NLA rejects Yingluck's request to produce extra documents

[webfact]

NLA rejects Yingluck's request to produce extra documents



BANGKOK: -- The National Legislative Assembly today rejected ex-Premier Yingluck Shinawatra's request to add documentary evidence comprising of 72 papers for the NLA's deliberation before opening the impeachment process on January 9 next year.

Her request to produce more evidence to defend her innocence was submitted to the NLA by her team of lawyers who appeared today to explain reasons for adding more evidence.

At the NLA meeting today to hear her lawyer’s clarification, the national Anti-Corruption Commission spokesman Vicha Mahakhun also countered the lawyer’s claim by telling the assemblymen that the 72 papers that Ms Yingluck wanted to produce ate in fact appeared in the 28 items of documents the NACC submitted earlier to the NLA in seeking her impeachment.

Besides, the graft buster also told the NLA that Ms Yingluck never appeared, even once, to clarify her documents submitted to the NACC to defend herself against the charge of negligence of duties in the rice pledging scheme.

After listening to all clarifications, NLA speaker Pornpetch Wichitcholchai then called a vote which ended with the rejection of her request.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/nla-rejects-yinglucks-request-produce-extra-documents


-- Thai PBS 2014-11-28

[Costas2008]

I love it.

About time we see some seriousness and justice in this country.

Enough of the puppeteering show they subjected us up to now.

[Thaddeus]

72 sheets of A4 with "But, she is really nice" written on them.

[dyertribe]

How is it justice when they refuse to consider evidence? I don't know if this stuff would help or hinder her but in most countries ALL tendered evidence is evaluated.

By not doing so they open the door to an appeal.

[thesetat2013]

Just another delay tactic by YLs lawyers. Good they denied them and even better they voted on that decision

[JOC]

Seems like Prayuth is really worried about the popularity of Ms Yingluck!!

To use a phrase of another poster here:"the most popular PM in the last decade"

[sweatalot]

How is it justice when they refuse to consider evidence? I don't know if this stuff would help or hinder her but in most countries ALL tendered evidence is evaluated.

By not doing so they open the door to an appeal.

So the accused can demand to bring more evidence then more evidence then more evidence ... until her death?

Mind you she had time galore to produce stuff to defend her (I will not say evidence)

[Eddy B]

They had their time to give all relevent documents and they are always trying to add a few more after the alloted date to waste time. I am glad it got voted out. Just have to wait to see what the verdict is on her case now.

[Robby nz]

How is it justice when they refuse to consider evidence? I don't know if this stuff would help or hinder her but in most countries ALL tendered evidence is evaluated.

By not doing so they open the door to an appeal.

Didn't you read the OP ?

The NACC said the documents she wanted to produce had already been included.

[worgeordie]

Are these extra,extra,extra documents,these must have been

stuffed down the back of the sofa,and they missed them.

regards Worgeordie

[FangFerang]

Nah. The assembly room looks like it has about forty people in it. Probably off doing facebook selfies and watching porn.

If the documents were not allowed to be submitted because they already were filed, why the denial? I think we have two different versions (or incomplete or redacted versions) in the hands of the prosecutors and defense attorneys.

In any event, another legal joke with the public being the punchline.

[seajae]

lets hope this puts the wind up yl as she would now realize that her stall tactics have been knocked on the head so the chances of being found innocent would also be taking a hit, Hopefully she will now be getting worried she might actually be found guilty, that would really put her in a spin and the rest of THailand would be able to celebrate.

[aussieinthailand]

I love it.

About time we see some seriousness and justice in this country.

Enough of the puppeteering show they subjected us up to now.

Not allowing a person to submit documents in evidence in defense, and you call that justice,

If you had documents proving your innocence in a court case and were denied them being submitted you'd be screaming blue bloody murder...................

Anyone for a large plate of BIAS BULLSH*T.

[scorecard]

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

alt=clap2.gif> alt=clap2.gif> alt=clap2.gif>

I love it.

About time we see some seriousness and justice in this country.

Enough of the puppeteering show they subjected us up to now.

Not allowing a person to submit documents in evidence in defense, and you call that justice,

If you had documents proving your innocence in a court case and were denied them being submitted you'd be screaming blue bloody murder...................

Anyone for a large plate of BIAS BULLSH*T.

Read post # 9.

[smutcakes]

What is the NLA's capability, experience or anything which makes them have the say on what is or is not an impeachable offence? Are they all lawyers, judges or legal specialists?

[mikemac]

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

alt=clap2.gif> alt=clap2.gif> alt=clap2.gif>

I love it.

About time we see some seriousness and justice in this country.

Enough of the puppeteering show they subjected us up to now.

