....when he is a fugitive from justice, having been sentenced to prison after being convicted for likely the LEAST serious of his endless abuses of power. Hiring lawyers seems to be pointless, when one has NO intent of serving outstanding sentences, facing long-overdue inquiries, or even acting within the boundaries of international law.

Thaksin refuses to serve his prison sentence after he was convicted for corruption whilst he was PM. And not even the serious corruption, like when he gave the Burmese junta a B4 billion loan of taxpayer funds...which they had to give straight 'back' to Thaksin, who conveniently wished to provide them with his company's services. Thaksin does not like paying tax; and that's the understatement of the century. His legal team fought and lost his corruption trials, and he was sentenced quite fairly.

Thaksin and his family declared B15 billion net worth when he became PM in 2001. B110 billion was frozen in his and his children's Thai bank accounts only years later. Whilst those accounts were frozen, he bought Manchester City for ~B100 billion (funds wired in from Swiss / Cayman accounts - laundered money, which he obviously never declared and obviously never paid taxes when he 'acquired' such spectacular wealth whilst he was PM for a few years. He's the most corrupt politician Thailand has ever seen.

He promised to abide by the Court's decision after that same Court acquitted him 8-7 (without explanation of their illogical verdict) in 2001 on charges of concealing wealth in his driver's / maid's accounts - the billions of shares discovered in those accounts were a 'mistake' (Thaksin's 'defence' argument - it's not great, but show me where Amsterdam has done better).

Instead of keeping his promise (which of course he only meant if he finagled an acquittal), he fled overseas whilst his lawyers attempted to bribe the judges. And failed. Those lawyers are in prison, Thaksin ran away, the high court judges voted 9-0 verdict to ship him to prison after he assisted his wife in a tidy / dirty B750 million land deal she was doing with a public company he had oversight / control of.

He ran away to his rogue states which give him passports and government positions despite his being a criminal wanted by Interpol to face charges of funding terrorism. He gets diplomatic passports from upstanding types like Nicaragua's Ortega, Cambodia's Hun Sen and is a citizen of Lebanon and Montenegro and god knows where else. He is no longer a Thai citizen, of course. He was warned if he accepted an offer to serve in the Cambodian government, his Thai citizenship would be forfeited - he accepted the job and betrayed his former country, nonchalantly forfeiting his Thai citizenship which he didn't value. Not at the time. He only wanted to cause conflict or even start a war between his new Cambodian home and Thailand. It's hard to imagine a more defined example of the definition of the word 'traitor'; than that presented by a disgraced former PM on the run from irrefutable and mounting corruption charges, already convicted and sentenced to prison for the least serious of the many charges, furious and bitter at his enemies, he knowingly forfeited his citizenship of Thailand so that he could serve the government of a neighbouring country which more or less represents the closest thing Thailand has to a historical 'enemy'.

He flippantly breaks his promises as if they were utterly worthless (which they are). He resigned as PM on national TV in mid-2006. Months later, the Army had to step in and end his illegal grasping onto power, so that they could return it to the people (which they did, rapidly). Thaksin lies about literally everything. Provable lies. He's been on the record for years claiming he's completely finished with politics. TIME.com quoted his arrogant claim in 2001 that "if convicted" by the Constitutional Court (for concealing assets, prohibited by the 1997 Constitution); he would simply "change the law" (i.e. rewrite the Constitution to allow his corruption).

He swears the Red Shirts are peaceful. They're an insult to decency, his gratuitous lies. There are thousands of hours of footage in the public domain which - quite comprehensively - prove what Thaksin and his expensive campaign believe in regards to "peaceful protesting" and what is 'acceptable'. The evidence shows that, for Thaksin, peaceful protesting looks a lot like armed, violent provocation and hijacking and arson. His conscripts turned Bangkok's CBD into a Live Fire Zone for months. They burned down the 2nd largest mall in Asia. They fired rifles, RPGs and launched Molotov cocktails at stationary soldiers, who were prevented from returning fire by strict RoE and also by the Red Shirts placing their children atop the barricades as (very cute, very scared) human shields. It's sick, sick stuff.

