Re: Cho dde^'n khi na`o ngu*o*`i Vie^.t co' tu*. do ngo^n lua^.n nhu* Keith Olbermann

On May 24, 6:02 am, Ben5511 <pb5...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ca'i thu* ke`m da^y chi? la` thu* thi?ng nguye^.n petition, ai vie^'t
cu~ng ddu*o*.c, kho^ng nha^'t thie^'t pha?i la` lus^.t gia. Co'
ngu*o*`i co' nghe^` la` solicitor trainee hay la` trainnee.

Con co' bie^'t ca'i gi` dda^u ma` noi' leo, no'i la'o ! ;-)))

Dda^y la` ddi.nh nghi~a ve^` nghe^` Solicitor aka. Lawyer o+? Anh,
U'c, Hong Kong.

Co`n muo^'n tro+? tha`nh Solicitor Trainee thi` pha?i la` Solicitor
aka. Lawyer (co' law degree).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trainee_solicitor

QTTT

u. na`y
Tha'i Lan nha^.n petition cua? ha`ng nga`n ngu*o*`i VN mo.i tha`nh
pha^`n xin gia?m a'n. DDa^y chi? la` du`ng gia^'y to*` kho^ng gia'
tri. dde^? lu*`a ngu*o*`i kho^ng bie^'t.
Muo^'n chu*'ng minh ai la` lua^.t su* cu?a vu. kie^.n thi` pha?i xem
court docket, hay va(n thu* cu?a toa` xa'c nha^.n be^n bi. ca'o
ddu*o*.c ai dda.i die^.n, khi ta.i ngoa.i thi` lua^.t su* na`o lo, hay
ba?n a'n to`a co' ghi be^n bi. ca'o do ai ba`o chu*~a, chu*' kho^ng
pha?i ai ky' va`o petition thi` la` ls cho bi. ca'o. Da^n ho.c lua^.t
thi` pha?i bie^'t ca'c ta`i lie^.u na`y.
Nghe no'i  phe LT  co' thue^ mo^.t ha~ng lua^.t be^n My~ (te^n ha~ng
la` te^n My~) va` mo^.t va(n pho`ng Ls Tha'i Lan ta.i ddia. phu*o*ng,
to^'n ke'm cu~ng nhie^`u. Tru*o*'c dda^y SCV co' dda(ng ba`i ve^` vu.
xu*? LT.



TrinhQuocTh...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On May 22, 7:17 pm, ww <lbt...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Anh cha`ng na^`y tu*` nho? cha('c lo^'i no'i chuye^.n vo*'i ngu*o*`i
nha`, and vice versa, tha`nh tho'i quen ro^`i ne^n ra ngoa`i -du*`o*ng
a(n no'i y nhu* he^.t.

1 ngu*o*`i co' a(n ho.c, la`m lua^.t su* -da`ng hoa`ng, kho^ng ai
argues nhu* cha?! In fact, they thrive/enjoy debates/arguments.
That's what they do for a living.

Khu*'a na^`y khi o/ -do^`ng y' vo*'i posts cu?a ngu*o*`i kha'c,
actually posts that described subjects that have nothing to do with
him personally, la.i personally attacked ngu*o*`i posters, instead of
tackling the subjects being debated, like a professional lawyer would.

This is what I'd meant by this guy is not a lawyer (beside the facts
that he does not have any knowledge of u.s. history or laws :o).
Ne^'u la` lua^.t su* tha^.t ma` a(n no'i nhu* va^.y vo*'i lawyers
kha'c hay judges o*? trong court thi` cha('c -da~ bi. bailiff ba('t
vo^ tu` na(`m va` -da~ bi. disbarred tu*` la^u ro^`i.  Name one
legitimate case you'd worked on or have lead!

Sao ma`y ho?i ngu the^' ?

Ma`y ho^?ng ddo.c SCV a`? kho^ng ddo.c ba'o Vie^.t Nam a`?

kho^ng bie^'t Gu go^ so+.t a` ? ;-))))

Va`o SCV dda^y ma` search vo+'i ca'c tu+` "Mai Dao Ly Tong 2007"

Bo^' ma`y o+? dda^y la`m lead attorney cho ligitimate case cu?a Ly'
To^'ng. Case na`y lu+`ng danh thie^n ha..

