Will 'The Galt' go to jail?

[chuckwoww]

I can't wait till the Supreme Court gets a look at Galt's website. Will they be sending a team to Pattaya do you think?

[ozpharlap]

Probably, I could see 7 or 9 old Supreme Court judges, using the public purse spending 1-2 weeks in LOS to ascertain the truth. However, in reality, the court will not venture OS for this matter.

 

What may not be so surprising is, that these self serving government institutions who don't have to much to do may take an interest, just to prove they are doing something.

 

Do not kid yourself, these websites are monitored when people use certain phrases. As people say, there are bound to be members/web browsers who view this site who are employed in various government organizations.

 

The only saving grace is, it seems apparent that there has been so many allegations, counter allegations, third party involvement etc and so on that it is to damn hard to know where truth begins, if any, and fictions starts.

[buddha]

Clarence Thomas would fit right in when in Pattaya.

[cavanami]

...Ol' Clarence would find a pubic hair on his beer!

[ThaiHome]

TH,

 

There is no reason for insults; please keep this civil.

 

As to the business nexus argument you are now raising, take at look at Kaye vs. U.S. If you cannot find it on the web, take a look at the FCPA website. As you will see, the 5th Circuit - the only circuit to look at the issue - says it doesn't mean much.

 

More important, a property developer is suing Galt for criminally defaming him. If there was bribery - and I am certainly not the one who claimed this - I cannot see how this possibly is not a crime under the DOJ's interpretration of the FCPA. Take a look at the DOJ website on the FCPA - their position is clear.

 

It's hard to imagine someone - here, a property developer about whom Galt apparantly posted disparging comments about his biz practices - persuading a U.S. Judge that the bribing a Thai judge was not illegal because there wasn't a business nexus. Doesn't even pass the smile test.

 

But you and your alter egos think otherwise. Fine, but you need to be honest and civil about it.

 

The fundamenatl issue here is that Farangs are playing with fire when they try to resolve this sort of dispute in the local judicial system. The FCPA is not the only reason why this is so, but it is a damn compelling reason to avoid this sort of nonsense.

 

 

I am not just now bringing the Business Test into the argument. That is the argument I have been making since my first post. You have just failed to read it. I think your argument that the FPCA would apply in this case if either side has attempted to influence the judges or prosecutors (which I don’ think they have) has been fully refuted, though you are unable to admit it.

 

As far as “farangs playing with fire†for using the Thai judicial system to settle a dispute based in Thailand it is your typical alarmist message about Thailand and doing business here. I think Wade, who obviously felt that Summers had slandered him in the web article, was fully justified to sue and did the right thing for him. This sure came as a surprise to Summers, who felt he was immune to such legal proceedings. His early postings on this showed he did not take it seriously, thinking that the Thai courts were so fucked up they could not touch him. But there is no “playing with fireâ€Â. They are simply using the system that is available to them here in Thailand. Dispite your statements to contrary, my experience with the judicial system here is that in most cases it actually works and settles such disputes according to the law, though at times the logic used is not one that would apply in the west.

 

But then we aren’t in the west are we?

TH

 

[John_Galt]

There will be no face saving solution in this case. Clayton has the wherewithal' date=' determination and resilience to follow this through to the end.[/quote']

 

That's my impression too. My understanding is that the slander case was settled, Galt paid a nominal fine but Wade wasn't satisfied. Can you tell me what the actual criminal charge is?

 

I believe the charge is something like "slander by electronic means" but I am not 100% sure on the wording of the charge.

 

There was a 6-figure fine and a suspended prison sentence. The sentence is being appealed by the prosecution - and it is anticipated it will become an order to go straight to jail and not suspended at all.

 

And of course there is will the possibility of civil cases to follow.

 

I think Galt will EITHER end up in prison here and lose everything he has here OR do a runner before the sentencing. One would think running would be what most would do.... No-one wants to end up in a Thai jail.

 

 

I believe that Stickman has only the facts that Wade wants to have published. I'll make some corrections here based on what I believe is true.

 

"Can you tell me what the actual criminal charge is?" The charge was Slander based on the old law - not the new law which incorporates the Internet/Computer law. Wade's sole evidence was based on computer action but did not bring forth any computer law in combination with charge.

 

I was fined 100,000 bath (which is a computer crime sized fine). Original Slander law has only 2k baht fine as a maximum penalty.

 

I was held innocent of any and all computer crimes, but found guilty of slander.

 

Prosecution (Wade) is appealing the verdict and asking for computer crime adjudication, defense is appealing asking for acquittal of slander charges.

 

Thai law specifically prevents prosecution between farangs involving Internet activity when the web site in question is registered and hosted outside Thailand. That comes straight from The Ministry of Information Technology of Thailand.

 

Current law also completely prevents any private individual from prosecuting a technology case without certified evidence and certified prosecution. (certified for IT related criminal prosecution). However, up to this point, it has been unclear if the courts are aware or how they may be interpreting this new law that took effect in June of 2007.

 

I find it interesting how Stickman comes off so knowledgable about Wade's business when privately in email to me he claims to have nothing to do with Wade and this case.

 

 

 

 

[bust]

Was it worth it?

[khunsanuk]

Hi John_Galt,

 

Just a quick note here. I will leave the post above, but I do want to make it *absolutely* clear that I do not want my board (or myself) to be pulled into the dispute.

 

Sanuk!

 

[John_Galt]

Hi John_Galt,

 

Just a quick note here. I will leave the post above, but I do want to make it *absolutely* clear that I do not want my board (or myself) to be pulled into the dispute.

 

Sanuk!

 

I think my post was on topic.

 

If Stickman can freely come here and post his opinions specifically about the case (although not being part of the case), then I think that my input should be allowed.

 

I'm not pulling anyone into a dispute -- but you did allow this thread.... so I would surmize that you expected some active discussion.

 

[chuckwoww]

Clarence Thomas would fit right in when in Pattaya.

 

Indeed he would. But he might need some assistance getting around. I would suggest putting Howard Miller on a retainer.