Yingluck petitions Supreme Court



BANGKOK: -- Former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra today submitted a petition to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Offices stating that additional documents filed to the court to support charges upon her in the alleged rice-pledging scheme corruption scandal was unfair.

In the petition, Ms Yingluck said the Office of the Attorney-General (OAG) submitted more than 60,000 pages of documents which were not in the earlier case file and were not questioned was unfair because it obstructed her opportunity to study and object.

She said organic law under the Constitution relevant to criminal case trial procedure states clearly “In the trial of a criminal case, the court judge must adhere to the case file of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) as a principal evidence in proceeding the trial.”

She then said that under the principles of laws and justices, the plaintiff (OAG) has no right to add additional documental evidences and witnesses in excess of what appeared in the case file of the NACC at this step of the trial, as it only was tantamount to an exploitation of the case and was unfair for her.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/yingluck-petitions-supreme-court


-- Thai PBS 2015-08-27

Hope she has been informed the modified definition of perjury is no longer applicable.

Forget it luv, men with big guns have got it in for you.

Could be long jail time.

Sounds fair enough to me

Sounds fair enough to me

Why should she get special treatment? That's the way the judicial system operates in Thailand. There's no pretrial discovery. The parties just show up with their own documents and that's what goes into evidence. She has grounds for appeal when they reform their pretrial discovery, civil and criminal procedure codes. She can wait, but those reforms will probably never come. Its an antiquated justice system - just look at the B2 trial.

Could be long jail time.

Wonder if she can top 18?

She then said that under the principles of laws and justices, the plaintiff (OAG) has no right to add additional documental evidences and witnesses in excess of what appeared in the case file of the NACC at this step of the trial, as it only was tantamount to an exploitation of the case and was unfair for her.

One must remember that this stickler for the rules, and champion of fairness, saw nothing wrong with amending the amnesty bill between readings so that her brother would be included. Must be convenient to have a flexible sense of "fairness". Ethics are for the peasants I guess.

She then said that under the principles of laws and justices, the plaintiff (OAG) has no right to add additional documental evidences and witnesses in excess of what appeared in the case file of the NACC at this step of the trial, as it only was tantamount to an exploitation of the case and was unfair for her.

One must remember that this stickler for the rules, and champion of fairness, saw nothing wrong with amending the amnesty bill between readings so that her brother would be included. Must be convenient to have a flexible sense of "fairness". Ethics are for the peasants I guess.

And one should remember this is the woman that had no hesitation to play the role of puppet, fake pm, orchestrated by her convicted absconded immoral brother.

In playing the puppet she clearly displayed her own lack of moral and ethics and her own disregard and total lack of any form of respect for the natural expectations from the people of a country to have a genuine and moral and capable leader.

She had no hesitation to play puppet and failed on every count.

I guess we'll how hear - 'but I didn't know'.

Could be long jail time.

How many rich and important people, can you remember that got long jail terms and serve them in Thailand? I don't know one.

So the chances are good that she won't as well.

submitted a petition to the Supreme Court stating that additional documents filed to the court to support charges upon her in the alleged rice-pledging scheme corruption scandal was unfair

More evidence against a defendant is unfair?

Rather odd logic.

60,000 pages submitted by the Prosecution. Yeah, it might take a year or so for the Defense to legitimately scrutinize them. Wonder if the Judge reviewed all that evidence. 60,000 pages... Sheesh.

submitted a petition to the Supreme Court stating that additional documents filed to the court to support charges upon her in the alleged rice-pledging scheme corruption scandal was unfair

More evidence against a defendant is unfair?

Rather odd logic.

She blinded you with science!

Could be long jail time.

How many rich and important people, can you remember that got long jail terms and serve them in Thailand? I don't know one.

So the chances are good that she won't as well.

Exactly! She gonna pay a few millions in fines out of her tip box and continue biz as usual.

Perhaps not. Times are changing.

So, if a single page of a letter, signed by her, stating clearly that she was doing something corrupt, should turn up, she thinks it's inadmissible.

It's the same attitude as Banyin. I don't like the evidence against me, it's all unfair. Stop it now and leave me alone.

Nice to see Thailand's first elected female former PM/DM back and in such fine form, showing her acute command of the principles of Thai Law influenced by her keen sense of fair play, justice, ethics and morals.

A breath of fresh air and clearly just waiting for the next election to lead her party to victory and once again lead the country in the democratic and free way she champions so well.

