"Lawyer Nevin" criticized "Seripisut" to stop stirring up crickets for ratings after prosecution witnesses presented land title documents confirming lawful ownership of Khao Kradong land, causing the defendant to abruptly request postponement of cross-examination until October, urging to proceed through the justice system.
18 Aug 2026 GMT+7 Mr. Chanin Kaenhiran, acting as legal counsel for Mr. Nevin Chidchob, the chairman of Buriram United Football Club, who is the plaintiff in the lawsuit, filed charges against Police General Seripisut Temiyavet, leader of the Seri Ruam Thai Party, for defamation by advertising and filing false reports regarding accusations about possession of land belonging to the State Railway of Thailand (SRT), known as Khao Kradong land, through postings onFacebook,stating that as the law firm responsible for the case, seeing the defendant stirring up news for nearly two months after learning of the criminal lawsuit, speaking recklessly with ample time to seek evidence to defend the case, then arriving on the hearing day to create hype and stir up crickets until society misunderstood and thought the client feared confrontation by not appearing in court, instead giving media interviews and posting on IO pages and various media causing confusion about the truth that day, hence the need to clarify on their own page that
on that day, the prosecution's authorized witness gave solid testimony against the defendant, forcing the defense to unexpectedly request a postponement of cross-examination until October. The prosecution's witness testified clearly for over an hour that all citizens hold legal land titles. The defendant's allegations accusing the plaintiff of encroaching on railway land and filing complaints against the plaintiff and family were untrue.
However, when it was the defense's turn to cross-examine, they requested a long postponement until October, claiming they needed to gather new documents, despite previously stirring media hype claiming readiness to face all evidence. They even claimed in media interviews an intention to meet Mr. Nevin, fully aware that the plaintiff had authorized lawyers to file and testify on their behalf without requiring his presence. Since they intended to request a case postponement anyway, if they had strong evidence, they would not have delayed and lost credibility. Realizing their disadvantage, they quickly diverted the issue to public right-of-way matters, which are unrelated to this case.
Lawyer for Mr. Nevin concluded, "There is only one question: creating content to gain ratings is understandable, but they should stop stirring up crickets and enter the legal process seriously instead of misleading tactics and footwork everywhere, wasting the time of lawyers and parties involved in the case."