TIME.com quoted the Red Shirt parents who REFUSED to protect their children, stating instead that "We want them to die with us." The Red Shirt terrorist Nattawut was asked why he didn't ask families with children to leave the live fire zone. I'll let you research his reply yourself. I do not recommend your doing so on a full stomach.

Thaksin lies to the global media, he lies to his followers, he lies to everyone. He's a compulsive liar, truth is merely like his followers...to him? They are both expendable. Almost every claim he makes is a provable lie. And...almost everything his highly paid 'legal' team says is deception to the point where it's effectively sheer lying as well (of course they are very careful to protect themselves..."it appears"..."if the rumours are true..."...."if were are to believe..."

Ridiculous. They lie non-stop. Then they censor comments which link to Amnesty International reports on Thaksin's human rights abuses, posted in response to their articles where they wax lyrical on Thailand's tragic 'abuse' of human rights (articles written by Thaksin's lawyers, in support of Thaksin, a man described by Human Rights Watch as "a human rights abuser of the worst kind").

Foreign Policy has the reputation that it does because it is fair and objective and unbiased the vast majority of the time. But what right do these two 'lawyers' have to insult your readers with their drivel, which has been published unfairly, in response to your clearly accurate and fair article?

If I can show you proof that they ruthlessly censor evidence which would present an embarrassing contradiction to their published spin on their own blogs and portals....and I can, with scores of examples....surely that should be adequate grounds to rescind their 'right of reply' no? Surely they don't have the right to lie on FP, when they deny the rights of others on their portals / blogs the right to respond to their lies with truth (supported by evidence).

One thing I can guarantee: Thaksin's lawyers will not engage me in defence of their client. They will not respond to the allegations (the evidence proving them is available online, free of charge) claiming their employer has committed countless crimes. They will not engage nor defend because they have no interest in defending the indefensible nature of Thaksin's crimes.

They are not lawyers. Not in any legal sense. They are spin writers. Fiction writers. Hired by a corrupt human rights abuser who refused for years to submit himself to any form of legal proceedings which cannot be bribed to deliver him his desire acquittals (this is verifiable fact; Ms Foley and Mr Amsterdam arguably 'replaced' Thaksin's lawyers currently in prison after being caught red-handed attempting to bribe high court judges with B2 million pastry boxes).

When he gets mixed up with a court which resists his bribes, he is - quite unsurprisingly - convicted. At which point, he runs away to his rogue nation home/s to escape justice. He has no plans to ever allow himself to be exposed in any form of judicial setting (arguably quite 'understandably' - if a bit 'nauseatingly' when one considers Mr Amsterdam's ongoing abuse of ICC protocol which requires the international court to "seriously consider" Amsterdam's vile and ludicrous charges he's using in his attempt to smear Thailand's softly-spoken, peace-loving PM). If Abhisit was guilty of anything, it was his failure to realise the extent of Thaksin's intent. Abhisit bent over backwards to give Thaksin's Red Shirts the right to hold Bangkok hostage for months, and Abhisit resisted calls from all and sundry to send the Army in and restore law and order...for two months).

Ms Foley and Mr Amsterdam.

You claim you are lawyers for a terrorist seeking to divide and rule (if possible - but he'll accept petty vindictive revenge, if not) his former country. His list of crimes reads like a laundry list of tyrannical abuses of power. Ongoing.

In which 'court' or judicial setting or legal proceedings do you plan on assisting / representing / defending your client? Which charges is he facing that you are working up a defence argument for?

Aside from the Court of Public Opinion, where you are fighting very unfairly with censorship of patently valid evidence disproving your spin.

You're his lawyers.

You likely won't get a more 'criminal' criminal to defend. Lifetime.