Not allowing a person to submit documents in evidence in defense, and you call that justice,

If you had documents proving your innocence in a court case and were denied them being submitted you'd be screaming blue bloody murder...................

Anyone for a large plate of BIAS BULLSH*T.

Read post # 9.

Well, did you read post #9 ? If so, do you understand why Costas2008 said what he said ? Or are you so blinded by your love and devotion for Yingluck you just don't see ?

Regarding the op, I got a good laugh from this line -

................."Besides, the graft buster also told the NLA that Ms Yingluck never appeared, even once, to clarify her documents submitted to the NACC to defend herself against the charge of negligence of duties in the rice pledging scheme."............................

It seems Yingluck is even negligent in defending her own negligence ! But what really cracks me up is there are supposedly intelligent people out there defending her. I can understand doing it if you are a well paid lawyer, but to do it for nothing, in your spare time !

[sjaak327]

Just another delay tactic by YLs lawyers. Good they denied them and even better they voted on that decision

How is it good to deny an accused to present additional evidence. How does the fact that they voted on it make it any more justifiable ? This is an appointed body, that doesn't represent the people of Thailand nor was it elected by them, and the body is a direct result of a gross violation of the law of the land.

It only casts doubt about this whole procedure, rather than add legitimacy.

Edited November 28, 2014 by sjaak327

[smutcakes]

Well, did you read post #9 ? If so, do you understand why Costas2008 said what he said ? Or are you so blinded by your love and devotion for Yingluck you just don't see ?

Regarding the op, I got a good laugh from this line -

................."Besides, the graft buster also told the NLA that Ms Yingluck never appeared, even once, to clarify her documents submitted to the NACC to defend herself against the charge of negligence of duties in the rice pledging scheme."............................

It seems Yingluck is even negligent in defending her own negligence ! But what really cracks me up is there are supposedly intelligent people out there defending her. I can understand doing it if you are a well paid lawyer, but to do it for nothing, in your spare time !

And if there is no legal requirement for her to turn up, and presumably she is being advised by some of the best lawyers around, why would she?

the fact they even raise it, probably strengthens her case and makes them look like retarded charlies.

Whats your expertise on the Thai legal system?

[Rob8891]

Aaaaw, bless.....

The new files are probably the "typed up" versions of the earlier ones that MissY had written with her chunky crayons set.

[Rob8891]

.and for those who still do not seem to understand the OP, here is an extract with the critical bit emphasised....

"At the NLA meeting today to hear her lawyer’s clarification, the national Anti-Corruption Commission spokesman Vicha Mahakhun also countered the lawyer’s claim by telling the assemblymen that the 72 papers that Ms Yingluck wanted to produce ate in fact appeared in the 28 items of documents the NACC submitted earlier to the NLA in seeking her impeachment."

Unerstand now?

[mikemac]

Well, did you read post #9 ? If so, do you understand why Costas2008 said what he said ? Or are you so blinded by your love and devotion for Yingluck you just don't see ?

Regarding the op, I got a good laugh from this line -

................."Besides, the graft buster also told the NLA that Ms Yingluck never appeared, even once, to clarify her documents submitted to the NACC to defend herself against the charge of negligence of duties in the rice pledging scheme."............................

It seems Yingluck is even negligent in defending her own negligence ! But what really cracks me up is there are supposedly intelligent people out there defending her. I can understand doing it if you are a well paid lawyer, but to do it for nothing, in your spare time !

And if there is no legal requirement for her to turn up, and presumably she is being advised by some of the best lawyers around, why would she?

the fact they even raise it, probably strengthens her case and makes them look like retarded charlies.

Whats your expertise on the Thai legal system?

Not the point Smutty, by not turning up she is treating this whole affair in the same manner she treated her role as PM, which is why she is being accused of negligence.

And my expertise on the Thai legal system is similar to yours, zero, but a blind man can see what has been going on regarding the Shins and their contempt for that same legal system these past few years.

Edited November 28, 2014 by mikemac

[smutcakes]

Not the point Smutty, by not turning up she is treating this whole affair in the same manner she treated her role as PM, which is why she is being accused of negligence.

And my expertise on the Thai legal system is similar to yours, zero, but a blind man can see what has been going on regarding the Shins and their contempt for that same legal system these past few years.

MM, of course its the point, she is under investigation for certain things, there is a process, so they follow it.

If they can avoid something they will, if its not necessary they wont do it.

Have you ever known anyone with power and money to stand up at early points in proceedings and say screw it i want to stand up and justify myself??? anywhere in the world?

She will do as her lawyers advise, as would any person in the world.

I dont disagree with your blind man comment, but a blind man can also see its not just them, its the whole lot of them. And if you cannot see that then maybe its you that needs the eye check.

