is heavily tilted negative.

So I can understand the protestors.

But that doesn't mean that everything they have done is jake nor that this means

I disavow the rights of all to freely vote their conscience. I truly wish they all could,

without biased manipulation for profits from the political machines milking the nation dry.