NACC, prosecutors to meet again over Yingluck impeachment case

[Lite Beer]

NACC, prosecutors to meet again over Yingluck impeachment case
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Fail to agree that anti-graft agency's criminal petition is ready for court

The National Anti-Corruption Commission and public prosecutors will meet again on November 7 in a bid to settle their differences as to whether a criminal petition prepared by the NACC is complete enough to impeach former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

The Office of the Attorney-General and the NACC yesterday could not reach an accord on "only one or two points", said deputy attorney-general Vudhibhongse Vibulyawongse.

Vudhibhongse declined to identify the sticking points.

"We may or may not reach a conclusion," he said in reference to the November 7 meeting.

Vudhibhongse met with the NACC team, which was headed by NACC secretary-general Sansern Poljieak, at the anti-graft agency's headquarters in Nonthaburi in the morning.

He dismissed an allegation that public prosecutors were attempting to "drag their feet" in the case.

"We want to complete this case as soon as possible. We have many other things to do. There are several cases in our hand," he said.

Sansern said that only a few points were discussed yesterday due to the failure to agree on a number of points.

He said the public prosecutors suggested that the NACC interview more witnesses "to get additional facts".

Yesterday's gathering was the second meeting between the two agencies regarding the criminal case, in which Yingluck is accused of dereliction of duty for failing to terminate her government's rice price-pledging scheme despite corruption and massive losses.

If both sides agree on the petition, it would be filed with the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders.

When asked by a reporter if the NACC would bring the case to the court alone, Vudhibhongse said that it was too early to do that.

"We are now collecting evidence and discussing the contrasting views. We should first talk about some points that we think are still incomplete," he said.

He also said that more witnesses should be interviewed and noted that Yingluck's request for more of her witnesses to be allowed to give additional testimony to NACC investigators was rejected.

In a related development, the National Legislative Assembly had not obtained a formal NACC request for the impeachment of Yingluck as of yesterday, according to the assembly's vice president Surachai Liengboonlertchai.

NLA member Somchai Sawangkarn said the matter would be included in the assembly's meeting agenda within 30 days after the body got a formal request.

Yingluck's lawyer Pichit Chuenban held a press conference at a Bangkok hotel yesterday, where he accused the NACC of acting too hastily in its investigation against the former prime minister.

Pichit said that the anti-corruption agency had relentlessly pushed for a criminal case against Yingluck despite reservations by the Office of the Attorney-General.

He added that public prosecutors had pointed out that there was insufficient evidence against Yingluck and that the NACC's investigation was incomplete.

He also called on the NLA to carefully consider whether it had the power to impeach Yingluck.

He said that the 2007 Constitution, which empowered the Senate to impeach political office-holders, was abolished after the coup in May.

"The lawyer team is not involved with politics. We just want justice to be served for Yingluck," Pichit said.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/NACC-prosecutors-to-meet-again-over-Yingluck-impea-30245233.html

-- The Nation 2014-10-11

[ChrisY1]

IMO, dead in the water!

[pookiki]

Among the many mysteries of the Thai justice system, why is the NACC given the power to grant or deny the request for additional witnesses by the charged party? Shouldn't that decision be left to the trial judge after a review of what the charged party relates what the witnesses will testify to?

[rickirs]

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

Among the many mysteries of the Thai justice system, why is the NACC given the power to grant or deny the request for additional witnesses by the charged party? Shouldn't that decision be left to the trial judge after a review of what the charged party relates what the witnesses will testify to?

Better yet, why does NACC have the power to not only investigate but to also try as prosecutors, ie., by persons chosen by the NACC? Doesn't having prosecurial powers conflict with investigative powers?

[rickirs]

"The Office of the Attorney-General and the NACC yesterday could not reach an accord on "only one or two points"

1) There is no direct evidence?

2) There is only hearsay evidence?

Does this mean that the underlying premise used for the NACC investigation - Yingluck must be quilty - is so basically flawed that the case against Yingluck cannot ever be fixed for the OAG prosecution?

[scorecard]

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

"The Office of the Attorney-General and the NACC yesterday could not reach an accord on "only one or two points"

1) There is no direct evidence?

2) There is only hearsay evidence?

