Pattaya publisher Drew Noyes was told to take home a copy of a video called ‘Men in Suits and Influential People,” by a judge at Pattaya Court today who accepted the documentary into evidence and asked for Noyes comments.

“I have no problem with that. It will all be lies,” said the 57-year-old American former publisher of the Pattaya Times.


But in a loud outburst he accused the lawyer for British journalist Drummond of switching the tapes as she handled two copies of the video. “That is what he will do. He will give me one copy and a different copy entirely to the court,” he said.

Noyes said he had complained to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, DSI and CSD, “There are several investigations into him.”

Drummond said he was happy with the support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Public Relations Department.

Earlier Andrew Drummond had told the court that he had known about Drew Noyes for over ten years since a British citizen had called him and explained that he had to leave Thailand as a result of Noyes’actions.

He had bought a bar from Noyes, said Drummond either in Pattaya Second Road or Duck Square, but Noyes had sold the bar to other people. He complained but Noyes threatened him with police and court action. Noyes had owned bars called the ‘Zebra and Lollipop’ *

Pornographer Tony Poer arrested by police – but released.  He says he fired Drew Noyes

Later he came across Noyes again when he received information that many pornographic film makers had been arrested in Pattaya but their cases had disappeared in the system. Noyes’ ‘legal’company PAPPA  was involved in the negotiations.

He wrote about the case. Subsequently he received threats from Noyes that unless he took his stories off the web he would involve influential people.

Drummond said he then wrote a story after which many people started writing and telephoning and emailing to complain that they had been cheated by Noyes on visa, legal and property deals.

Some of them had gone to him after he wrote in his newspaper that the Thai government was planning to confiscate houses owned by foreigners in the name of dormant Thai companies.  Noyes persuaded some to their houses in his wife’s name.

Answering claims on his website that he had libelled Noyes by allowing a  poster  Alyssha  Saunders to make a post calling David Hanks and Pattaya People publisher  a pimp and referring to the ‘pimp Noyes’ and linking him to mia nois, the Buffalo Bar, and oral sex, Drummond said: ‘’The reader was obviously angry about certain foreigners in Pattaya. But there is nothing special about this.”

Earlier the court had heard with picture evidence that Noyes was a frequenter of the Buffalo Bar in Second Road, Pattaya.

Drew Noyes and Wanrapa Boonsu under arrest for the attempted extortion of the Pattaya Clinic

“I presume he gave permission for his picture with a girl to be on their website” and that he had bagged the internet domain ‘officialblowjobs.info’ but Drummond added – “that has now apparently been transferred to me.”

“Given what I have written about him – the accusations I have made of cheating foreigners – this all seems a bit silly.

“He has promoted himsef on the net as an American lawyer and the only American lawyer allowed to practice in Thailand. He has even held a legal seminar with judges in Pattaya.”

Earlier he had told the court that he had investigated David Hanks, a Scotsman,  who was sitting with Drew Noyes in a restaurant when Noyes was arrested together with Wanrapa Boonsu for the attempted extortion of the Pattaya Clinic.

(Drew Noyes and Wanrapa Boonsu are currently on trial charged with extortion of the clinic and also in the civil  court in connection with Dutchman, Theo van der Schaaf and 2.5 million baht, a settlement which Schaff gave to PAPPA to give to his Thai girlfriend).

Hanks had told a pre-trial hearing that there was a David Hanks registered as the proprietor of the Masquerades Brothel in Melbourne but there were many David Hanks’ in Australia. He gave the court the impression that it was not him – and his case was accepted.

Yesterday he was forced to admit he indeed was the owner of the brothel after evidence was unearthed by Drummond.

Drummond said he contacted journalists in Australia and checked the records of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission.  He also contacted the Scottish records office, as Hanks was born in Girvan. That confirmed that a man with the same date of birth and birthplace was the owner of Masquerades.

Additionally he had acquired picture evidence from Australia on Hanks; and a newspaper in Scotland also sent a reporter to interview Hanks’ sister  (Margaret McCulloch). She admitted that he knew her brother ran a brothel , but did not approve.

Hanks was a pimp as that is the only word to describe him apart from brothel owner. Drummond said adding that he did not write ‘maeng da’ and only Thais and people who lived in Thailand would really understand this expression  or ‘mia noi’. They were not in the Oxford Dictionary.

“This is a comment under a story in which Noyes and Wanrapa Boonsu were accused of extortion,” he said. It’s not much in the greater scheme of things.

Drummond had called Noyes many things in copy but not a pimp and had never used the expression ‘maeng da’.

People who commented on his site could use any name they wanted. He could not vet them. They had to sign in to Google.  He could only allow or delete.

He did not think he need delete the comments, but eventually he deleted the whole story because Wanrapa complained about a picture caption on the news story above the comments and he had no argument with her.
The case was adjourned until December 11.

Thailand’s Pornography Trade Going Bong


  1. It reads (in this article reporting the arguments presented to the Court) as though there is a splitting of hairs.

    Leaving the "hares" out of thing's all together and reading between the lines it appears from an outsiders prospective; that at long last some Chickens are coming home to roost?

    As far as the tapes were concerned, were there independently verified "WRITTEN" transcripts made of the tapes and OF COURSE translated COPIES made for all parties including the Court in order to avoid any confusion? i.e English, Thai & American English.

    On second thoughts probably not.

  2. The references to him pretending to be a lawyer and allowed to practice etc will sink him, judges really do not like fake lawyers as they make the others look bad who have spent years studying and training.

  3. Well one Thai lawyers group make it clear on their website they will help in prosecuting people claiming to be lawyers in Thailand. The myriad of lies told by Noyes are slowly catching up with him, but like a text book psychopath, he cannot and will not admit any wrong doing. All he can do is continue to lie, digging himself into a deeper hole.

    I'm extremely happy the video was presented to the court as it is concise and presents the facts in a clear format anybody can understand. Hanks has outed himself as just another liar and hopefully the judge will tear him a new one for his previous perjury where he claimed he was not the David Hanks who owned the brothel. This is all so pathetic and juvenile, I hope the judge kicks this whole sordid saga out of the courts.

  4. Weapon, agree with you about Hanks. What idiot claims he is not a pimp but then admits he has sex rooms which he rents to some chinese feller who has hoes (I think that is spelt correctly)? Just removing himself from the transaction does not mean he is not fitting the definition.

    When confronted with the dictionary definition of the word that offended him he cannot explain how it would not be fair comment to apply it to him, one who is making a living from the backs of working grls, lying on them that is.

    Judges have been to university and obtained law degrees and passed Bar exams and got hired to carry out a demanding role. They will not take kindly to this type of time wasting and I expect the comments when delivering judgement will be quite juicy……

  5. So flab and blab Wanks has embarrassed and humiliated himself in court, perjured himself in court, all for the sake of Drew the Dope Noise. Wanks certainly is a dumb, stupid old man.
    I take it Wanks will now face charges for perjury and wasting the courts time and as a result can you counter sue for harassment and defamation of character Andrew?

    1. Hanks has openly perjured himself. He claimed he wasn't David Hanks brothel owner. He should be held to account for his blatant lies. I'll be interested in what the judge has to say, This could be an easy earn to sue him for false testimony and damages.

      We should never forget Andrew has sacrificed time and money to fight for the better good and the interests of all expats. I think we all understand his reluctance to waste his time on these reprobates but these people have been so malicious it would be totally justified to counter sue them for their treachery.

Comments are closed.