Lua^.t su+ Vie^.t-My~ dde^`u ddo`i tie^`n 150-200 nga`n ddo^ la va`
sau ddo' ddo.c ho^` so+ xong la` bo? cha.y! ;-))))))))))))))))).
Bo? cha.y la`ng vi` lie^n quan dde^'n lua^.t le^. anti-terrorism,
deportation cu?a ca? 3 nu+o+'c My~, Tha'i Lan, Vie^.t Nam.

Nho+` co' bo^' ma`y "lie^`u li~nh" la`m lead attorney ma` anh hu`ng
Ly' To^'ng dda`ng hoa`ng bu+o+'c ra kho?i co^?ng tra.i tu` Tha'i Lan.

Chuye^.n na`y ha^`u nhu+ ai cu~ng bie^'t. O+? My~ chi? co' the^m 1
lua^.t su+ can dda?m kha'c ma` tho^i. Ddo' la` L/S Hoa`ng Duy Hu`ng.

Sao lu'c ddo' nga`i toilet ww + Lang Ben + Ho Chi Manh kho^ng nha?y ra
can thie^.p giu`m ??????? ;-)))))
Nghe no'i ra`nh ve^` "Legal System" ma` ?

Can you name one legitimate case that you've worked on? ;-)))))

Here is my proof. My name is on the number 13.

***************************************************************************­*****************

To:       -  The Honorable Minister of Justice
        -  The Honorable Attorney General
-  The Honorable Judges of the Appellate Court of Thailand

cc:     -  President George W. Bush
-  Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice

Subject : Confirmation of Ly Tong’s Political Offense .