Does this mean that the underlying premise used for the NACC investigation - Yingluck must be quilty - is so basically flawed that the case against Yingluck cannot ever be fixed for the OAG prosecution?

The article doesn't say anything at all re:

1) There is no direct evidence

2) There is only hearsay evidence

Just your tricky attempt to try to spin.

Spin attempt failed.

[brucec64]

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

Among the many mysteries of the Thai justice system, why is the NACC given the power to grant or deny the request for additional witnesses by the charged party? Shouldn't that decision be left to the trial judge after a review of what the charged party relates what the witnesses will testify to?

Better yet, why does NACC have the power to not only investigate but to also try as prosecutors, ie., by persons chosen by the NACC? Doesn't having prosecurial powers conflict with investigative powers?

In Thailand, anyone has the ability to lay criminal charges and act as the prosecutor, similar to filing a civil suit. I think the history of this is that the police could not always be counted on to pursue criminal charges, unless it was somehow in their best interest, and this was an alternative avenue for justice.

http://www.samuiforsale.com/law-texts/thai-criminal-procedure-code.html

Section 28 The followings are entitled to institute criminal prosecution in court:

1. The public prosecutor.
2. The victim.

This is why the courts are clogged with defamation cases, and why politicians are regularly charged of criminal offences by other politicians.

This is one area that should be considered for reform because it is regularly abused and vexacious crimnal charges are a common tool for both business and politicians.

[Baerboxer]

Among the many mysteries of the Thai justice system, why is the NACC given the power to grant or deny the request for additional witnesses by the charged party? Shouldn't that decision be left to the trial judge after a review of what the charged party relates what the witnesses will testify to?

The NACC is not a court. That was the whole point of the discussion thread at the time they interviewed witnesses and refused the huge amount extra Yingluck kept insisting on, apparently as "character witnesses".

Should this go to trial then Yingluck's legal team would have the right to call extra witnesses unless the judge decided all were repetitive, offering nothing new, and the lawyers were just taking the piss and stretching things out.

The OAG is wanting to cover his arse, several times over, and make sure he avoids as much responsibility and accountability as possible should things go pear shaped. Nothing unusual there.

More chance of Red Bull boy appearing in court than dear Yinggy. Even though we all know they're both guilty.

[h90]

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

Among the many mysteries of the Thai justice system, why is the NACC given the power to grant or deny the request for additional witnesses by the charged party? Shouldn't that decision be left to the trial judge after a review of what the charged party relates what the witnesses will testify to?

Better yet, why does NACC have the power to not only investigate but to also try as prosecutors, ie., by persons chosen by the NACC? Doesn't having prosecurial powers conflict with investigative powers?

For why the NACC can deny requests for additional witnesses: Because else they come with a new witness who has actually no new information every month till we all die of old age. The cases are already too slow and PTP is doing everything to delay further.

It seems logic that a anti corruption body investigate things and when they find corruption they bring it to court as prosecutors. I would give them even some court powers to arrest people so they can't delay things.

[pookiki]

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

Among the many mysteries of the Thai justice system, why is the NACC given the power to grant or deny the request for additional witnesses by the charged party? Shouldn't that decision be left to the trial judge after a review of what the charged party relates what the witnesses will testify to?

Better yet, why does NACC have the power to not only investigate but to also try as prosecutors, ie., by persons chosen by the NACC? Doesn't having prosecurial powers conflict with investigative powers?

In Thailand, anyone has the ability to lay criminal charges and act as the prosecutor, similar to filing a civil suit. I think the history of this is that the police could not always be counted on to pursue criminal charges, unless it was somehow in their best interest, and this was an alternative avenue for justice.

http://www.samuiforsale.com/law-texts/thai-criminal-procedure-code.html

Section 28 The followings are entitled to institute criminal prosecution in court:

1. The public prosecutor.
2. The victim.

This is why the courts are clogged with defamation cases, and why politicians are regularly charged of criminal offences by other politicians.

This is one area that should be considered for reform because it is regularly abused and vexacious crimnal charges are a common tool for both business and politicians.

Thanks for this info. In light of this procedure, is there a discovery process? In US courts, the prosecution would be required to share all evidence with the accused or the accused attorney(s) to include exculpatory evidence. Does this happen in Thailand. Is the accused granted the right to file preliminary motions? e.g. Motions to dismiss the charges, motions to suppress evidence, etc.

