Yingluck risks being counter-sued, says ex-judge

[Lite Beer]

Yingluck risks being counter-sued, says ex-judge
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- FORMER prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra risks getting slapped with a counter-suit for accusing a former attorney-general and three prosecutors of abuse of authority, former Supreme Court justice Chuchart Srisaeng said Thursday.

Yingluck could be charged with violating Article 175 of the Criminal Code for allegedly framing others and taking them to court, which is punishable by up to five years in jail, Chuchart posted on Facebook.

Yingluck's legal team may be attempting to delay her trial at the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders over the rice-pledging scheme by filing the suit against the state attorneys, he said.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/Yingluck-risks-being-counter-sued-says-ex-judge-30269996.html

-- The Nation 2015-10-01

[Thai at Heart]

I read that to mean, her complaint probably has some legs.

[rubl]

I read that saying Ms. Yingluck indeed likes to drags things into the next decades or so. After all when she asked for justice she didn't mention in which year.

[Skywalker69]

I read that to mean, her complaint probably has some legs.

I don´t.

[Artisi]

Who cares- just get on with the case inhand and get it over with -- sounds like the kids nursery rhythm "The wheels on the bus go round and round all day long"

[Compo]

And so many of you on here argue that it is not a "witch hunt".

"An investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views."

[lovelomsak]

And so many of you on here argue that it is not a "witch hunt".

"An investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views."

The fight against corruption appears to be a witch hunt also.

[mamypoko]

Same old blame the 'daughter' for the sins of the 'father' crowd.

[rubl]

Same old blame the 'daughter' for the sins of the 'father' crowd.

Actually it's more the crowd that asks Ms. Yingluck to be responsable and accept that means accountable as well. After all while PM Ms. Yingluck was full of 'accountability, responsability', taking special care of corruption and so.

[Linky]

I read that to mean, her complaint probably has some legs.

That is exactly right. Prosecution does not threaten, they do. They only threaten when they have no case.

[Thai at Heart]

I read that to mean, her complaint probably has some legs.

That is exactly right. Prosecution does not threaten, they do. They only threaten when they have no case.

Exactly. Why would the oag threaten a plaintiff???

[Linky]

I read that to mean, her complaint probably has some legs.

That is exactly right. Prosecution does not threaten, they do. They only threaten when they have no case.

Exactly. Why would the oag threaten a plaintiff???

When the oag has no case but wants the plaintiff to stop so threatens a counter suit.

[Reigntax]

Article 175, framing others and taking them to court. Well lets see them enforce that on the KT investigation team for the absolute frame up. I doubt they will do anything.

[Thai at Heart]

Apparently framing others and taking them to court..... Doesn't that cover every counter suit I'm a defamation lawsuit?

[webfact]

POLITICS
Yingluck risks being counter-sued, says ex-judge
THE NATION



BANGKOK: -- FORMER prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra risks getting slapped with a counter-suit for accusing a former attorney-general and three prosecutors of abuse of authority, former Supreme Court justice Chuchart Srisaeng said yesterday.

Yingluck could be charged with violating Article 175 of the Criminal Code for allegedly framing others and taking them to court, which is punishable by up to five years in jail, Chuchart posted on Facebook.

Yingluck's legal team may be attempting to delay her trial at the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders over the rice-pledging scheme by filing the suit against the state attorneys, he said.

Meanwhile Norawit Lalaeng, one of Yingluck's lawyers, defended himself against former attorney-general Trakul Winitnaiyapak's comment on Facebook. "My father taught me that as a civil servant, I must practise tolerance and do my best to give my birthplace the gratitude I owe. For the rice-pledging scheme, I had to do my duty," he wrote.

Norawit said Trakul failed to answer three questions:

Why did he not order an additional probe to fix holes in the case but signed on to indict Yingluck one hour before the National Legislative Assembly voted to impeach her?

Why did he indict Yingluck for consenting to corruption when the National Anti-Corruption Commission only accused her of negligence?

Why did he file 67,800 pages of documents with the suit even though they were not discussed during the investigation?

Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said he could not yet reveal the amount of compensation Yingluck has to pay for damages the state allegedly incurred from the rice-pledging subsidy programme even though the committees in charge of evaluating the damage figure have given him their report.

They had given him a formula to arrive at the figure and more calculation has to be done.

