Judges accept Yingluck’s plea, will make referral decision

[rooster59]

Judges accept Yingluck’s plea, will make referral decision

By The Sunday Nation

 

 

Former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra has requested a Constitutional Court interpretation of the new Constitution regarding a clause that may affect the ongoing trial of a Supreme Court case against her.

 

Yingluck on Friday asked the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders to seek a verdict from the Constitutional Court over the matter.

 

The ex-PM is being tried by the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders. She is accused of negligence for failing to stop irregularities stemming from her government’s rice-pledging scheme.

 

In her petition, she pointed out that Article 235 of the new charter requires the court to base its consideration based upon the inquiry file of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). She said that this contradicted the 1999 law on the court’s procedures, which requires that the court mainly rely on the report by the relevant NACC committee.

 

The judges trying Yingluck’s case have accepted her petition for consideration. The court will make a decision as to whether to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court for an interpretation.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/national/30320255

 

 

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-07-09

[bristolgeoff]

is this a delay tactic in they decision by her.only time will tell

[yellowboat]

8 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

In her petition, she pointed out that Article 235 of the new charter requires the court to base its consideration based upon the inquiry file of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). She said that this contradicted the 1999 law on the court’s procedures, which requires that the court mainly rely on the report by the relevant NACC committee.

Asking for due process to be clarified.  Good for her. 

[Samui Bodoh]

I do not understand why she bothers to take part in this; it just gives the impression of legitimacy.

 

Does anyone believe there will be a fair verdict based on the evidence?

 

The "verdict" was decided long ago.

[harada]

Now now Ying, never mind, come over here and sit on uncle Harada's knee. 

[greenchair]

Whenever discussing a law or right in the Thai constitution, there is often much confusion of which constitution we are talking about. 

I myself am very confused about which law to follow these days. 

What was the law yesterday, is not the law today. some of the new laws don't match the old regulations .

Some of the old laws don't match the new regulations. 

It's a nightmare to know what is and isn't the law these days. 

[ezzra]

6 hours ago, rooster59 said:

The ex-PM is being tried by the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders

 

What i could never fathom is the above, where politicians are judged in a special

courts? is that to say that the're better than the rest or worst? is there a different

laws in those courts than the ' normal ' ones?....

[ramrod711]

Scary! She looks more like her brother every day.

[halloween]

5 hours ago, ezzra said:

 

What i could never fathom is the above, where politicians are judged in a special

courts? is that to say that the're better than the rest or worst? is there a different

laws in those courts than the ' normal ' ones?....

I think it's more to do with creating a fast track for prosecution. Politicians here seem to be experts at causing delays (much like the current topic) hoping to outlast the SoL.

[Pib]

11 hours ago, bristolgeoff said:

is this a delay tactic in they decision by her.only time will tell

Every thing in high profile/HiSo Thai trials is about delay tactics...delay is pressing final charges....delay bringing it to trial...delay in presenting all evidence....delay in judgement....just anything to wear down the other side...anything to reach an out of court settlement agreeable to both sides...just delay, delay, delay.   And the courts seem to happily go along with the delay tactics.  

 

Then once a judgement is issued, the appeal process starts (almost like a new trial) although Yinluck's trial seems to already be pretty much at the highest level with little hope of any appeal if the judgement goes against her.

[bangrak]

Of course, this is not a tactic to further delay the proceedings. It is just an honest mistake by her whole team of lawyers to have waited until now to bring up this petition. When such a move would have ever happened before, we could have had some doubts, not here then.

[candide]

6 hours ago, greenchair said:

Whenever discussing a law or right in the Thai constitution, there is often much confusion of which constitution we are talking about. 

I myself am very confused about which law to follow these days. 

What was the law yesterday, is not the law today. some of the new laws don't match the old regulations .

Some of the old laws don't match the new regulations. 

It's a nightmare to know what is and isn't the law these days. 

My guess is that they will choose the constitution which is the least favourable to her. Actually I would not be surprised if they mix elements of both constitution according to their liking.

[yellowboat]

5 hours ago, halloween said:

I think it's more to do with creating a fast track for prosecution. Politicians here seem to be experts at causing delays (much like the current topic) hoping to outlast the SoL.