[brucec64]

No discovery process. The strategy is to surprise at the trial!

There can be motions but completely up to the judge as to when they will be considered.

[jesimps]

Among the many mysteries of the Thai justice system, why is the NACC given the power to grant or deny the request for additional witnesses by the charged party? Shouldn't that decision be left to the trial judge after a review of what the charged party relates what the witnesses will testify to?

The NACC is not a court. That was the whole point of the discussion thread at the time they interviewed witnesses and refused the huge amount extra Yingluck kept insisting on, apparently as "character witnesses".

Should this go to trial then Yingluck's legal team would have the right to call extra witnesses unless the judge decided all were repetitive, offering nothing new, and the lawyers were just taking the piss and stretching things out.

The OAG is wanting to cover his arse, several times over, and make sure he avoids as much responsibility and accountability as possible should things go pear shaped. Nothing unusual there.

More chance of Red Bull boy appearing in court than dear Yinggy. Even though we all know they're both guilty.

I don't know that 'Yinggi's guilty. However I do know that the NACC want her convicted whether guilty or innocent. Doesn't matter to them or the yellow tinted fanatics on here just as long as she isn't around to prevent the Democrats/junta winning the next election.

[animatic]

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

Among the many mysteries of the Thai justice system, why is the NACC given the power to grant or deny the request for additional witnesses by the charged party? Shouldn't that decision be left to the trial judge after a review of what the charged party relates what the witnesses will testify to?

Better yet, why does NACC have the power to not only investigate but to also try as prosecutors, ie., by persons chosen by the NACC? Doesn't having prosecurial powers conflict with investigative powers?

Ok, imagine this scenario.

A PM of a sitting government is being investigated, and evidence of a criminal act is uncovered.

The evidence is presented to the Attorney General and the Ministry of Justice

The Head Minister of the Ministry of Justice is appointed BY the same PM of the sitting government,

who is being charged with a crime, along with several members of the sitting government or their families.

The Justice Minister has been a cohort of the main financial power brokers of the PM's party for decades.

The Justice Minister determines there is not enough evidence and the attorney general doesn't act.

Leaving what option to present the evidence of a crime?

One tactic of defense is to swamp the pre-trial hearings and investigations with useless witnesses,

who do nothing more but waste time and stall the investigation by creating paperwork.

If there is enough evidence to believe a crime has been committed, there is enough reason to file charges,

the same burden of proof is not needed in pre-trial investigation as at trial,

let the Defense present a witness list in court, the burden of proof lies there.

So cut off other irrelevant witnesses and the wasted time,

since there is reason via evidence enough to place charges.

Edited October 11, 2014 by animatic

[Robby nz]

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

Among the many mysteries of the Thai justice system, why is the NACC given the power to grant or deny the request for additional witnesses by the charged party? Shouldn't that decision be left to the trial judge after a review of what the charged party relates what the witnesses will testify to?

Better yet, why does NACC have the power to not only investigate but to also try as prosecutors, ie., by persons chosen by the NACC? Doesn't having prosecurial powers conflict with investigative powers?

In Thailand, anyone has the ability to lay criminal charges and act as the prosecutor, similar to filing a civil suit. I think the history of this is that the police could not always be counted on to pursue criminal charges, unless it was somehow in their best interest, and this was an alternative avenue for justice.

http://www.samuiforsale.com/law-texts/thai-criminal-procedure-code.html

Section 28 The followings are entitled to institute criminal prosecution in court:

1. The public prosecutor.
2. The victim.

This is why the courts are clogged with defamation cases, and why politicians are regularly charged of criminal offences by other politicians.

This is one area that should be considered for reform because it is regularly abused and vexacious crimnal charges are a common tool for both business and politicians.

Thanks for this info. In light of this procedure, is there a discovery process? In US courts, the prosecution would be required to share all evidence with the accused or the accused attorney(s) to include exculpatory evidence. Does this happen in Thailand. Is the accused granted the right to file preliminary motions? e.g. Motions to dismiss the charges, motions to suppress evidence, etc.

Right from the start the NACC told Yingluck and her lawyers that the law stated that to be given the full transcripts of the evidence against her she had to turn up in person to receive them.

