Noom caught in crossfire of legal spat, Aim ducks for cover

Social advocate called out

Noom

TV news presenter Kanchai “Noom’’ Kamnerdploi is facing legal action after getting caught in a widening dispute between a high profile lawyer and social advocate.

Noom, who presents two TV news shows on Channel 3 after recently making the switch from acting to news, complained on social media last week after social advocate Atchariya Ruangrattanapong declared he would sue him, as his dispute with rival and one-time close friend, lawyer Sittra Biebangkerd, widens.

Mr Atchariya, chairman of the Crime Victims’ Assistance Club who routinely levels claims of bribe-taking and other forms of corruption against officials including police, accuses Mr Sittra of hiring himself out recklessly to defendants in drug cases and betraying his principles as a lawyer.

Atchariya

Mr Sittra says Mr Atchariya, a former engineer who is studying law, disrupts police inquiries and challenges court convictions to make a name for himself, regardless of the cost which officials, in many cases doing their duties honestly, have to bear.

The two have laid police complaints against each other in recent weeks, wage ongoing battles on social media and recently have stepped up their campaigns to appear on TV shows, including Noom’s.

Mr Atchariya’s suit also names Noom’s co-host on his midday TV news show, Arisra “Muay” Wipatawat. It is one of 30 cases which he says the club’s legal team has drafted. Among a total of 10 people he is suing, he is taking action against Mr Sittra, Noom, the head of a police web page, and various other “big” keyboard warriors.

Sittra

Noom invited his rival Mr Sittra to phone in to his show to discuss the unfolding dispute, which has rivetted the legal profession.

Writing on Facebook, Noom said Mr Atchariya, who had earlier referred to Noom as his elder “brother” (as in phee nong) complained that a true “brother” wouldn’t do such a thing. 

However, Noom said if he really felt that way as a caring elder, Mr Atchariya would let him do his job as presenter properly, by ensuring coverage of both sides of the story.

“You would have me bind up the other side’s hands and feet and lay into him, and when I refuse, you sue,” he said.

“You should encourage me to do my job well, not betray the ethics of my profession by choosing one side over the other. But have no fear, I will carry on presenting both sides fairly regardless.”

Various celebrity lawyers have chimed in on Mr Atchariya’s row with Noom. One high-profile lawyer, Decha Kittiwithiyanan, who runs a page called “Thanai Khlai Thuk” (lawyer who eases your burdens), sided with Noom, saying Mr Atchariya had gone too far and was bound to withdraw his suit before long.

However, such is the state of the polarised debate surrounding the pair that he quickly found himself under attack from netizens, who said he was too quick to “betray” his friendship with Mr Atchariya.

One factor behind the dispute between Mr Atchariya and Mr Sittra, who is secretary-general of a group called the Foundation for People’s Lawyers, is the rewards at stake for lawyers and other advocates in the social media age who court public popularity.

Mr Sittra, who wears jeans and a T-shirt when he fronts the camera at police stations and the like, is widely seen as a net idol, which has upset some of the more traditionally-minded in the legal set.

The row has its seeds in a high-profile drugs case involving TV actress Amelia “Amy” Jacobs, whom Mr Sittra represented in court last year. In August the Min Buri court sentenced her to jail for three months, suspended for two years, for using illicit drugs.

It threw out a charge of possession with intent to supply, which carried a much heavier potential sentence. Mr Atchariya was unhappy with the outcome, declaring he had lost faith in his former friend, whom he said had betrayed the profession for money.

“My club gets many petitions from victims in cases where he has represented the perpetrators. One is now a cripple as a result of a shooting. But this lawyer with the good looks hired himself out to the criminal involved in the case, in which two people died,” he complained, referring to another dispute.

Mr Atchariya later laid a complaint alleging police interference in the Amy Jacobs case. Metropolitan police probed five police from two stations and found they were involved in an alleged plot to help the actress. They now face disciplinary action. The activist claimed money changed hands to persuade police to act.

He revived the bribery claim in another dispute in which he accused Mr Sittra of asking for a bribe from a couple involved in a fraud case in Samut Sakhon. He said the couple wanted to bring stronger charges against the accused, and Mr Sittra, who claimed he knew the prosecutors, could arrange it in return for a payment.