So you have no love for due process ?  You find the legal aspect of trial tedious and dull?  Your beloved junta possesses the patience you lack.   You would prefer to just skip to sentencing as quickly as governance was usurped from an elected government ?  Perhaps you should practice patience like those you defend so fervently.  

[bangrak]

Gosh! Yingluck worshippers! The photoshop specialist had a day-off, look at her skin, and her teeth! Is it still 'love'? LOL

[bangrak]

5 hours ago, candide said:

My guess is that they will choose the constitution which is the least favourable to her. Actually I would not be surprised if they mix elements of both constitution according to their liking.

A bit like Thaksin has done, and would still do when he would still be in power, you mean? Mind you, IMO it wouldn't justify it, but as 'politics' in Thailand is more of a dirty game than in respectable countries... 'Vae Victis' as Vercingetorix told Caesar when he surrendered Alesia. It is, alas, of all times, and all places, not just Thailand, nor the Generals, don't reproach them what any of the Shins' creatures would have done in the same way. At the time the persons of your preference are nor the hammer nor the anvil, rather caught in between. They had imagined, practised, it with others the other way, but, for now, the situation has turned.

Maybe when they would have done the right things when they were in power, this would all not be happening. Have you ever been thinking deeply about that one? 

[jerojero]

is this a delay tactic in they decision by her.only time will tell

Everything's been delay tactics by her. And why not (avoid delay potential punishment).

[473geo]

I would have thought a delay may well suit the authorities.....are they not busy debating who will bear the responsibility of listing assets for confiscation?

[candide]

5 hours ago, bangrak said:

A bit like Thaksin has done, and would still do when he would still be in power, you mean? Mind you, IMO it wouldn't justify it, but as 'politics' in Thailand is more of a dirty game than in respectable countries... 'Vae Victis' as Vercingetorix told Caesar when he surrendered Alesia. It is, alas, of all times, and all places, not just Thailand, nor the Generals, don't reproach them what any of the Shins' creatures would have done in the same way. At the time the persons of your preference are nor the hammer nor the anvil, rather caught in between. They had imagined, practised, it with others the other way, but, for now, the situation has turned.

Maybe when they would have done the right things when they were in power, this would all not be happening. Have you ever been thinking deeply about that one? 

They may have dreamed to do it too! Somehow one could say: "Thaksin dreamed it, and the Junta did it". However, except in the early years, the Shins did not have much grip on the Judiciary. They have been convicted several times, while their opponents have not been much affected, even when the Shins were in power.

 

As concerns this particular case, the rice scheme was not a very  bright idea and has been poorly managed. However, I don't know of any case (in Thailand or elsewhere) in which a PM has been convicted for implementing a scheme that was part of the political program citizen voted for, and also voted in parliament, even if poorly executed.

[halloween]

8 hours ago, yellowboat said:

So you have no love for due process ?  You find the legal aspect of trial tedious and dull?  Your beloved junta possesses the patience you lack.   You would prefer to just skip to sentencing as quickly as governance was usurped from an elected government ?  Perhaps you should practice patience like those you defend so fervently.  

And good morning to you, too. I seem to have implied quite a bit with a simple answer to a question. Could you point out where I was inaccurate?

Or was your reply just an excuse for personal attack and anti-juntal rant?

[yellowboat]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

And good morning to you, too. I seem to have implied quite a bit with a simple answer to a question. Could you point out where I was inaccurate?

Or was your reply just an excuse for personal attack and anti-juntal rant?

Good morning ! 

 

You are totally accurate.  Lawyer Delay has never lost a case.   It is part of the practice of law everywhere.  Practicing law takes patience and a tough skin. Something this government lacks.  They talk about laws, but have no time for due process or the sacred application of law, and you seem cheer them along.   But you do possess a tough skin. 

[halloween]

40 minutes ago, yellowboat said:

Good morning ! 

 

You are totally accurate.  Lawyer Delay has never lost a case.   It is part of the practice of law everywhere.  Practicing law takes patience and a tough skin. Something this government lacks.  They talk about laws, but have no time for due process or the sacred application of law, and you seem cheer them along.   But you do possess a tough skin. 

What I do is rebut unfair criticism, as well as compare current conditions with past. I can't see that opening a court for political offenders to remove some of the load from the normal court system in any way affects the application of due process.

Nor was there any move to block her appeal. So, any basis for your claims?

[Ocicat]

Put a little more in the brown bagYingluk and you will be on your way.