The government was not saying whether the rice-pledging programme was right or wrong, but since damage was incurred, someone has to take responsibility, Wissanu said.

"In the end, this will be settled in court. But instead of having the government take them to court, the government will be the defendant," he said.

Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam on Wednesday said he had received the assessment report on the value of damages to be used for civil liability actions against former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and others involved in the controversial rice-pledging scheme, previously expected to reach Bt500 million.

Wissanu said the two appointed committees had worked on three questions: had they committed any wrongdoing, who was responsible, and what was the estimated value of damages? These questions have been answered, Wissanu said.

The next step was for the committees to report to their respective ministers of Finance and Commerce, Wissanu said. Those ministers would then report to the prime minister, who would call a meeting to discuss the findings in detail. If everyone was in agreement, they would forward the report to the civil liability committee. The report would then be sent back to the PM and the two ministers to issue an administrative order against political holders and officials in accordance with the civil administrative procedures law.

A statute of limitation of two years would then be in effect, Wissanu added.

He said the defendants could challenge the value of damages by filing a complaint with the Administrative Court to revoke the order.

For the private entities involved in the case, of which 15 have been identified so far, the government will file a case in a normal civil court and the statute of limitation would be set at one year.

To file a lawsuit against the alleged wrongdoers, the first case must proceed so that the government could identify the principals responsible for such a large sum of damages.

Wissanu declined to confirm if the value of damages was close to the Bt500 million speculated.

Asked if the case would be over if Yingluck agreed to pay, he said it would be over if the civil liability was taken. If not, the government would enforce other civil liability actions to offset the financial losses incurred.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Yingluck-risks-being-counter-sued-says-ex-judge-30270015.html


-- The Nation 2015-10-02

[NOC]

This is what 'gamesmenship' looks like in the court systems.

[LannaGuy]

former Supreme Court justice Chuchart Srisaeng should tend to his roses

Edited October 2, 2015 by metisdead
Bold font removed.

[Tatsujin]

I read that to mean, her complaint probably has some legs.

I read that to mean that the OAG won't tolerate the Shinawatra's messing them around or allowing them to throw accusations around without there being any consequences.

Let's not forget the Shinawatra's favorite pastime is to sue anyone at the drop of a hat themselves, using their power and money to then make things go their way legally and to silence their opponents. Admittedly that didn't always work (pastry box), but they've won a ton more than they've lost, especially the libel/slander type cases he loved to make.

[cloudhopper]

Then there's always the counter-counter suit.

[oneday]

"...for allegedly framing others..."

Framing them? OMG, give me a break.

All she is suing them for is what they actually did. No one has ever disputed what she says they did, which was to introduce 60,000 pages of documents the NACC did not pass on to the court and not allowing her to call witnesses she wanted to testify in her behalf. What a rats nest of corruption this who legal system is that's going after her and no doubt it is being driven by one man.

[waldroj]

Former Supreme Court justice Chuchart posted on Facebook that Yingluck could be charged with violating Article 175 of the Criminal Code.

While I in no way support Yingluck, I do feel that using Facebook against her in this way is poor politics.

There is no question that Facebook’s Community Standards do accept that “People can use Facebook to challenge ideas, institutions and practices”, and that, “Such discussion can promote debate and greater understanding”.

And, while both Chuchart and Yingluck have both been using Facebook to push their own “political” points of view, it could be argued that Chuchart’s use of Facebook in this instant is questionable at best.

It could also be seen as a deliberate attempt (by him) to influence what’s happening in the current legal court case (in which Yingluck should have the presumption of innocence), and the Court allowed to get on with its work without unsolicited external noise at this stage in the proceedings.

The Nation too, should be criticised for choosing to report a personal view (aired on social media) as a news item (with its potential to stir up opposing parties), especially when the outcome of this Court’s decision will be so critical to the future of Thailand.

Chuchart’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/chuchart.srisaeng?fref=nf)

Yingluck’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Y.Shinawatra

[LannaGuy]

There are no facts to dispute they did not let her present thousands of docs and call witnesses does that sound fair to anybody? apart from the deluded? no thought not

[AGareth2]

And so many of you on here argue that it is not a "witch hunt".

"An investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views."

The fight against corruption appears to be a witch hunt also.

should that read "which"?

[Si Thea01]

So her lawyers have finally learnt that the best form of defense is attack. As for her complaint having legs, so does a table and chairs but that doesn't mean anything either, just like her actions. Only delaying tactics.

