Red-shirt leader Jatuporn suggests opposition MPs shape up and focus on real issues

[Ozman52]

17 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Jatuporn declared his income at 8 M Baht in accordance to the legal requirement. Don’t you ever take time to find out? Do you know Prayut and Prawit declared income? 128 M and 87 M baht respectively from soldier salary. 

 

 

 

 

A link would be nice, you know , increase credibility. I was actually referring to an old thread, which I dug up for you, which does WONDERS for Jatuporn's credibility.

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/581511-jatuporns-residence-a-collectors-den/

 

[Baerboxer]

18 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Jatuporn declared his income at 8 M Baht in accordance to the legal requirement. Don’t you ever take time to find out? Do you know Prayut and Prawit declared income? 128 M and 87 M baht respectively from soldier salary. 

 

 

 

 

 

Jatuporn also claimed that he had vast collection of very rare expensive amulets and religious artifacts because people had found them and brought them to his house to ask him to look after them!

 

Remind us, how did he get elected Chairman of the UDD?

[Ozman52]

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Jatuporn also claimed that he had vast collection of very rare expensive amulets and religious artifacts because people had found them and brought them to his house to ask him to look after them!

 

Remind us, how did he get elected Chairman of the UDD?

He was elected by show of hands, all horizontal, palm up.

[Ozman52]

Here's a reminder of why this idiot didn't get his party list seat pay-off given to the other UDD criminals, effectively stopping their prosecution for the life of parliament. He broke his bail conditions twice and was held in remand on voting day - no vote, no seat.

 

 

webfact

Admin

Admin

 40,405

281,548 posts

Report post

 

 

 #39

Posted June 29, 2011

Remand threatens Jatuporn's electoral hopes

By The Nation

Pheu Thai candidate Jatuporn Promphan is facing a dilemma - he stands a good chance of winning his party-list seat through the proportionate vote, but may be disqualified because - as he is being held on remand - he may not be allowed to cast his ballot.

The Criminal Court yesterday rejected his latest bail application which sought a one-day release to enable Jatuporn and another remanded suspect, Nisit Sinthuprai, to vote on the July 3 election day.

Although the defence plans to seek appellate review, legal pundits see virtually no chance of overturning the lower court's decision. Jatuporn and Nisit are under remand for a second time for violating the conditions for temporary release.

Jatuporn's lawyer Winyat Chartmontri said his client was a party-list candidate obligated to vote at Polling Station No 28, located on Soi Lat Phrao 96, Bangkok's Wang Thong Lang district.

Winyat said should Jatuporn be deprived of his voting right, it might impact on his candidacy right to contest the elections.

He said he believed his client should be allowed to perform his constitutional duty on balloting since he was an electoral candidate on remand pending trial and not a convicted inmate.

Election Commission member Sodsri Sattayathum cited Article 100 of the Constitution to explain that Jatuporn was banned from voting due to his remand.

The charter provision bars any individuals under court-sanctioned custody to vote, Sodsri said, ruling out the possibility of his casting a ballot regardless of his candidacy.

Since he was barred from voting, the EC would likely refuse to endorse his seat allocated under the proportionate vote, she said, arguing that voting status was one of the crucial factors determining the qualifications for MPs.

Jatuporn cannot vote, therefore he is automatically disqualified from holding a seat in the House of Representatives, she added.

"The Jatuporn case is about being disqualified from the job and not about campaign offences, the red and yellow cards and removal from the electoral process," she said.

She said should the EC decide not to endorse Jatuporn's victory, he could still appeal the decision by petitioning the Supreme Court for a judicial review.

Under Article 26 of the Elections Act, electoral candidacy is forfeited upon the failure to cast a vote without justification.

In case the EC turned down Jatuporn's arguments to justify his absence from voting, he would have to petition the high court to intervene in the matter.

-- The Nation 2011-06-29

[bangrak]

5 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Perhaps you do some self reflection on the number of times you tried to insinuate others of clan association. The only 'clan' that I support is democracy and I dislike bullies aka the military. I also inject myself into any conversation if facts are noticeably ignored. I respect your honesty as regards to clan association and I hope you respect mine too.  

Khun Eric, oh, I do respect you, as a person, and your posts too (well, the ones you obviously write by yourself, you known the orthograph and building of sentences which, sometimes, let you, or rather the person(s) writing using your name, down 'a bit'). The 'insinuation' about belonging to a clan came from you, mind you. I never suspected you from anything such, but definitely, clearly, of writing for, and possibly in the service of, erm, erm, something like clients of a lawfirm. And please excuse me for getting 'irritated' by some posts which can, IMHO, not possibly fit together with a person benefitting of your obvious education and intellect. 

[bangrak]

4 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Jatuporn also claimed that he had vast collection of very rare expensive amulets and religious artifacts because people had found them and brought them to his house to ask him to look after them!

 

Remind us, how did he get elected Chairman of the UDD?

'Baerboxer', do you incidentally know whether Jatuporn was 'looking after' these expensive amulets and artifacts, in a same way the luxury watches were said(!) to be in Prayuth's hands (...on his wrists), and eventually also by individuals who died in the meantime? LOL! The main difference with the Kingdom of Denmark being, IMHO, that 'something' was said to be rotten there and then, while here the question is, alas, rather: what is NOT rotten in the Kingdom of Thailand?!