Petition The Appeal against the Rejection order of the last appeal
Number of Black Case: 54 /๒๕ 50
Number of Red Case: /๒๕ .
Administrative Court of Rayong Province
27 March 2008
Mr. Tenblue A. J. Maria #1st, with the associates of 10 Litigants
Between
Local Government Officer of Pattaya City Hall # 1
View Thalay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. # 2 Plaint Receivers
I, hereby,: Miss Jeerisumai Na. Nongkai and / or Miss Patjama Plagaid and / or Mr. Teerapan Pankiri and / or Mr. Surachai Trong-ngam In the capacity of : The eight Litigants, Located at: 505/12 Moo - Street: Ramkhamhaeng Trok / Soi: Ramkhamhaeng 39 ( Thepleela 1) Sub- district: Wangtonglang District: Wangtonglang Province: Bangkok Zip Code: 10310 Telephone: 02-318-4292-3,
Would like to lodge this Appeal with the following matters:
1. In this case, on 20 February 2008, after the 9 Litigants lodged the appeal to the Administrative Court of Rayong Province, the 6th Litigant withdrew out from being one of the Litigants and had no longer intention to proceed legal statements against the 2 Plaint Receivers, and the withdrawal of the 6th Litigant had already been approved from the court.
On 20 February 2008, the Appeal of 9 Litigants was rejected by The Administrative Court of Rayong Province, The 8 Litigants received the order of rejection from The Administrative Court of Rayong Province on 29 February 2008
With respect to the order of The Administrative Court of Rayong Province, but the 8 Litigants can not be in agreement with the aforesaid order. Thereby, the 8 Litigants can see that there are some mistakes or errors in the interpretation of the point of law to use by the court to reject the Appeal which lodged against the order of lifting the Injunction, details which will be clarified in the following statements of this Appeal.
In this case, The 10 Litigants requested for the Injunction to seize the construction of the dispute building until the final decision is given. Because every step of progression of the construction will bring more damages to the 10 Litigants in the future, and it is will be too severe to be remedied.
Later on, the Administrative Court of Rayong Province ordered the 2nd Plaint Receiver to temporally stop the construction which had been permitted under the Construction License No: 162 / 2550 on 9th April 2007, Issued on: 28th November 2006 until the final decision or other order is given, since the order have been received. The Administrative Court of Rayong considered and wrote: “ To be able to judge this case, the court needs to inspect carefully and find out the starting point of measurement which was stated in the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9. Also to find out if the distance of the dispute building from that point is correct by the law. The inspection will take some time. If the building is still constructed continuously, and if the court would finally revoke the construction license as requested by the 10 Litigants, then it might bring severe damages to the 10 Litigants. This matter gives enough reason for the court to order the Injunction as requested by the 10 Litigants.” The Court, therefore, ordered to seize the construction which had been permitted under the Construction License No: 162 / 2550 on 9th April 2007, Issued on: 28th November 2006 until the final decision or other order is given, since the order have been received.
The 2nd Plaint Receiver, then lodged the Appeal against the order of placing the Injunction to minimize injurious consequences of The Administrative Court of Rayong Province.
The Supreme Court of Administration, then gave an order, Issued on 11th July 2007, stated that:…… “ If the building is still constructed continuously building, and if the court would finally revoke the construction license as requested by the 10 Litigants, then it might bring severe damages to the 10 Litigants. If the license is revoked in the future, and the building must be demolished, as requested by the 10 Litigants, however, the demolition would take some time to be completed. It will still damage the 10 Litigants continuously during the step of demolition regardless, and it still can not solve what had been damaged the 10 Litigants This matter gives enough reason for the court to order the Injunction to minimize the injurious consequences before judgment, by ordering the 2nd Plaint Receiver to seize the construction under the Construction License No: 162 / 2550 on 9th April 2007, Issued on: 28th November 2006 until the final decision or other order is given.”
However, the Clause 3(8) of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519) which was promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, which was amended by the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 (B.E. 2521), which was promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, stipulates the area of 200 meters, which measuring from the Construction Control Line, which shown on the annexed map of the Royal Decree of the promulgation of the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479. The B.E. 2521, which taking control the areas along the sea side over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nagluea and Nongprue Sub-districts, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province. These areas are the prohibition areas for the buildings with the height over 14 meters from the road surface. Therefore, if the construction license No: 162 / 2550, which Issued on 28th November 2006, and which issued by the 1st Plaint Receiver, to the 2nd Plaint Receiver would be found to be infringement to the law as stated by the 10 Litigants, is illegal, then the Administrative court of Rayong Province can cancel the license, only on the part of the construction which is illegal. Which means the part that had been given to the 2nd Plaint Receiver to build the building parts over 14meters from the road surface only. When the order of Injunction to minimize the injurious consequences was given, the building of the 2nd Plaint Receiver was constructed only on the ground level and still has not been built over 14 meters. Therefore, the order to place the Injunction then, happened to be more than the necessity to be done for that level of progression of the construction.
