US: Florida man fighting extradition to Thailand in bizarre kidnap case

[webfact]

S. Fla. man fighting extradition to Thailand in bizarre kidnap case
By Paula McMahon

PALM BEACH: -- Shawn Abraham Shaw is an international fugitive who hid out in South Florida after kidnapping a wealthy buinessman in Thailand and negotiating a $2 million ransom — at least according to Thai authorities and U.S. government officials who want him extradited.

But Shaw, 43, of Palm Beach, and his fiancee tell a very different story: They say he's being set up by a powerful magnate, with ties to the Thai royal family, who wants him locked up over a business deal gone bad.

Shaw is accused of perpetrating a bizarre series of crimes, including kidnapping, against the alleged victim, a close friend of his for years. Thai authorities want him to stand trial there.

"To say that this is a strange case is an understatement," U.S. Magistrate Judge William Matthewman said at the end of a three-hour bond hearing Wednesday.

Shaw, whose defense says he could face the death penalty or a lengthy prison term if convicted in Thailand, fought hard to persuade a federal judge to let him out of the Palm Beach County jail cell where he's spent the last two months.

Full story: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-palm-beach-thailand-extradition-20150128-story.html

-- SUN SENTINEL 2015-01-29

[HeijoshinCool]

.

The ransom, investigators said, was to be disguised as a business deal so Shaw could avoid taxes.

Uh, so he would have had to pay taxes on a ransom?

What a load of nonsense. The "victim" is paying Thai police to bring this guy back for some form of revenge, and any U.S. Attorney who aids and abets such should be disbarred. Neither Thai cops, nor courts, can be trusted and the treaty should be shredded.

[zaphod reborn]

The alleged victim is a very wealthy Las Vegas businessman. I'm not sure why extradition is being requested or that jurisdiction would be in Thailand. The kidnapping incident did occur in Phuket, but the ransom and extortion scheme allegedly was also to take place in the U.S. Therefore, the criminal court should rule that extradition is not necessary, because, if there was an legitimacy to the criminal complaint, a prosecution could be brought by the West Palm Beach district attorney's office. The victim is also taking a risk, because if extradition occurs, the victim may also be extradited for les majeste, if there is any evidence the victim has claimed he has strong connections to the Royal Family. Easy way out of the mess for the trial judge is for the case to remain in the US.

[NeverSure]

No way should the US release a citizen to a corrupt country where there is martial law, a junta, and where influence can be bought in the courts.

I don't see where the US would have jurisdiction in the case if this is true:

"Pasqualucci testified that after the couple returned from their December 2013 trip to Phuket, Thailand, during which the alleged kidnap, robbery and extortion took place..."

I just wouldn't release the citizen to Thailand at this time.

[Seastallion]

No way should the US release a citizen to a corrupt country where there is martial law, a junta, and where influence can be bought in the courts.

I don't see where the US would have jurisdiction in the case if this is true:

"Pasqualucci testified that after the couple returned from their December 2013 trip to Phuket, Thailand, during which the alleged kidnap, robbery and extortion took place..."

I just wouldn't release the citizen to Thailand at this time.

I agree with you on the one hand for what you say, but on the other.....Shaw doesn't come across as convincing.

There's something that makes me leery of the defendant and his GF. Part of his defence is an allegation of paedophilia against the victim, (an undisprovable smear tactic), and that allegation is only backed up with "I was led to believe...." by the GF (ie, she has no idea). Also an allegation of frequenting ladyboy bars; another smear tactic that is hard to disprove, but also seems to fly in the face of the first allegation; Do paedophiles go for ladyboys? Seems like mixed perversions to me (Not saying ladyboy desire is perverted, it's just that this guy wants to treat it as such).

She uses her work during 9/11 forensics to help give her credibility. Really? Does that make you a more trustworthy citizen or is it simply an emotive "I'm a patriot" cry? It makes her less credible in my eyes simply for the fact that she brought it up. Clutching at straws.

What would you say if the evidence against Shaw was solid and convincing?

[car720]

No way should the US release a citizen to a corrupt country where there is martial law, a junta, and where influence can be bought in the courts.

I don't see where the US would have jurisdiction in the case if this is true:

"Pasqualucci testified that after the couple returned from their December 2013 trip to Phuket, Thailand, during which the alleged kidnap, robbery and extortion took place..."

I just wouldn't release the citizen to Thailand at this time.

I agree with you on the one hand for what you say, but on the other.....Shaw doesn't come across as convincing.

There's something that makes me leery of the defendant and his GF. Part of his defence is an allegation of paedophilia against the victim, (an undisprovable smear tactic), and that allegation is only backed up with "I was led to believe...." by the GF (ie, she has no idea). Also an allegation of frequenting ladyboy bars; another smear tactic that is hard to disprove, but also seems to fly in the face of the first allegation; Do paedophiles go for ladyboys? Seems like mixed perversions to me (Not saying ladyboy desire is perverted, it's just that this guy wants to treat it as such).

She uses her work during 9/11 forensics to help give her credibility. Really? Does that make you a more trustworthy citizen or is it simply an emotive "I'm a patriot" cry? It makes her less credible in my eyes simply for the fact that she brought it up. Clutching at straws.

What would you say if the evidence against Shaw was solid and convincing?

I am not sure if the innocence or guilt of the defendant are at issue here.

I must agree with the previous posters that where there is any doubt whatsoever that to hand over a citizen to a country with a political system which is questionable at best would just not be jurisprudence.

[RT555]

Put the trial on Koh Tao, the headsman will be judge and his son will be the strong arm.

[IAMHERE]

How can the USA send anyone to a country ruled by Marshal Law ?

[Seastallion]

No way should the US release a citizen to a corrupt country where there is martial law, a junta, and where influence can be bought in the courts.

