Yingluck appears in 4th court hearing

[webfact]

Yingluck appears in 4th court hearing



BANGKOK: -- Former prime minister Ms Yingluck Shinawatra appeared at the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders this morning.

Her appearance at the court today is the fourth time to hear testimonies by state prosecutors in the rice pledging scheme which she was accused of dereliction of duties that caused over 500 billion baht damages to the state.

She was welcomed by hundreds of supporters as she arrived with her team of lawyers. Her supporters gave her flowers to boost her spirit in fighting the court case.

Upon arrival, she was asked to comment on a report that the Election Commission will file a civil suit to demand 2.4 billion baht compensation from her over an aborted general election in February 2, 2014.

She said she was surprised to hear about the huge amount of compensation demanded from her as there was a royal decree on the election.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/content/153630


-- Thai PBS 2016-03-04

[clockman]

Pure Thainess. Farang not understand!

[ramrod711]

She has the perfect defense, "I did nothing wrong". Even the most critical must agree, she did nothing, so how could she have done wrong. Always clever, Yingluck, if only you would have been allowed another 1,000 witnesses, or chosen a jury from Issan everyone would have understood your innocence

[Baerboxer]

She has the perfect defense, "I did nothing wrong". Even the most critical must agree, she did nothing, so how could she have done wrong. Always clever, Yingluck, if only you would have been allowed another 1,000 witnesses, or chosen a jury from Issan everyone would have understood your innocence

And she can also show that her brother also said so on TV. So there, must be true, because the reporters didn't question it.

Now, she'd like to call everyone whose watched those interviews as a witness please.

[LannaGuy]

She has the perfect defense, "I did nothing wrong". Even the most critical must agree, she did nothing, so how could she have done wrong. Always clever, Yingluck, if only you would have been allowed another 1,000 witnesses, or chosen a jury from Issan everyone would have understood your innocence

And she can also show that her brother also said so on TV. So there, must be true, because the reporters didn't question it.

Now, she'd like to call everyone whose watched those interviews as a witness please.

ahh 'but, but, Thaksin' give it a rest it's pathetic

[hgma]

I will post my last comment on this saga....Oh..... except when final verdict is given.......

Hope to be still around at that time.

[Srikcir]

Election Commission will file a civil suit to demand 2.4 billion baht compensation from her over an aborted general election in February 2, 2014.

This suit is paradoxical for a number of reasons.

- The EC as an Independent Organization should shoulder the entire cost of the February election because it failed to carry out its prescribed constitutional responsibility to hold the election within 60 days of the dissolution of Parliament. EC first claimed it wasn't prepared, then claimed a royal decree was required before the date could be set. Yingluck countered that the Constitution already covered the process without a decree. The EC took the issue to the Constitutional Court who ruled in the government's favor, saying only that the date should be agreed to by both the EC and the government.

- In the alternative EC members individually should bear the entire cost of the election.

- EC has no grounds for the suit. The election was not aborted. The election date of February 2, 2014 was agreed to by both the government and EC, after which a royal decree was issued, and the election was held.

- The EC should be suing the PDRC. The election was not aborted. The election was held on February 2, 2014 subsequent to Early Voting a week prior. However, because a number of voting polls were blockaded by the PDRC that prevented 10% of voters from carrying out their constitutional mandate to vote, the EC and the Yingluck government agreed to hold a followup election date later in February to enable those people who were prevented from voting to vote.

Subsequently, those denied voters were able to vote but the Constitutional Court then invalidated 100% of the entire election vote because it claimed there was no provision in the Constitution for an additional voting date. The CC required a completely new election.

- The EC as an Independent Organization should share the cost of the alleged aborted election. It was complicit in setting the election on February 2, 2014 and the followup election date.

After the CC ruled for a new election, the EC continued to stonewall again for an election date within 60 days of the ruling, ie., May 2014 date. The EC seemed to want to defer the election well into summer 2014. Perhaps with the hope there would by some event be no election. Of course in May 2014 the military overthrew the government and abolished the Constitution.

[bangrak]

She has the perfect defense, "I did nothing wrong". Even the most critical must agree, she did nothing, so how could she have done wrong. Always clever, Yingluck, if only you would have been allowed another 1,000 witnesses, or chosen a jury from Issan everyone would have understood your innocence

And she can also show that her brother also said so on TV. So there, must be true, because the reporters didn't question it.