   Black case no. OR. PHOR. 4/2549
   Red  case   no. OR. PHOR. 6/2549

Your Honor,

We, the undersigned, are Judges, Prosecutors, Lawyers have submitted
this testimony to confirm that Freedom Fighter Ly Tong’s mission on
17
Nov. 2000 was a political action with evidence as follows :
I.  Extradition Case:
Thai Extradition Act BE 2472 (1929)
1. Article 17 : “…The Appeal Court is authorized to consider evidence
and protestation in the following matters :   Nationality of the
accused,   such alleged offense is not extraditable,    such offense
is political or the genuine  intention of extradition request is to
punish the accused in other political offense, or       There is
insufficient evidence to show the lower court to grant order.”
a. Nationality: The accused’s former nationality was the citizen of
The Republic of Vietnam (The South), not of the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam (The Communist North) . The accused’s current nationality is
an American citizen.
b. Not Extraditable Offense:
Article 4 of The Extradition (Aviation Security) Order 1991,
paragraph
(2) stipulates that: “In the case contemplated in subparagraphs(a)
[To
act violently], (b) [To destroy], (c) [ To place device or substance]
and (d) [To communicate false information to endanger the safety of
an
aircraft in flight] of paragraph 1 of Article 1, this Convention and
Protocol shall apply, irrespective of whether the aircraft is engaged
in an international or domestic flight, only if: (a) The place of
take-
off or landing, actual or intended; of the aircraft is situated
outside the territory of the state of registration of that aircraft;
or (b) The offense is committed in the territory of a state other
than
the state of registration of the aircraft.”
Ly Tong did not take off or land outside Thailand and his offense was
committed in the Thai aircraft, the extended territory of Thailand,
the state of registration of the aircraft. Even a person who acts
violently and destroys the aircraft cannot be extradited pursuant to
Article 4, so how an innocent, who used no threat, no force, only
begging for help and offering a reward worth 2-year salary of the
instructor to win his voluntary cooperation in the mission, can be
extradited by Thai Court?
For more evidence and details, please read Ly Tong’s Testimony :
“Counter-Arguments Against the Request for and the Acceptance of Ly
Tong’s Extradition to Vietnam before Thailand’s Appellate Court.”
c. Political Offense:
 Dropping leaflets is a political action, the right of expression,
recognized by Article 69 of Communist Vietnam’s Constitution and
Article 19 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights
(ICCPR). That’s why the Thai Government and the Thai Court have
rejected Communist Vietnam’s charge of Anti-State Propaganda based on
VN’s Article 88.
d. Insufficient Evidence: Communist Vietnam charged Ly Tong with
Infringing on Vietnam’s Territorial Security. This Article 81 has two
parts:
(1) Changing national border: Ly Tong’s mission did not change
Vietnam’s border.
(2) Harming  Vietnam’s Territorial Security : Ly Tong’s leaflet-
dropping did not harm Vietnam but meant to save Vietnam from the
totalitarian yoke .It only tried to harm the Communist  regime which
oppresses and exploits Vietnam’s people. Therefore, Ly Tong cannot be
charged with Article 81 of 1999 Criminal Code of Communist Vietnam.
Article 8 of Communist Vietnam’s Criminal Code is equivalent to Thai
Article 28 of the Aviation Act AD 1954 and Article 11 of Thai
Immigration Act AD 1979.
2. Article 5: Double Jeopardy: “Extradition will not be granted if
the
person claimed has already been tried and discharged or punished in
any Country for the crime for which his extradition is requested.”
Rayong Court already did charge Ly Tong by Article 11 of the
Immigration Act  AD 1979 for 4 months in prison. Therefore, the Court
Verdict violated Article 5 of Thai Extradition Treaty 1929 and
committed double Jeopardy.
3. Article 7: Double  Criminality: (b)...“by such evidence as would
justify the commitment for trial of the accused if the crime had been
committed in Siam.” Ly Tong flew in and out of Thai airspace the same
way he did in Vietnam but the Rayong Court did not charge him by
Article 28 of the Aviation Act AD 1954. Why Communist Vietnam did?
Because he did not drop leaflets in Thailand, but in Vietnam to
appeal
people to overthrow the Communist regime. That meant, the genuine
intention of extradition is to punish him for leaflet-dropping, a
political offense, already rejected by Thai Government and Thai
Court . The Court Verdict therefore violated the principle of Double
Criminality of Article 7 and other Article 10, Article 11, Article 13
and Article 17 of Thai Extradition Act 1929 as well for political
offense and political intention of extradition.
4. Article 4: Jurisdiction: Communist Vietnam’s Jurisdiction :
Thai Aviation Act BE 2497 about Dual Jurisdiction: “The commission of
an offense in any Thai vessel or aircraft shall be deemed as being
committed within the kingdom, irrespective of the place in which
where
such Thai vessel or aircraft may be.” And Article 5 of The
Extradition
(Aviation Security) Order 1991 No.1699 stipulates: (1) “Each
contracting state shall take such measures as may be necessary to
establish its jurisdiction over the offenses in the following cases.
(a) When the offense is committed in the territory of that state; (b)
When the offense is committed against or on board an aircraft
registered in that state; (c) When the aircraft on board which the
offense is committed lands in its territory with the alleged offender
still on board; and (d) When the offense is committed against or on
board an aircraft leased without crew to a lessee who has principal
place of business or, if the lessee has no such place of business,
his
permanent  residence, in that state.”
Ly Tong committed the offense on board the Thai aircraft, the
extended
territory of Thailand, not of Vietnam. He did not land in Vietnam,
and
he leased

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Thu+ cam o+n cu?a tha^n hu+~u anh Ly To^ng - Mr. Le^ Ngoa.n
    ... Confirmation of Ly Tong’s Political Offense. ... Thai Extradition Act BE 2472 ... irrespective of whether the aircraft is engaged ... committed in the Thai aircraft, the extended territory of Thailand, ...
    (soc.culture.vietnamese)
  • Re: Cho dde^n khi na`o ngu*o*`i Vie^.t co tu*. do ngo^n lua^.n nhu* Keith Olbermann
    ... Confirmation of Ly Tong’s Political Offense. ... Thai Extradition Act BE 2472 ... irrespective of whether the aircraft is engaged ... committed in the Thai aircraft, the extended territory of Thailand, ...
    (soc.culture.vietnamese)
  • Ly To^ng
    ... The Honorable Judges of the Appellate Court of Thailand ... Confirmation of Ly Tong’s Political Offense. ... irrespective of whether the aircraft is engaged ... committed in the Thai aircraft, the extended territory of Thailand, ...
    (soc.culture.vietnamese)