Jump to content

Red-shirt leader defamation case trial to be conducted in May next year

ourggril614

By ourggril614
in SETXsports Archived Threads

 Share

Recommended Posts

ourggril614

ourggril614

Posted
Posted
Thai Criminal Court on Friday rescheduled the first examination of defense witnesses in a defamation case filed by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva against anti-government "red-shirt" co-leader Jatuporn Prompan for May 23 next year. [url=http://www.tiffany-mine.com]Tiffany[/url]
The witness examination was rescheduled after a new bench of judges was appointed to handle the case. One judge earlier withdrew after Jatuporn petitioned the court for a change, claiming the judge was not impartial.
In this case, Abhisit has accused Jatuporn of defaming him by claiming publicly at "red-shirt" rallies that he had ordered soldiers to kill protesters and put the blame on the "red-shirt".
The defense lawyer submitted a list of 45 witnesses - including protesters at "red-shirt" rallies in 2009 and 2010, relatives of those killed during the rallies and metropolitan police - for examination.
The court decided to examine 42 defense witnesses at 12 hearings.
The first examination of defense witnesses was set for May 23 next year.
Jatuporn Prompan, an opposition Pheu Thai MP, is the only core red-shirt leader who has not been detained under the Emergency Decree as he was protected by the parliamentary immunity granted to him as a lawmaker.
The latest chronic protest by the "red-shirts", killing 91 people and injuring nearly 2,000 [url=http://www.tiffany-mine.com/UGG-Boots-Sports-Jerseys]nfl jerseys[/url], was held from March 14 to 19. The anti-government protesters occupied Ratchaprasong intersection [url=http://www.ojewellry.com]Tiffany[/url], Bangkok's central business zone, for more than one month and called for Abhisit Vejjajiva's government to dissolve the parliament and hold fresh election. The demonstration ended after a week-long confrontation with the troops.
So far, Many core "red-shirt" leaders are still in detention.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • Reagan
      America lost. The Kangaroo Court won.

      By Reagan · Posted

      BOOM!!
    • Mr. Buddy Garrity
      Road to Omaha

      By Mr. Buddy Garrity · Posted

      We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • PhatMack19
      Road to Omaha

      By PhatMack19 · Posted

      Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • tvc184
      West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin leaves Democratic Party, registers as independent

      By tvc184 · Posted

      Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • Separation Scientist
      Bridgeland vs Tomball

      By Separation Scientist · Posted

      MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...