[Eric Loh]

47 minutes ago, Ocicat said:

Put a little more in the brown bagYingluk and you will be on your way.

The reward for getting rid of her for the next election is worth much more than the brown bag. 

[yellowboat]

5 hours ago, halloween said:

What I do is rebut unfair criticism, as well as compare current conditions with past. I can't see that opening a court for political offenders to remove some of the load from the normal court system in any way affects the application of due process.

Nor was there any move to block her appeal. So, any basis for your claims?

The basis being that the current government sets up all these panels, sub panels and committees, sub committees,  special oversight for the media and now a court for politicos.  Yingluck had to instruct the court that they had conflicting laws.  Why does she know the law and they don't.  Perhaps they don't care. It just seems all these panels accomplish very little.  

[yellowboat]

5 hours ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

Indeed. A license to steal without any scrutiny or culpability is what they have at the moment, and boy, are they using it!

 

Once they bankrupt the country with their towers and tanks, they will be removed, probably this time after blood is shed, and another group of thieves will take over.

 

Its in their nature.

 

Yingluck : The goddess of elect-ability .  

Edited July 10, 2017 by yellowboat

[halloween]

16 hours ago, yellowboat said:

The basis being that the current government sets up all these panels, sub panels and committees, sub committees,  special oversight for the media and now a court for politicos.  Yingluck had to instruct the court that they had conflicting laws.  Why does she know the law and they don't.  Perhaps they don't care. It just seems all these panels accomplish very little.  

If you were to read the OP more closely, or even read further afield, you would understand that the basis of her appeal is to restrict the court from considering evidence other than that originally presented by the NACC. Better if we don't know the truth right?

It seems all these panels have nothing to do with this case, and  a court for politicos only bypasses the court log-jam. But don't let that stop you defending this criminal.

[robblok]

On 10-7-2017 at 5:34 AM, candide said:

They may have dreamed to do it too! Somehow one could say: "Thaksin dreamed it, and the Junta did it". However, except in the early years, the Shins did not have much grip on the Judiciary. They have been convicted several times, while their opponents have not been much affected, even when the Shins were in power.

 

As concerns this particular case, the rice scheme was not a very  bright idea and has been poorly managed. However, I don't know of any case (in Thailand or elsewhere) in which a PM has been convicted for implementing a scheme that was part of the political program citizen voted for, and also voted in parliament, even if poorly executed.

But they did it themselves in the early years.. and now the tide has turned.. So stop moaning about it they are as evil and now they are getting a taste of their own medicine. Tit for tat.. when they were in power they bended the rules.. now they get used against them. 

[yellowboat]

2 hours ago, halloween said:

If you were to read the OP more closely, or even read further afield, you would understand that the basis of her appeal is to restrict the court from considering evidence other than that originally presented by the NACC. Better if we don't know the truth right?

It seems all these panels have nothing to do with this case, and  a court for politicos only bypasses the court log-jam. But don't let that stop you defending this criminal.

Not defending her just pointing out she seems to know the law better than those trying to break the "log-jam".   Maybe she could help them in the future.   She can advise them regarding legal matters. 

 

She played with market forces which is wrong.  She is a disappointment.  The junta is an abomination.

Edited July 11, 2017 by yellowboat

[candide]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

But they did it themselves in the early years.. and now the tide has turned.. So stop moaning about it they are as evil and now they are getting a taste of their own medicine. Tit for tat.. when they were in power they bended the rules.. now they get used against them. 

Did they impeach retrospectively a former PM  (additionally with the help of an unelected  assembly)? Had a former PM been convicted for applying a policy that was voted in parliament?

[robblok]

1 hour ago, candide said:

Did they impeach retrospectively a former PM  (additionally with the help of an unelected  assembly)? Had a former PM been convicted for applying a policy that was voted in parliament?

bla bla bla.. Thaksin abused his power in other ways when he could (he almost got away with it).. now the tables are turned and crocodile tears are shed. If they can get absolute power again they would abuse it again. They are no saints they are as bad as the other side. They have just been outplayed in the power game. They all put their people in key positions to influence everything.

 

I think its a real bad system, but its not like the PTP is any better, they did the same thing but got outplayed. If Thaksin had gotten his way I would be the one moaning and you would be defending him. I prefer it an other way but I have yet to see a clear separation of power and no nepotism here from any of the parties.