The activist in late October complained to police over the matter, and also petitioned the Lawyers’ Council to have Mr Sittra thrown out.

Mr Sittra, who denied the claim, said prosecutors were unable to bring tougher charges as the accused had confessed. His client, “Ms Wassana”, left unhappy with the outcome, and contacted Mr Atchariya. 

However, she had since realised that Mr Atchariya wasn’t interested in pursuing her case as much as he was maligning his reputation. The council had since thrown out the complaint and he would now sue Mr Atchariya for spreading the false bribery claims.

In a Facebook post, Mr Sittra took a barely veiled swipe at his rival. “Most of us have real jobs, real incomes ... unlike some with no real profession who spin an image for themselves so they look good in the media. 

Where they get an income, who knows, but they like petitioning public servants everywhere, pressuring them into being scared, and blackmailing them to the point some are scared of being used as his tools. My message to them is, don’t be scared. Thai society has suffered enough from such behaviour.”

Last month Mr Sittra complained to the Crime Suppression Division about Mr Atchariya, whom he said had persuaded a senior investigator in Ayutthaya to illegally dig up private information about a citizen so he could spread it online.

Mr Sittra, who complained to Immigration Police head Surachate “Big Joke” Hakparn, said the deputy head of investigations at Bang Pa-in station had dug up official records about the wife of a client, Seth Dechsupa, whom he also took along, and passed on the activist, which was an improper use of private information.

Mr Atchariya, who believed incorrectly that Mr Dechsupa was the head of a web page, Red Skulls, which was causing him bother, spread the details online to discredit his wife, resulting in threats of bodily harm.

Worse, after he laid an initial complaint with Bang Pa-in police, Mr Sittra said he had uncovered evidence that the officer involved had improperly altered the police record after the event to make it look as if Mr Atchariya had laid a complaint about the web page.

Mr Atchariya, who maintains he has no problems with the media including Noom, in October briefly closed the club’s web page after Mr Sittra responded angrily to his post claiming he had lost faith in him. Their row continues.

Toot blows whistle on fight

Aim 

Racy TV presenter Witthawat “Aim” Rattanaboonbaramee is keeping his head down among claims that an influential figure in Nakhon Pathom threatened his production team.

Aim, who presents Taam Jai Toot, a travel show with a taste for profanity on YouTube, stunned his followers last week with news that the 14th episode, to cover Nakhon Pathom’s attractions, had been cancelled.

The move follows a fight which broke out at a local nightspot on Jan 22 when Aim and his production team socialised with a local kamnan, Maitree “Job” Neakaew, his pregnant wife, and nine of their friends. 

Mr Job, a fan of the show, said he and his wife introduced themselves and asked for a photograph. Aim obliged, but shortly after that someone burst into the eatery to say a fight had broken out in the carpark.

Job

“I rushed outside to find our driver and a teen driver from Aim’s party were arguing. I asked them to call it off and pay each other some respect. I don’t know what it was about and didn’t threaten anyone,” he said, referring to over-heated social media claims which took root in the days following news of the cancellation.

Supposed witnesses to the encounter exchanged lurid accounts of the restaurant fracas under a trending Twitter hashtag. However, Mr Job said the accounts, including one which said Aim had accidentally struck his pregnant wife in the belly during the commotion, were overblown.

“The matter didn’t go as far as police, and when those lads stopped arguing both sides went their own ways,” Mr Job said. “On social media they said Aim ran up against a person of influence, but it’s not true, and my reputation has been damaged as a result,” he complained.

“The owner of the restaurant also helped me break up the row, and I told Aim’s party before they left that it was safe to go out here, there were no hooligans about,” he added.

Aim has said little other than a cryptically worded message in which he stressed he didn’t want to refer to third parties or turn the scrap into news. “I don’t know any of this news. I am not referring to anything, I am not thinking about it.”

Adding to the mystery, media outlets spoke to one of his camera men, who said a member of the production team was beaten up in the toilets. The intrigue continues.