She did not, she sent lawyers in her place and they were given a brief of the case only.

This started yells of unfair even though they had been told and knew very well that only she in person would get all the documents.

Eventually she was given all the documents, even though it was outside to the law.

At that point the "We want more witness" started. The NACC heard the first lot of her new witnesses and determined they had nothing new to add.

Then it was again "We want more witness" this time the NACC said no thank you we don't want to know for we believe they will have nothing to add like the last lot.

She will have the opportunity to call as many witnesses as the court judge allows when this gets to court.

[brucec64]

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

Among the many mysteries of the Thai justice system, why is the NACC given the power to grant or deny the request for additional witnesses by the charged party? Shouldn't that decision be left to the trial judge after a review of what the charged party relates what the witnesses will testify to?

Better yet, why does NACC have the power to not only investigate but to also try as prosecutors, ie., by persons chosen by the NACC? Doesn't having prosecurial powers conflict with investigative powers?

In Thailand, anyone has the ability to lay criminal charges and act as the prosecutor, similar to filing a civil suit. I think the history of this is that the police could not always be counted on to pursue criminal charges, unless it was somehow in their best interest, and this was an alternative avenue for justice.

http://www.samuiforsale.com/law-texts/thai-criminal-procedure-code.html

Section 28 The followings are entitled to institute criminal prosecution in court:

1. The public prosecutor.
2. The victim.

This is why the courts are clogged with defamation cases, and why politicians are regularly charged of criminal offences by other politicians.

This is one area that should be considered for reform because it is regularly abused and vexacious crimnal charges are a common tool for both business and politicians.

Thanks for this info. In light of this procedure, is there a discovery process? In US courts, the prosecution would be required to share all evidence with the accused or the accused attorney(s) to include exculpatory evidence. Does this happen in Thailand. Is the accused granted the right to file preliminary motions? e.g. Motions to dismiss the charges, motions to suppress evidence, etc.

As I mentioned earlier, motions are considered at the judge's discretion. I am familiar with a case where a motion was made to dismiss during the indictment hearing, and the judge agreed to consider the motion - during the judgement considerations, after the trial had concluded!

[brucec64]

Thanks for this info. In light of this procedure, is there a discovery process? In US courts, the prosecution would be required to share all evidence with the accused or the accused attorney(s) to include exculpatory evidence. Does this happen in Thailand. Is the accused granted the right to file preliminary motions? e.g. Motions to dismiss the charges, motions to suppress evidence, etc.

Right from the start the NACC told Yingluck and her lawyers that the law stated that to be given the full transcripts of the evidence against her she had to turn up in person to receive them.

She did not, she sent lawyers in her place and they were given a brief of the case only.

This started yells of unfair even though they had been told and knew very well that only she in person would get all the documents.

Eventually she was given all the documents, even though it was outside to the law.

At that point the "We want more witness" started. The NACC heard the first lot of her new witnesses and determined they had nothing new to add.

Then it was again "We want more witness" this time the NACC said no thank you we don't want to know for we believe they will have nothing to add like the last lot.

She will have the opportunity to call as many witnesses as the court judge allows when this gets to court.

One of the key pieces of "evidence" that the NACC used to deliver their verdict was testimony that 2-3 million tonnes of rice was missing. This evidence, without any contradictory evidence, was very strong. The additonal witnesses were to be used to contradict this testimony, which has subsequently been shown to be false. If the NACC had allowed additonal witnesses, they would have put a doubt on the missing rice, and the NACC would have a harder time showing probable cause.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/ex-pm-yingluck-wants-nacc-question-eight-witnesses/

This fact, as well as other issues, could be the reason that the AG is asking for more evidence and will not accept this case as is.

[ratcatcher]

"Hey! impeachers, leave that girl alone!"

[Dogmatix]

Among the many mysteries of the Thai justice system, why is the NACC given the power to grant or deny the request for additional witnesses by the charged party? Shouldn't that decision be left to the trial judge after a review of what the charged party relates what the witnesses will testify to?

What witnesses testify in court is indeed up to the court. The NACC has the right to decide what witnesses can testify to the NACC before it decides whether to indict some one either for impeachment or for criminal trial.