Now, she'd like to call everyone whose watched those interviews as a witness please.

ahh 'but, but, Thaksin' give it a rest it's pathetic

Would you seriously be putting to doubt that it was Thaksin's scheme/scam in the first place?

This reminds me of something I have heard nothing about 'for ages': I remember that Thaksin had been officially appointed (though a convicted criminal on the run...) by the/his PTP 'government', 'lead' by his puppet/sister, as the international 'broker' for the/his rice scheme/scam to promote the sales of Thai rice on the international markets, and in ...(oh my!) G-to-G deals!

Have there been official inquiries started, yet, to determine how much (taxpayers') money has been paid/diverted for this 'mission', ...and to him, hmm?

[bangrak]

Election Commission will file a civil suit to demand 2.4 billion baht compensation from her over an aborted general election in February 2, 2014.

This suit is paradoxical for a number of reasons.

- The EC as an Independent Organization should shoulder the entire cost of the February election because it failed to carry out its prescribed constitutional responsibility to hold the election within 60 days of the dissolution of Parliament. EC first claimed it wasn't prepared, then claimed a royal decree was required before the date could be set. Yingluck countered that the Constitution already covered the process without a decree. The EC took the issue to the Constitutional Court who ruled in the government's favor, saying only that the date should be agreed to by both the EC and the government.

- In the alternative EC members individually should bear the entire cost of the election.

- EC has no grounds for the suit. The election was not aborted. The election date of February 2, 2014 was agreed to by both the government and EC, after which a royal decree was issued, and the election was held.

- The EC should be suing the PDRC. The election was not aborted. The election was held on February 2, 2014 subsequent to Early Voting a week prior. However, because a number of voting polls were blockaded by the PDRC that prevented 10% of voters from carrying out their constitutional mandate to vote, the EC and the Yingluck government agreed to hold a followup election date later in February to enable those people who were prevented from voting to vote.

Subsequently, those denied voters were able to vote but the Constitutional Court then invalidated 100% of the entire election vote because it claimed there was no provision in the Constitution for an additional voting date. The CC required a completely new election.

- The EC as an Independent Organization should share the cost of the alleged aborted election. It was complicit in setting the election on February 2, 2014 and the followup election date.

After the CC ruled for a new election, the EC continued to stonewall again for an election date within 60 days of the ruling, ie., May 2014 date. The EC seemed to want to defer the election well into summer 2014. Perhaps with the hope there would by some event be no election. Of course in May 2014 the military overthrew the government and abolished the Constitution.

Wait, wait, wait! This is about the rice scheme/scam, wo-ho, hold your horses until a topic is started about the EC and the 'honest, democratic' (LOL) 2014 elections, OK? You're a bit off-topic (though slightly helped by the reported question asked to lil' Poo) with your detailed and slightly(?!) biased post. ...Or were you just attempting to draw a bit of attention away from the family's stinking rice mountain? Business as usual then?

[bangrak]

I will post my last comment on this saga....Oh..... except when final verdict is given.......

Hope to be still around at that time.

Erm, to be polite, thank you for what you wrote. Well, erm, bye-bye then? LOL (canned thin air available on TV...)

[mike324]

As much as I don't support the PT, I give her credit for appearing in court and manning up...unlike her brother who ran away like a little girl

[bangrak]

As much as I don't support the PT, I give her credit for appearing in court and manning up...unlike her brother who ran away like a little girl

Something special in her mushrooms or salads, maybe? LOL

It's for Pete's sake what every/any citizen should do, but so many 'VIPs' do their best to avoid, like Dr Thaksin! Does that make a hero from her? I think not! Or, at leat, it should not be, but TiT, isn't it?

[MaxLee]

When is Hearing number 5? Hearing Number 6? Hearing number 7, number 8, number 9, number 10???

[bangrak]

When is Hearing number 5? Hearing Number 6? Hearing number 7, number 8, number 9, number 10???

Hmm, no experience with courtcases, isn't it? Good boy!

Where's your problem with it? There will be tens and tens of hearings more in this, intricate though evident, case, most of because the scores of, so-called, 'witnesses' called for by Poo's tribe of lawyers (and tens more when the court would not, at last, have objected) in the hope to delay this (first, as there could, will be an appeal) ruling a maximum, and in the meantime to dilute the interest for, and resentment about, the case.

[tbthailand]

Election Commission will file a civil suit to demand 2.4 billion baht compensation from her over an aborted general election in February 2, 2014.

This suit is paradoxical for a number of reasons.