If she is innocent as she professes then let's get on with it, she and her team should stop trying to turn the hearing into a train wreck. She will be the one injured in the end if she keeps up this farce. And her lawyers will be laughing all the way to the bank, as they get paid win, lose or draw. Looks like they want to keep milking the cow while they can.

[lucky11]

Same old blame the 'daughter' for the sins of the 'father' crowd.

She was the PM at the time and strenuously denied that her father was involved in the decision making such as picking the cabinet, so the sins committed such as the rice scam are hers and hers alone and she has brought this upon herself!! Unless you are calling her a serial liar of course.

[LannaGuy]

Same old blame the 'daughter' for the sins of the 'father' crowd.

She was the PM at the time and strenuously denied that her father was involved in the decision making such as picking the cabinet, so the sins committed such as the rice scam are hers and hers alone and she has brought this upon herself!! Unless you are calling her a serial liar of course.

Poor old Lert, blamed for everything, even at 96 still advising on picking cabinets is he?

Edited October 2, 2015 by LannaGuy

[rubl]

Former Supreme Court justice Chuchart posted on Facebook that Yingluck could be charged with violating Article 175 of the Criminal Code.

While I in no way support Yingluck, I do feel that using Facebook against her in this way is poor politics.

There is no question that Facebook’s Community Standards do accept that “People can use Facebook to challenge ideas, institutions and practices”, and that, “Such discussion can promote debate and greater understanding”.

And, while both Chuchart and Yingluck have both been using Facebook to push their own “political” points of view, it could be argued that Chuchart’s use of Facebook in this instant is questionable at best.

It could also be seen as a deliberate attempt (by him) to influence what’s happening in the current legal court case (in which Yingluck should have the presumption of innocence), and the Court allowed to get on with its work without unsolicited external noise at this stage in the proceedings.

The Nation too, should be criticised for choosing to report a personal view (aired on social media) as a news item (with its potential to stir up opposing parties), especially when the outcome of this Court’s decision will be so critical to the future of Thailand.

Chuchart’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/chuchart.srisaeng?fref=nf)

Yingluck’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Y.Shinawatra

Well, if Ms. Yingluck as private person can post her musings on facebook why should private person Chuchart not be able to do so?

[jayboy]

Former Supreme Court justice Chuchart posted on Facebook that Yingluck could be charged with violating Article 175 of the Criminal Code.

While I in no way support Yingluck, I do feel that using Facebook against her in this way is poor politics.

There is no question that Facebook’s Community Standards do accept that “People can use Facebook to challenge ideas, institutions and practices”, and that, “Such discussion can promote debate and greater understanding”.

And, while both Chuchart and Yingluck have both been using Facebook to push their own “political” points of view, it could be argued that Chuchart’s use of Facebook in this instant is questionable at best.

It could also be seen as a deliberate attempt (by him) to influence what’s happening in the current legal court case (in which Yingluck should have the presumption of innocence), and the Court allowed to get on with its work without unsolicited external noise at this stage in the proceedings.

The Nation too, should be criticised for choosing to report a personal view (aired on social media) as a news item (with its potential to stir up opposing parties), especially when the outcome of this Court’s decision will be so critical to the future of Thailand.

Chuchart’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/chuchart.srisaeng?fref=nf)

Yingluck’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Y.Shinawatra

Well, if Ms. Yingluck as private person can post her musings on facebook why should private person Chuchart not be able to do so?

No reason at all in my view.Yet for outsiders it's useful to know a little of the background of the individuals concerned.

I think most know about Ms Yingluck, a democratically elected former PM removed by a military coup.

Chuchart is less well known, but a brief internet search shows him to be a former judge and royalist extremist with ultra reactionary views.

[waldroj]

Rubl and Jayboy

With respect, the musings of a private citizen are very different to a former judge making a legal comment about an active and sensitive court case!

It’s really questionable ethics on Chuchart’s part. He has a large Facebook following, so using social media to make legal comment could be construed as interfering with due process – even here in Thailand.

For interest only, an article from the UK’s Attorney General’s Office from 2012, sheds some light on this (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/types-of-contempt-of-court-dealt-with-by-the-attorney-generals-office), while a BBC NEWS article from 2013 adds a bit more info (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-25210867).

[devaram]

Framing would require giving false evidence or testimoney but in this case she is simply telling the truth about what they are doing how can that be framing?