[paully]

How is it justice when they refuse to consider evidence? I don't know if this stuff would help or hinder her but in most countries ALL tendered evidence is evaluated.

By not doing so they open the door to an appeal.

Only if it was actual evidence, rather than self-serving horse-poop. One suspects that it consisted of the latter..

[Robroona]

How is it justice when they refuse to consider evidence? I don't know if this stuff would help or hinder her but in most countries ALL tendered evidence is evaluated.

By not doing so they open the door to an appeal.

The article states that these documents are already submitted previously

[smutcakes]

How is it justice when they refuse to consider evidence? I don't know if this stuff would help or hinder her but in most countries ALL tendered evidence is evaluated.

By not doing so they open the door to an appeal.

The article states that these documents are already submitted previously

And evaluated by the Group of 40 senators......

On a serious note, what experience to these NLA members have on what constitutes viable evidence etc to be judged in court?

[thesetat2013]

Just another delay tactic by YLs lawyers. Good they denied them and even better they voted on that decision

How is it good to deny an accused to present additional evidence. How does the fact that they voted on it make it any more justifiable ? This is an appointed body, that doesn't represent the people of Thailand nor was it elected by them, and the body is a direct result of a gross violation of the law of the land.

It only casts doubt about this whole procedure, rather than add legitimacy.

Before you go spouting your holier than thou principles you should read the other news about their being a statute of limitations for her supposed crimes. She has had plenty of time to give her proof of innocence. And in case you have not noticed her lawyers always seem to have new evidence when the deadline for a hearing nears

[sjaak327]

Just another delay tactic by YLs lawyers. Good they denied them and even better they voted on that decision

How is it good to deny an accused to present additional evidence. How does the fact that they voted on it make it any more justifiable ? This is an appointed body, that doesn't represent the people of Thailand nor was it elected by them, and the body is a direct result of a gross violation of the law of the land.

It only casts doubt about this whole procedure, rather than add legitimacy.

Before you go spouting your holier than thou principles you should read the other news about their being a statute of limitations for her supposed crimes. She has had plenty of time to give her proof of innocence. And in case you have not noticed her lawyers always seem to have new evidence when the deadline for a hearing nears

So ? one side cannot submit evidence because the deadline nears (which probably means it hasn't expired yet) and the other side has broken the law as well. It has nothing to do with holier than thou but with real justice, not justice army style, or justice for people you don't like, whilst not serving justice to people you do like. I must have thought the principle is pretty simple.

[Anthony5]

Not the point Smutty, by not turning up she is treating this whole affair in the same manner she treated her role as PM, which is why she is being accused of negligence.

And my expertise on the Thai legal system is similar to yours, zero, but a blind man can see what has been going on regarding the Shins and their contempt for that same legal system these past few years.

MM, of course its the point, she is under investigation for certain things, there is a process, so they follow it.

If they can avoid something they will, if its not necessary they wont do it.

Have you ever known anyone with power and money to stand up at early points in proceedings and say screw it i want to stand up and justify myself??? anywhere in the world?

She will do as her lawyers advise, as would any person in the world.

I dont disagree with your blind man comment, but a blind man can also see its not just them, its the whole lot of them. And if you cannot see that then maybe its you that needs the eye check.

But you don't want to say that because this happens everywhere in the world, in the circles of utter scum politicians, that it's justified, do you ?

[ChrisY1]

This whole issue is simply a dog and horse show..........nothing's going to happen.......and if it does....it'll take years!

[smutcakes]

Not the point Smutty, by not turning up she is treating this whole affair in the same manner she treated her role as PM, which is why she is being accused of negligence.

And my expertise on the Thai legal system is similar to yours, zero, but a blind man can see what has been going on regarding the Shins and their contempt for that same legal system these past few years.

MM, of course its the point, she is under investigation for certain things, there is a process, so they follow it.

If they can avoid something they will, if its not necessary they wont do it.

Have you ever known anyone with power and money to stand up at early points in proceedings and say screw it i want to stand up and justify myself??? anywhere in the world?

She will do as her lawyers advise, as would any person in the world.

I dont disagree with your blind man comment, but a blind man can also see its not just them, its the whole lot of them. And if you cannot see that then maybe its you that needs the eye check.

But you don't want to say that because this happens everywhere in the world, in the circles of utter scum politicians, that it's justified, do you ?

As you may be able to read from the first few words in my post i dont say i agree with it, but it is what it is. And in a country as divided as this, does prosecuting one person really help that much. Yes she should be from a normal perspective but when you, I and the dog know no one else will be, does it really help. All or nothing. Obviously the All does not work as they wont prosecute themselves!

If you think Thailand are going to come up with some cutting edge.... well i will leave it.