Later on, the Administrative Court of Rayong Province had the second order to amend the former order by allowing the 2nd. Plaint Receiver to build the construction under the Construction License No: 162 / 2550, Issued on: 28th November 2006, up to 14 meters from the road surface only, until another order or the judgment is given
After the Supreme Court of Administration ordered the 2nd Plaint Receiver to stop the construction over 14 meters of the building with the Construction License No: 162 / 2550, Issued on: 28th November 2006, until another order or the judgment is given, as mentioned above, on 2 January 2008, the 2nd Plaint Receiver requested the Administrative Court of Rayong Province to life the Injunction or the procedure to minimize injurious consequences.
On 16th January 2008, the Administrative Court of Rayong Province ordered to lift the Injunction as requested by the 2nd plaint Receiver by stated that:…….. “the facts which have been used by the court to consider to give the order of Injunction, now have changed, and the reasons to continue placing the Injunction becomes insufficiency,
The court then, ordered to lift the Injunction which was the order of stopping the 2nd Plaint Receiver from building the construction higher than 14 meters from the road surface temporally, until the final decision or the other order is given”.
On 15th February 2008, the 9 Litigants lodged the Appeal against the order of cancellation of the Injunction / or the procedure to minimize injurious consequences.
Then on 20 February 2008, The Administrative Court of Rayong Province refused to accept the Appeal which was lodged by the 9 Litigants, with the reason that: …… “ Clause 76, 2nd and 3rd phrases of The Regulations of the Grand Meeting of the Supreme Court of Administration, governing the procedures of trying the case of B.E. 2543, stipulated the order of refusing / or lifting the Injunction which requested to minimize the injurious consequences before final decision is made, by the litigant / or the other party to be the final order, and the interested person has the right to lodge the Appeal against the order of placing the Injunction within 30 days, from the day of receiving the court order. From the aforesaid regulations, it shows that, there are only 2 circumstances which connect the procedure of trying the case of the Administrative Court to the procedures of Injunction to minimize injurious consequences. One is the circumstance of which the court gives the order to reject or lift or cancel the request of the litigant, this type of order is considered to be the final order. The other circumstance is in the case of which the court gives the order to place the injunction temporally, the interested person has the right to lodge the Appeal to the Supreme Court of Administration. In this case, the 2nd Plaint Receiver used the right to lodge the Appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of placing the Injunction which had been ordered to grant the request of the 9 Litigants, and the Supreme Court already gave the order to replace the former order which was given by the Administrative Court of Rayong, when the reasons to continue placing the injunction became insufficiency. The court then, cancelled the procedure to minimize injurious consequences. This circumstance, however, gave the same effect as the rejection / or cancellation of the request which was requested by the 9 Litigants, therefore, this order is the final order as stated in Clause 76, 2nd Phrase of the aforesaid Regulations. The 9 Litigants can no longer lodge the Appeal. This Appeal of the 9 Litigants is forbidden to be proceeded by the law, and should make the motion for the committee to consider not to accept this Appeal to be in accordance with the 2nd Phrase of the Regulations of the Supreme Court’s Grand meeting, governing the procedures of trying the case of B.E. 2543.”
