The father's “excuse-defence” words alone, including the issue of ITV's shareholding, suggest that this is not media dominance. A matter lying as transferred but not “transferred” was found by the court and issue of hereditary shares.
Various things, the court said, “all wrong”!
Pita survived not because “ITV is not a medium. And because not surviving “Hold a little or a lot of stock?”
But it survived due to the fact that the PMO canceled the contract and ITV did not have the bandwidth to broadcast the media, according to the court ruling.
From March 2007 till now the balance sheet of the entire ITV company has always been 0.
So….”the day father applied for MP.”
“ITV does not operate a newspaper or any mass media.
Here, there are those who argue in a dubious manner from a legal point of view
“ITV is not going out of business. What if you paused and repeated the media like a news agency? Hired to publish news Father still owns such shares, at that time, will it be considered “media shares” or not?”
In my view….
In making a decision, the court focuses on the past and the present. To be clear, the future is speculative and the court does not decide on things that have not yet happened.
From Mr. Kim's testimony…
“If the Supreme Administrative Court rules in favor of ITV, the case may win again between the directors of the company and the shareholders whether the company will continue to operate or not.
45 may engage in mass media business or business in accordance with any of the corporate objectives, which will be in the future.”
It can be seen that the court did not consider futurity as a condition for advance decision.
Yes, a little “talk after the message”.
Plus, Sai, the hero who survived the interview, said that “it wasted him for over 6 months.”
Nearer, make haste!
I wasted time because I was busy flying kites. Or delay because the court makes a late decision. Let's be clear. Don't just be nice to yourself… Squid Butt?
Court Sends Testimony “Twice-Twice”
I asked myself to twist the process and postpone it. It will take another 2-3 months before we send it to the court “again and again”.
Like, “Who slowed you down?” Say, don't upset my ego!
Yesterday I “decided” …
“January 31st.” The Pita case brought the amendment and repeal of Article 112 into the election campaign.
The Father will “live again”!
Today, among the flying horses, I still affirm that opinion.
Did I get into media?
No, I “considered” the problem according to the problem!
The problem is “Mr. Thirayut Suankasorn”, an independent lawyer. Submit it to the Constitutional Court for a decision.
Let's look at legal matters differently. But that's a different concept
Don't rush to “decide” without fully considering feelings.
So, if you want to know what a “possible” verdict is, read and understand the question before answering.
The question is as follows….
“Mr. Father's actions Limsaroenrut Progressive Party Leader and Forward Party
Proposed draft law to amend the Criminal Code (No….) BE to repeal Section 112 of the Criminal Code.
It has been used as a policy in election campaigns and continues to be implemented. It is the exercise of rights or freedom. To overthrow the democratic regime with the king as the head of state. According to the Constitution, Article 49, paragraph one is not??”
It will be revealed that only the request to the court. As explained in Article 49 of the Constitution
“A person shall not exercise his rights or liberties to overthrow a democratic government in which he is the head of state.”
There is no dissolution of the party, no deprivation of political rights, no right to contest. MP in any way!!
So I concluded that “Pita-Kaklai” survives 100%
Because there is no point in disbanding the party. There is no point in punishing the father.
The court will decide only according to the structure of the request.
Only if the court decides, can it be said that what the “father-kaklai” did violated Article 49.
That's the end…
The next step is to call for “Dissolution of the Party”!
Mr. Theerayutham to investigate the campaign before the Election Commission. Repeal or amend “Section 112” of Pitha-Kao Klai already.
This is an act against the democratic rule with the king as the head of state
Article 92 (1) (2) from May 2023 as per the “Constitution Act” relating to political parties?
It's exactly…
If the court decided on January 31 that it was a campaign, it would fall within the ambit of Article 49 of the Constitution.
It led to “Sword 2”, which meant dissolution of the party and cancellation of the right to contest elections. Party committee
As per Section 92 (1) (2) of the “Political Party Act” immediately!
Section 92 provides that when the Committee has reasonable grounds to believe that any political party has committed any of the following acts: Submit an application to the Constitutional Court to order the dissolution of that political party.
(1) Committing an act which subverts the democratic rule of the Government headed by the Head of State;
or to acquire the power to govern the country by means inconsistent with those provided for in the Constitution.
(2) Committing an act contrary to a democratic regime with the King as the head of state.
(3) An Act which contravenes section 20, paragraph two, section 28, section 30, section 36, section 44, section 45, section 46, section 72 or section 74.
(4) There is cause for dissolution of a political party prescribed by law.
There is evidence to be relied upon when the Constitutional Court proceeds with the inquiry. Political parties operate under paragraph one.
The Constitutional Court shall order the dissolution of a political party and revoke the right to apply for election to the executive committee of that political party.
You have to pass the first checkpoint before going there. This is the result of the decision taken on January 31st. Got it?
Therefore, there is no question of disbanding the party on January 31. A matter of cutting off the father's rights
Propaganda using Article 112
“Abolishing a democratic government with the King as head of state is an exercise of rights or liberties. Is it constitutional, Article 49, paragraph one or not?” That's it!
If it falls within the criteria, call pitha-gao klai to the gallows 2.
If the court decides it is “not quantifiable”.
Sunpitha received a sign that read “Varungala Pram Mantri Kite” and continued to eat air while shaking his head.
I consider it “not qualified”.
Because introducing amendments to laws is something that can be done under the Constitution.
“Pita-Kaklai” are seen campaigning to propose a draft amendment to Article 112 of the Penal Code, which would abolish the democratic rule of the head of state, the king.
First Issue: Section 112 is only a section of the bye-law. “Criminal Code Act”
In principle “every law” may be amended.
and amendments to be made by Members of Parliament. It is not done at the will of one party or at the will of any party. Only one party
While the parent law “Constitution” can still be amended, why can't the child law be amended?
The issue is “what kind of content and wording will be edited and how?” Will be the deciding factor on whether to flip or not?!
Article 256 of the Constitution describes the Constitution itself. It is still possible to make additional revisions in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 or even Chapter 15.
With the condition that….
Should a “referendum” vote be held first to decide whether or not to approve the amendment?
In view of this, the Election Commission's campaign regulations, “broke break”, is an opportunity for technocratic political thieves to use Section 112 to campaign.
As the Penal Code has 400 sections, it is proposed to amend other sections. It is not about overthrowing the government.
What standard is used to indicate that the amendment of Article 112 is “an repeal” even though it is one of the 398 articles of the Criminal Code?
So the issue is one of intent because Section 112 specifically deals with “King”.
“Pita-Kaklai” under the lawyer who defeated the king.
So, using this channel to rely on the word 112 and know who to refer to. “Ignition – Set Problem”
“Disrupts society”!
Of course, let him write a draft amendment to Article 112 and it will be passed. is clear from the draft amendment
“It is the exercise of rights or liberties to overthrow a democratic regime with the king as head of state. Is this according to Article 49, paragraph one of the Constitution?”
Campaigning to propose a bill to amend Article 112 is broader and broader, but it is still broader. will be clearly indicated for the “degradation” position
I think…not yet!
– Silver Flame
26 January 2024
The person at the end of the alley
“Avid gamer. Social media geek. Proud troublemaker. Thinker. Travel fan. Problem solver.”