[rubl]

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

Among the many mysteries of the Thai justice system, why is the NACC given the power to grant or deny the request for additional witnesses by the charged party? Shouldn't that decision be left to the trial judge after a review of what the charged party relates what the witnesses will testify to?

Better yet, why does NACC have the power to not only investigate but to also try as prosecutors, ie., by persons chosen by the NACC? Doesn't having prosecurial powers conflict with investigative powers?

Now for one, that decision is indeed left to the trial judge. What you seem to have missed is that we do not have a trial yet. The remarks based on the mistaken assumption that we already have a trial, are therefore invalid.

[rubl]

"The Office of the Attorney-General and the NACC yesterday could not reach an accord on "only one or two points"

1) There is no direct evidence?

2) There is only hearsay evidence?

Does this mean that the underlying premise used for the NACC investigation - Yingluck must be quilty - is so basically flawed that the case against Yingluck cannot ever be fixed for the OAG prosecution?

It would seem your basic underlying assumption is incorrect. The NACC is investigating the alleged 'negligence' of Ms. Yingluck as PM who started the RPPS and left the country with a 700++ billion Baht gap in the floor of BAAC head office. A gap guaranteed by the Yingluck administration and now to be repaid by succeeding administrations for the next seven years.

Now it would seem some would rather have the case accepted so the trial judge can rule and find Ms. Yingluck 'not guilty', but for now the OAG refuses to accept the case as they think more details need to be sorted out. Details not published of course, but that's how a legal system works. The moment the court accepts the case all details the OAG deposits to justify the case will be made available to the council of the defense. Not before though.

[rubl]

Thanks for this info. In light of this procedure, is there a discovery process? In US courts, the prosecution would be required to share all evidence with the accused or the accused attorney(s) to include exculpatory evidence. Does this happen in Thailand. Is the accused granted the right to file preliminary motions? e.g. Motions to dismiss the charges, motions to suppress evidence, etc.

Right from the start the NACC told Yingluck and her lawyers that the law stated that to be given the full transcripts of the evidence against her she had to turn up in person to receive them.

She did not, she sent lawyers in her place and they were given a brief of the case only.

This started yells of unfair even though they had been told and knew very well that only she in person would get all the documents.

Eventually she was given all the documents, even though it was outside to the law.

At that point the "We want more witness" started. The NACC heard the first lot of her new witnesses and determined they had nothing new to add.

Then it was again "We want more witness" this time the NACC said no thank you we don't want to know for we believe they will have nothing to add like the last lot.

She will have the opportunity to call as many witnesses as the court judge allows when this gets to court.

One of the key pieces of "evidence" that the NACC used to deliver their verdict was testimony that 2-3 million tonnes of rice was missing. This evidence, without any contradictory evidence, was very strong. The additonal witnesses were to be used to contradict this testimony, which has subsequently been shown to be false. If the NACC had allowed additonal witnesses, they would have put a doubt on the missing rice, and the NACC would have a harder time showing probable cause.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/ex-pm-yingluck-wants-nacc-question-eight-witnesses/

This fact, as well as other issues, could be the reason that the AG is asking for more evidence and will not accept this case as is.

Could be. The OAG has to make sure that the evidence available is 'most likely' sufficient' to get a 'guilty' verdict. If the judge rules 'not guilty' it will be a waste of time, money and possibly due to 'double jeopardy' a totally lost case. Better the OAG asks for more data first and maybe decide not to prosecute in a case of 'negligence'.

Pity Ms. Yingluck's reputation may have been harmed, but she should shoulder part of the blame for that. Had she fully cooperated her case might have started and she might already have been found 'not guilty' eight months ago.

[Baerboxer]

Among the many mysteries of the Thai justice system, why is the NACC given the power to grant or deny the request for additional witnesses by the charged party? Shouldn't that decision be left to the trial judge after a review of what the charged party relates what the witnesses will testify to?

The NACC is not a court. That was the whole point of the discussion thread at the time they interviewed witnesses and refused the huge amount extra Yingluck kept insisting on, apparently as "character witnesses".

Should this go to trial then Yingluck's legal team would have the right to call extra witnesses unless the judge decided all were repetitive, offering nothing new, and the lawyers were just taking the piss and stretching things out.