- The EC as an Independent Organization should shoulder the entire cost of the February election because it failed to carry out its prescribed constitutional responsibility to hold the election within 60 days of the dissolution of Parliament. EC first claimed it wasn't prepared, then claimed a royal decree was required before the date could be set. Yingluck countered that the Constitution already covered the process without a decree. The EC took the issue to the Constitutional Court who ruled in the government's favor, saying only that the date should be agreed to by both the EC and the government.

- In the alternative EC members individually should bear the entire cost of the election.

- EC has no grounds for the suit. The election was not aborted. The election date of February 2, 2014 was agreed to by both the government and EC, after which a royal decree was issued, and the election was held.

- The EC should be suing the PDRC. The election was not aborted. The election was held on February 2, 2014 subsequent to Early Voting a week prior. However, because a number of voting polls were blockaded by the PDRC that prevented 10% of voters from carrying out their constitutional mandate to vote, the EC and the Yingluck government agreed to hold a followup election date later in February to enable those people who were prevented from voting to vote.

Subsequently, those denied voters were able to vote but the Constitutional Court then invalidated 100% of the entire election vote because it claimed there was no provision in the Constitution for an additional voting date. The CC required a completely new election.

- The EC as an Independent Organization should share the cost of the alleged aborted election. It was complicit in setting the election on February 2, 2014 and the followup election date.

After the CC ruled for a new election, the EC continued to stonewall again for an election date within 60 days of the ruling, ie., May 2014 date. The EC seemed to want to defer the election well into summer 2014. Perhaps with the hope there would by some event be no election. Of course in May 2014 the military overthrew the government and abolished the Constitution.

Wait, wait, wait! This is about the rice scheme/scam, wo-ho, hold your horses until a topic is started about the EC and the 'honest, democratic' (LOL) 2014 elections, OK? You're a bit off-topic (though slightly helped by the reported question asked to lil' Poo) with your detailed and slightly(?!) biased post. ...Or were you just attempting to draw a bit of attention away from the family's stinking rice mountain? Business as usual then?

Now we know that you don't read even exceptionally short articles before spouting off...

From the OP:

Upon arrival, she was asked to comment on a report that the Election Commission will file a civil suit to demand 2.4 billion baht compensation from her over an aborted general election in February 2, 2014.

[Skywalker69]

As much as I don't support the PT, I give her credit for appearing in court and manning up...unlike her brother who ran away like a little girl

Thaksin appeard in court as well. It was after his verdict he ran avay.

[halloween]

She going for the record of PM with more court appearances than appearances in parliament. If mandatory appearances in parliament were discounted, she would have smashed it already.

[Valentine]

As much as I don't support the PT, I give her credit for appearing in court and manning up...unlike her brother who ran away like a little girl

Thaksin appeard in court as well. It was after his verdict he ran avay.

The verdict & sentence were handed down after he ran away & although he had the right of appeal he did not bother, possibly because it meant he may have to appear in person & so open to being arrested & charged with more serious offences.

[selftaopath]

As the wheel turns... Reading about the antics in Thailand reminds me of long ago.... outdated soap operas in US. Boy oh boy.... same old tired treadmill.

IMO this place's political circus resembles more like a mob war....all for

[DeaconJohn]

She has the perfect defense, "I did nothing wrong". Even the most critical must agree, she did nothing, so how could she have done wrong. Always clever, Yingluck, if only you would have been allowed another 1,000 witnesses, or chosen a jury from Issan everyone would have understood your innocence

And she can also show that her brother also said so on TV. So there, must be true, because the reporters didn't question it.

Now, she'd like to call everyone whose watched those interviews as a witness please.

ahh 'but, but, Thaksin' give it a rest it's pathetic

Would you seriously be putting to doubt that it was Thaksin's scheme/scam in the first place?

This reminds me of something I have heard nothing about 'for ages': I remember that Thaksin had been officially appointed (though a convicted criminal on the run...) by the/his PTP 'government', 'lead' by his puppet/sister, as the international 'broker' for the/his rice scheme/scam to promote the sales of Thai rice on the international markets, and in ...(oh my!) G-to-G deals!

Have there been official inquiries started, yet, to determine how much (taxpayers') money has been paid/diverted for this 'mission', ...and to him, hmm?

Exactly.

Let's hope The Shinawatra clan will be relieved of some of their ill-gotten boodle.