If she goes to jail, she's the next Nelson Mandela and it will be a major reason for the west to put sanctions on Thailand's military regime.

For advice please - does Thailand still have a constitution?

If not, then I would think that any reference to it is irrelevant.

If she goes to jail, she's the next Nelson Mandela and it will be a major reason for the west to put sanctions on Thailand's military regime.

Perhaps I'm missing the sarcasm or some other slant, but is this for real?

At face value an obvious denial of natural justice. She is correct to petition.

Could be long jail time.

How many rich and important people, can you remember that got long jail terms and serve them in Thailand? I don't know one.

So the chances are good that she won't as well.

the former (FBI) general got over 30 years and is in jail as far as I know.

Could be long jail time.

As I hope it will be for some people in power now ...

Talk about pretrial discovery what about the Kao Tao situation. Why should YL expect any different?

good for her at least she is making a fight of it standing up for her rights is the correct thing to do.

Nice to see Thailand's first elected female former PM/DM back and in such fine form, showing her acute command of the principles of Thai Law influenced by her keen sense of fair play, justice, ethics and morals.

A breath of fresh air and clearly just waiting for the next election to lead her party to victory and once again lead the country in the democratic and free way she champions so well.

Indeed and she's right of course and so glad you agree. Yes she champions the 30 baht health care scheme, tablets for schools and the 300 baht minimum wage not bad for Thailand's first female PM

Done any revision on your points ?? Tablets ?? how many bought, how many given out, what percent received ?? HOW MANY ARE WORKING,, and if not are the y being repaired--and by who ?? Your a scream. were they Samsung ?? like the one she showed on the campaign trail ??

She champions the most overseas trips abroad----she champions not attending her meetings as rice chairpersons--and champions not being present in parliament when a PM would surely have been there. And you on most days are slagging off the present PM----OMG

She could have chosen any career and been successful. She is attractive and charismatic, and smart enough for most lines of work. When her brother, a convicted criminal, twisted her arm into running for PM as his replacement, little jingly alarm bells should have been ringing in her head. When the emails arrived telling her to get him an amnesty and new passports and lay the preparations for his glorious comeback, she should have said no, three times.

I'm sure that if I met her in a business setting, I would like her. She should have pursued that line of work instead. I don't think she is a bad person at all, but she made some huge and snowballing mistakes because of her misplaced loyalty to her brother, an unsurpassed corrupting influence.

Nice to see Thailand's first elected female former PM/DM back and in such fine form, showing her acute command of the principles of Thai Law influenced by her keen sense of fair play, justice, ethics and morals.

A breath of fresh air and clearly just waiting for the next election to lead her party to victory and once again lead the country in the democratic and free way she champions so well.

Indeed and she's right of course and so glad you agree. Yes she champions the 30 baht health care scheme, tablets for schools and the 300 baht minimum wage not bad for Thailand's first female PM

The 30 baht healh care scheme was created by her brother, just like the rest of her policies. By the way the Democrats made it free. She promised on television, as she brandished her Ipad, "you will have a tablet just like mine", we all know what the kids got, Chinese junk that failed with great regularity and almost instantly. I have no problem with the minimum wage and said so at the time, I see you neglected to mention her crowning glory, the rice scam, perhaps in your next post.

Sounds fair enough to me

"at this step of the trial"

I wonder at which step of her trial she would find adding additional evidence to be admissable.

BTW does this mean that she thinks even she and her legal team cannot come with additional evidence of her ignorance ?

She then said that under the principles of laws and justices, the plaintiff (OAG) has no right to add additional documental evidences and witnesses in excess of what appeared in the case file of the NACC at this step of the trial, as it only was tantamount to an exploitation of the case and was unfair for her.

One must remember that this stickler for the rules, and champion of fairness, saw nothing wrong with amending the amnesty bill between readings so that her brother would be included. Must be convenient to have a flexible sense of "fairness". Ethics are for the peasants I guess.

And one should remember this is the woman that had no hesitation to play the role of puppet, fake pm, orchestrated by her convicted absconded immoral brother.

In playing the puppet she clearly displayed her own lack of moral and ethics and her own disregard and total lack of any form of respect for the natural expectations from the people of a country to have a genuine and moral and capable leader.

She had no hesitation to play puppet and failed on every count.

I guess we'll how hear - 'but I didn't know'.

Luckily this topic is not about democracy and well accepted fakes are in the West.