I don't see where the US would have jurisdiction in the case if this is true:

"Pasqualucci testified that after the couple returned from their December 2013 trip to Phuket, Thailand, during which the alleged kidnap, robbery and extortion took place..."

I just wouldn't release the citizen to Thailand at this time.

I agree with you on the one hand for what you say, but on the other.....Shaw doesn't come across as convincing.

There's something that makes me leery of the defendant and his GF. Part of his defence is an allegation of paedophilia against the victim, (an undisprovable smear tactic), and that allegation is only backed up with "I was led to believe...." by the GF (ie, she has no idea). Also an allegation of frequenting ladyboy bars; another smear tactic that is hard to disprove, but also seems to fly in the face of the first allegation; Do paedophiles go for ladyboys? Seems like mixed perversions to me (Not saying ladyboy desire is perverted, it's just that this guy wants to treat it as such).

She uses her work during 9/11 forensics to help give her credibility. Really? Does that make you a more trustworthy citizen or is it simply an emotive "I'm a patriot" cry? It makes her less credible in my eyes simply for the fact that she brought it up. Clutching at straws.

What would you say if the evidence against Shaw was solid and convincing?

I am not sure if the innocence or guilt of the defendant are at issue here.

I must agree with the previous posters that where there is any doubt whatsoever that to hand over a citizen to a country with a political system which is questionable at best would just not be jurisprudence.

Agreed. It needs to be a very high bar....but my question was what if the evidence was solid and convincing? Just musing.

[NeverSure]

No way should the US release a citizen to a corrupt country where there is martial law, a junta, and where influence can be bought in the courts.

I don't see where the US would have jurisdiction in the case if this is true:

"Pasqualucci testified that after the couple returned from their December 2013 trip to Phuket, Thailand, during which the alleged kidnap, robbery and extortion took place..."

I just wouldn't release the citizen to Thailand at this time.

I agree with you on the one hand for what you say, but on the other.....Shaw doesn't come across as convincing.

There's something that makes me leery of the defendant and his GF. Part of his defence is an allegation of paedophilia against the victim, (an undisprovable smear tactic), and that allegation is only backed up with "I was led to believe...." by the GF (ie, she has no idea). Also an allegation of frequenting ladyboy bars; another smear tactic that is hard to disprove, but also seems to fly in the face of the first allegation; Do paedophiles go for ladyboys? Seems like mixed perversions to me (Not saying ladyboy desire is perverted, it's just that this guy wants to treat it as such).

She uses her work during 9/11 forensics to help give her credibility. Really? Does that make you a more trustworthy citizen or is it simply an emotive "I'm a patriot" cry? It makes her less credible in my eyes simply for the fact that she brought it up. Clutching at straws.

What would you say if the evidence against Shaw was solid and convincing?

I am not sure if the innocence or guilt of the defendant are at issue here.

I must agree with the previous posters that where there is any doubt whatsoever that to hand over a citizen to a country with a political system which is questionable at best would just not be jurisprudence.

Agreed. It needs to be a very high bar....but my question was what if the evidence was solid and convincing? Just musing.

I still wouldn't. Sometimes Thailand's punishment doesn't fit the crime. The accuser claims to have high level influence. That would do it for me.

[Time Traveller]

The alleged victim is a very wealthy Las Vegas businessman.

Who is it?

[Torty]

The alleged victim is a very wealthy Las Vegas businessman.

Who is it?

identified only as AMA in court records

Pasqualucci, 45, testified that she believed the alleged victim was a pedophile who frequented transgender bars in Thailand and that he had dished out threats of his own.

She said he had threatened to have them killed if they revealed that Shaw had seen something on the victim's computer that indicated, 'He likes little boys', the Sun Sentinel reported.

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2931384/Florida-man-43-wanted-Thailand-drugging-kidnapping-extorting-2-million-billionaire-businessman.html#ixzz3QFgzxFo2

[Seastallion]

I agree with you on the one hand for what you say, but on the other.....Shaw doesn't come across as convincing.

There's something that makes me leery of the defendant and his GF. Part of his defence is an allegation of paedophilia against the victim, (an undisprovable smear tactic), and that allegation is only backed up with "I was led to believe...." by the GF (ie, she has no idea). Also an allegation of frequenting ladyboy bars; another smear tactic that is hard to disprove, but also seems to fly in the face of the first allegation; Do paedophiles go for ladyboys? Seems like mixed perversions to me (Not saying ladyboy desire is perverted, it's just that this guy wants to treat it as such).

She uses her work during 9/11 forensics to help give her credibility. Really? Does that make you a more trustworthy citizen or is it simply an emotive "I'm a patriot" cry? It makes her less credible in my eyes simply for the fact that she brought it up. Clutching at straws.

What would you say if the evidence against Shaw was solid and convincing?

I am not sure if the innocence or guilt of the defendant are at issue here.

I must agree with the previous posters that where there is any doubt whatsoever that to hand over a citizen to a country with a political system which is questionable at best would just not be jurisprudence.

Agreed. It needs to be a very high bar....but my question was what if the evidence was solid and convincing? Just musing.

I still wouldn't. Sometimes Thailand's punishment doesn't fit the crime. The accuser claims to have high level influence. That would do it for me.

I see your point and tend to sit on your side....the thing that bothers me is what does any country do with a person who they believe is a criminal, but in a different jurisdiction and for reasons you have stated, refuse to hand him over? They can't try him as he has done nothing in their own jurisdiction. Then there is the diplomacy angle; is the possibly harsh incarceration of one citizen worth more than, say strategic regional requirements and billions in trade?

It's a tough one and will possibly hinge on the real character and history of the accused; I daresay if he's a bit of a scoundrel in US eyes under US jurisdiction, they might not be so loyal to their citizen.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.