[Baerboxer]

She has the perfect defense, "I did nothing wrong". Even the most critical must agree, she did nothing, so how could she have done wrong. Always clever, Yingluck, if only you would have been allowed another 1,000 witnesses, or chosen a jury from Issan everyone would have understood your innocence

And she can also show that her brother also said so on TV. So there, must be true, because the reporters didn't question it.

Now, she'd like to call everyone whose watched those interviews as a witness please.

ahh 'but, but, Thaksin' give it a rest it's pathetic

Your pathetic impression of a parrot, constantly posting "but, but, Thaksin" in an attempt to deflect any thread that is about the Shins, is what's really pathetic.

Must be painful for you, not being able to defend your beloved Shins so having to resort to such silly repetitive posts. Or there again, perhaps you actually think it's being clever and someone somewhere will fall for it.

This thread is about Yingluck, you know the former disgraced PM who was removed by a court for an abuse of power and the baby sister of the criminal Thaksin.

Do you have an intelligent input on the topic for once?

[Baerboxer]

As much as I don't support the PT, I give her credit for appearing in court and manning up...unlike her brother who ran away like a little girl

You may be right Mike, but somehow I doubt it was her choice. Her brother likes a martyr. He'll fight tooth and nail as long as it's from way away and out of harms way. No risk to him, as usual. And plenty more siblings. kids and in-laws to go through.

[Baerboxer]

She has the perfect defense, "I did nothing wrong". Even the most critical must agree, she did nothing, so how could she have done wrong. Always clever, Yingluck, if only you would have been allowed another 1,000 witnesses, or chosen a jury from Issan everyone would have understood your innocence

And she can also show that her brother also said so on TV. So there, must be true, because the reporters didn't question it.

Now, she'd like to call everyone whose watched those interviews as a witness please.

ahh 'but, but, Thaksin' give it a rest it's pathetic

Would you seriously be putting to doubt that it was Thaksin's scheme/scam in the first place?

This reminds me of something I have heard nothing about 'for ages': I remember that Thaksin had been officially appointed (though a convicted criminal on the run...) by the/his PTP 'government', 'lead' by his puppet/sister, as the international 'broker' for the/his rice scheme/scam to promote the sales of Thai rice on the international markets, and in ...(oh my!) G-to-G deals!

Have there been official inquiries started, yet, to determine how much (taxpayers') money has been paid/diverted for this 'mission', ...and to him, hmm?

No - he's simply trying to deflect the conversation away from the Shins. He always tries this on any thread where the topic is about them. He seems unable to accept anyone who posts anything but praise for his beloved Shins.

[rubl]

"She said she was surprised to hear about the huge amount of compensation demanded from her as there was a royal decree on the election."

Maybe the translation. Was Ms. Yingluck surprised about the huge amount, the suit the E.C. will file, or both ?

[bangrak]

Election Commission will file a civil suit to demand 2.4 billion baht compensation from her over an aborted general election in February 2, 2014.

This suit is paradoxical for a number of reasons.

- The EC as an Independent Organization should shoulder the entire cost of the February election because it failed to carry out its prescribed constitutional responsibility to hold the election within 60 days of the dissolution of Parliament. EC first claimed it wasn't prepared, then claimed a royal decree was required before the date could be set. Yingluck countered that the Constitution already covered the process without a decree. The EC took the issue to the Constitutional Court who ruled in the government's favor, saying only that the date should be agreed to by both the EC and the government.

- In the alternative EC members individually should bear the entire cost of the election.

- EC has no grounds for the suit. The election was not aborted. The election date of February 2, 2014 was agreed to by both the government and EC, after which a royal decree was issued, and the election was held.

- The EC should be suing the PDRC. The election was not aborted. The election was held on February 2, 2014 subsequent to Early Voting a week prior. However, because a number of voting polls were blockaded by the PDRC that prevented 10% of voters from carrying out their constitutional mandate to vote, the EC and the Yingluck government agreed to hold a followup election date later in February to enable those people who were prevented from voting to vote.

Subsequently, those denied voters were able to vote but the Constitutional Court then invalidated 100% of the entire election vote because it claimed there was no provision in the Constitution for an additional voting date. The CC required a completely new election.

- The EC as an Independent Organization should share the cost of the alleged aborted election. It was complicit in setting the election on February 2, 2014 and the followup election date.

After the CC ruled for a new election, the EC continued to stonewall again for an election date within 60 days of the ruling, ie., May 2014 date. The EC seemed to want to defer the election well into summer 2014. Perhaps with the hope there would by some event be no election. Of course in May 2014 the military overthrew the government and abolished the Constitution.