The OAG is wanting to cover his arse, several times over, and make sure he avoids as much responsibility and accountability as possible should things go pear shaped. Nothing unusual there.

More chance of Red Bull boy appearing in court than dear Yinggy. Even though we all know they're both guilty.

I don't know that 'Yinggi's guilty. However I do know that the NACC want her convicted whether guilty or innocent. Doesn't matter to them or the yellow tinted fanatics on here just as long as she isn't around to prevent the Democrats/junta winning the next election.

I don't think Yingluck is the star or leader of PTP, do you really? Most of the people I know that voted for her wouldn't do so again based on performance. Should PTP be around, or yet another Thaksin controlled political vehicle be established, I guess he'll find a new stooge. Yingluck is highly photogenic but the voters who thought she would be a "breath of fresh air" were bitterly disappointed when it turned out she simply followed big brothers instructions. I know many people who voted for Yingluck and then attended the protests against her.

Yingluck rarely attended parliament, failed to chair one single meeting of the rice policy committee, despite being chairperson, even when things were going very wrong, didn't pay attention to any warnings, delegated everything, allowed Chalerm's son's mate to do a "full audit" of rice warehouses in 2 days and proclaim there are no stock discrepancies or quality issues, vow all farmer's would be paid within a week and then simply ignore it, refuse to ensure full accounting details of the rice scheme were made public, punished civil servants who dared highlight some of the issues.

I don't know that she is guilty of corruption, I've not seen any evidence. But the charge is negligence. She seems to willfully have neglected her duty as PM and as the chair of the rice committee unless she has evidence, which she may have, that shows why she so acted or that in reality she acted differently. Going off abroad at the tax payers expense at any opportunity (was the really a strategy to keep her out of the way, so she could deny being involved?) and saying she told people to do things, didn't follow up, believed everything she was told, relied on others won't cut the mustard. Especially when she insisted publicly time and again that she was in charge. What evidence do you have that makes you think she is innocent of the charge of negligence? Can you share it with us?

Why do you think the NACC want her convicted whether guilty or innocent? There job is to investigate and decide if there is sufficient evidence. The court will make the decisions?

Or are you another red supporter who believes no Shin ever does or did anything wrong? That Thaksin should be given amnesty for his criminal conviction, his jumping bail and promise breaking, his 15 or so outstanding criminal charges, that his siblings should have their various convictions for insider trading and election fraud quashed and that any charges made against this family and their friends must be politically motivated, regardless of whether they're guilty or innocent? After the last election, PTP said that they could do what they wanted now they were in charge. Sadly, they thought this meant being above the law, making things up as they go along, and lying without any accountability. Yingluck, a proven liar, says she is innocent and will prove it. Fine, she should be given her chance to prove it in court, the same as anybody else.

Unfortunately the seriously rich and connected don't usually bother with the courts and simply go abroad,

The new government and some of its offices show little appetite for prosecuting Yingluck. Only the NACC seem keen, and they are the ones with the evidence.

[ginjag]

Among the many mysteries of the Thai justice system, why is the NACC given the power to grant or deny the request for additional witnesses by the charged party? Shouldn't that decision be left to the trial judge after a review of what the charged party relates what the witnesses will testify to?

The NACC is not a court. That was the whole point of the discussion thread at the time they interviewed witnesses and refused the huge amount extra Yingluck kept insisting on, apparently as "character witnesses".

Should this go to trial then Yingluck's legal team would have the right to call extra witnesses unless the judge decided all were repetitive, offering nothing new, and the lawyers were just taking the piss and stretching things out.

The OAG is wanting to cover his arse, several times over, and make sure he avoids as much responsibility and accountability as possible should things go pear shaped. Nothing unusual there.

More chance of Red Bull boy appearing in court than dear Yinggy. Even though we all know they're both guilty.

I don't know that 'Yinggi's guilty. However I do know that the NACC want her convicted whether guilty or innocent. Doesn't matter to them or the yellow tinted fanatics on here just as long as she isn't around to prevent the Democrats/junta winning the next election.

Quote "you do know that" where from????? Havent seen any Quote "yellow tinted fanatics" since the swampy airport blockade.

You must be well puddled if you think SHE would win another election. Go back to your script writer and have a word.