Why are you not DEFENDING him? In court. Clear his name internationally. If, of course, you think he's innocent. lol

Or explain how accepting a passport from a rogue state when there are outstanding prison sentences you are attempting to escape from...is not 'illegal'.

Explain how flying in an out of nations where citizenship was purchased...is not 'illegal'.

Explain how using provably laundered (and undeclared billions) of Thai taxpayers' baht which you ferreted away offshore whilst you were Prime Minister of Thailand...is not 'illegal', when used to purchase those passports (or purchase anything).

Explain how Thaksin is skipping around and about, in and out of respectable nations with his respectable buddies like Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega, Cambodia's Hun Sen, taking up government positions with both whilst happily forfeiting your Thai passport in exchange for illegally-acquired 'diplomatic' passports courtesy of your buddies (who broke the law, at least Ortega certainly did)....is not 'illegal'.

-----------------------------------------------------

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN15532034

"(Reuters) - Ousted Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is a "special ambassador" for Nicaragua and holds a diplomatic passport issued by the Central American country, the government said on Wednesday.

Thaksin received the passport after a February meeting with Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, the Nicaraguan government said in a press release.

The Thai government stripped Thaksin of his passport this week, accusing him of instigating violent protests that forced the cancellation of an Asian summit.

Thaksin has lived in self-imposed exile to avoid a two-year jail sentence on corruption and abuse of power charges after being deposed by a coup in 2006. It is unknown where he is now living.

Ortega appointed him to the post to help attract investment to the impoverished nation, the government said.

Protesters loyal to Thaksin surrendered on Tuesday after besieging Government House in the capital, Bangkok, for more than two weeks in a bid to force new elections. Two people were killed in the unrest. (Reporting by Ivan Castro; Editing by Peter Cooney)"

------------------------

http://www.tannetwork.tv/tan/ViewData.aspx?DataID=1014056

"The Spanish language newspaper, El Diario, reported that former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's appointment as Special Ambassador by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega is not the first time the president has appointed someone with judicial problems to be special ambassador.

The El Diario said that on October 2008, Ortega appointed Albaro Robello Konsalez , who was accused of defrauding a bank in Spain, as special ambassador as well.

Hosay Payais , the Nicaraguan director of the Committee on Justice and Law, recently criticised the appointments of special ambassadors by President Ortega, saying that Ortega usually appoints people as special ambassadors without considering diplomatic customs and relations between countries.

Payais also said, concerning the appointment of Thaksin and Albaro Robello Konsalez as special ambassadors, that they are not in line with the 1961 Vienna Treaty on diplomatic relations, which outlines the international law and is respected by the international community.

He also expressed concerns that Ortega often allows foreigners to hold Nicaraguan passports. This conflicts not only with international law but also Nicaraguan laws which state that the appointment of an ambassador by the head of the state must be approved by the parliament first.'

-----------------------

Can you wire the money to my Thai bank accounts? I have no problem with paying tax on it. In fact, I'll probably donate Thaksin's stolen money back to Thailand if this is the first of his promises he actually freakishly keeps 555

Hi Ms Foley,

Just requesting an update on your promise on behalf of your employer to return to Thailand one of the thousands of millions of $ he absconded with.

I believe the requirements for your 'award' have been met. Please send $1 million to a Thai charity (a non-violent one, please - no, not the ones who carry weapons and build barricades, I mean the other kind of 'non-violent') or to the Finance Ministry.

Regards,

Jonny

ps. To FP, perhaps if both Amsterdam and Foley refuse to engage in discussion where they cannot censor anything 'tricky', their morally outraged defences in support of their criminal client and fugitive from justice and terrorism charges...should be removed with a notice stating they gave up their right to respond when they censor all uncomfortable evidence posted in response to their untrue claims on behalf of their client.

Payais also said, concerning the tatil appointment of Thaksin and Albaro Robello Konsalez as special ambassadors, that they are not in abtronic x2 line with the 1961 Vienna Treaty on diplomatic relations, which outlines the international instyler law and is respected by the relax tone international community