Wait, wait, wait! This is about the rice scheme/scam, wo-ho, hold your horses until a topic is started about the EC and the 'honest, democratic' (LOL) 2014 elections, OK? You're a bit off-topic (though slightly helped by the reported question asked to lil' Poo) with your detailed and slightly(?!) biased post. ...Or were you just attempting to draw a bit of attention away from the family's stinking rice mountain? Business as usual then?

Now we know that you don't read even exceptionally short articles before spouting off...

From the OP:

Upon arrival, she was asked to comment on a report that the Election Commission will file a civil suit to demand 2.4 billion baht compensation from her over an aborted general election in February 2, 2014.

Fun reading your reaction, which shows you have not read my post's '(though slightly helped by the reported question asked to lil' Poo)', or are the hearings about Ms Yinglucks dereliction of duty and negligence in the rice scheme/scam not the present topic...?

[ginjag]

She has the perfect defense, "I did nothing wrong". Even the most critical must agree, she did nothing, so how could she have done wrong. Always clever, Yingluck, if only you would have been allowed another 1,000 witnesses, or chosen a jury from Issan everyone would have understood your innocence

And she can also show that her brother also said so on TV. So there, must be true, because the reporters didn't question it.

Now, she'd like to call everyone whose watched those interviews as a witness please.

ahh 'but, but, Thaksin' give it a rest it's pathetic

Your the one that's in denial.

Just to inform you, (as you seem unaware) Thaksin is her brother who planted her in the job and then gave out orders from Dubai etc.

DO YOU SEE THE CONNECTION ???----google it OK.

[ginjag]

As much as I don't support the PT, I give her credit for appearing in court and manning up...unlike her brother who ran away like a little girl

NOT allowed to leave, if so her assets will be frozen------money is the be and end all to the SHINS. she has no choice really. she didnt turn up for committees ----parliament---rice---defense minister------so she has achieved 1 in 4.

[ginjag]

.

ahh 'but, but, Thaksin' give it a rest it's pathetic

Your the one that's in denial.

Just to inform you, (as you seem unaware) Thaksin is her brother who planted her in the job and then gave out orders from Dubai etc.

DO YOU SEE THE CONNECTION ???----google it OK.

stunning, ginjock returns to the news forum to inform us Thaksin and Yingluck are related.

Get my name right--ha ha, also it strikes me you are a minority mate of LannaGuy, My reply was to remind him as he must have forgotten

PLEASE keep up with the wording of your friends post. You as well seem to be in denial. so your post backfired with trying to be clever.

To inform you I was always here to see what is posted, so I returned from ???? another silly remark, so please tell me where I returned from ?? ha ha

[JAG]

And she can also show that her brother also said so on TV. So there, must be true, because the reporters didn't question it.

Now, she'd like to call everyone whose watched those interviews as a witness please.

ahh 'but, but, Thaksin' give it a rest it's pathetic

Your the one that's in denial.

Just to inform you, (as you seem unaware) Thaksin is her brother who planted her in the job and then gave out orders from Dubai etc.

DO YOU SEE THE CONNECTION ???----google it OK.

stunning, ginjock returns to the news forum to inform us Thaksin and Yingluck are related.

Well at least there is a basis of fact behind his post - which is unusual enough to raise a comment.

Still no doubt we will soon be revealed as a desperate MINORITY all pursuing an AGENDA...

[ginjag]

And she can also show that her brother also said so on TV. So there, must be true, because the reporters didn't question it.

Now, she'd like to call everyone whose watched those interviews as a witness please.

ahh 'but, but, Thaksin' give it a rest it's pathetic

Your the one that's in denial.

Just to inform you, (as you seem unaware) Thaksin is her brother who planted her in the job and then gave out orders from Dubai etc.

DO YOU SEE THE CONNECTION ???----google it OK.

stunning, ginjock returns to the news forum to inform us Thaksin and Yingluck are related.

Well at least there is a basis of fact behind his post - which is unusual enough to raise a comment.

Still no doubt we will soon be revealed as a desperate MINORITY all pursuing an AGENDA...

Terrible when the truth hurts you, as least it is not as ancient as your minority friends favourite----elections---Prayuths non elected etc. amazing denial of why it all happened.----think PTP not conformed to the oath of democratically run government. easy, like it or lump it.