2. The 8 Litigants are in disagreement with the order of rejection of the Appeal which had been given by the Administrative Court of Rayong as mentioned, therefore, the 8 Litigants would like to lodge the Appeal against the aforesaid rejection order, given by the Administrative Court of Rayong Province, which rejected to accept the Appeal against the cancellation of the Injunction, by revealing the reasons, facts and points of law as follow;
As when the Administrative Court of Rayong Province gave the order to place the Injunction which was requested by the Litigants, the 2nd Plaint Receiver used the right to lodge the Appeal, and then the Supreme Court of Administration gave the order to replace the order from the Administrative Court of Rayong. Later on, the Administrative Court of Rayong granted the request of the 2nd Plaint Receiver after trying the case, by giving the order to lift the injunction as mentioned above, by depending on Clause 77 of the Regulations of the Supreme Court’s Grand Meeting, governing the procedures of trying Administration case of B.E. 2543, together with the Article 262, 1st Phrase of the Civil Code. The aforesaid order of lifting the Injunction of the Administrative Court of Rayong Province, however is just the other step of trying the case and ordering, after the orders had been given from the Administrative Court of Rayong Province and The Supreme Court of Administration, and it is not the order of rejection or cancellation of the request which was filed by the 8 Litigants, which was stipulated to be the Supreme or Final Order, and to be forbidden to lodge the Appeal after receiving this order, as stated in Clause 76 of the same Regulations. Even though the effect of lifting the Injunction which was given by the Administrative Court of Rayong Province would be as same as the rejection or cancellation of the request which was filed by the Litigants, however, the aforesaid order from the Administrative Court of Rayong Province, had specific procedures of trying the case and giving out the order, which were separated from the former order, which was the order of placing the Injunction before receiving the final judicial decision. And it happened to be the new order which giving the negative effect to the benefit and rights of the other party, which used to be protected by the former order. Therefore, to interpret the law in order to enforce the order of lifting the Injunction, which was given by the Administrative Court of Rayong Province, to be the supreme or final order as same as the Order of Rejection or Cancellation of the Request which was filed by the 8 Litigants, / and to be forbidden from lodging another Appeal as stated in Clause 76 of the aforesaid Regulations, is not the right way to be done.
As written in Clause 100, 1st Phrase of the Regulations of the Supreme Court’s Grand Meeting, governing the procedures of trying the Administrative cases of B.E. 2543, stipulated that, the judicial decision or the order of the First Administrative Court, which was not stipulated to be final by the law or this Regulations, the Appeal can be lodged to the Supreme Court of Administration. Thereby, the order of lifting the Injunction which was given by the Administrative Court, was not stipulated to be the final order in accordance with the law or the aforesaid Regulations, therefore, the aforesaid order is considered to be the other type of order which is opened for the Appeal, to be accordance with Clause 100, 2nd Phrase, which stated that the interested person has the right to lodge the Appeal against the aforesaid order within 30 days, from the day of receiving the order from the First Administrative Court. In Clause 49 /1 of the same Regulations, the 8 Litigants have their rights to lodge the Appeal against the aforesaid Order to the Supreme Court of Administration within 30 days from the day of receiving the order of the Administrative Court of Rayong Province. The right to appeal against the order of lifting the Injunction, as revealed to the Supreme Court of Administration in this appeal as above, is in agreement with the point of law of the Civil Code, which giving the right to appeal against the order of amendment / or cancellation of the Injunction procedure which was placed before the final decision is given, in accordance with the Article 262 of the Civil Code, which was the order that related to the request of protection of the benefit of both parties during the trails, which is open for both parties to appeal within 1 month , and in the Article 228 ( 2 ) of the Civil Code which stipulates in the same way.
The 8 Litigants can not be in agreement with the Order of Rejection of the Appeal, by giving the decision that the order of lifting the Injunction would give the same effect to the Rejection or Cancellation of the request which was filed by the 8 Litigants, because that order is the final order, in accordance with Clause 76, 2nd Phrase of the Regulations of The Supreme Court’s Grand Meeting, governing the procedures of trying Administrative Cases of B.E. 2543. The Appeal of the 8 Litigants is prohibited by the law, as the reasons respectfully clarified to the Supreme Court of Administration as above.
3. The 8 Litigants would like to add on the clarification of the facts, points of law
which relate to the Public Benefits, of which, should be brought up to be considered, to the Supreme Court of Administration with respect. The aforesaid order from the Administrative Court of Rayong Province which was the order of Lifting the Injunction that had been placed in order to minimize the injurious consequences before the final decision is given, is considered to be the order that effects the rights, freedom and properties of the majority residences of Jomthien Complex Condotel and the
surrounding areas in the negative way. The Supreme Court of Administration was aware of the importance of placing the Injunction to minimize injurious consequences, as requested by the 10 litigants, therefore, the Supreme Court ordered the 2nd Plaint Receiver to hold the construction of the part of the building which is higher than 14 meters from the road surface. If the building is built up to 27 floors or 81 meters high, it will block the sunlight, the sea view and the wind from the ocean to the building of the 8 Litigants, also it will impact the environmental conditions, health conditions and quality of lives on other dimensions of the 8 Litigants and many people who live in this building. Whatever the result of this case will be, however, the damages will finally be too much to be remedied for the 8 Litigants and other people.
The 8 Litigants are also aware of the errors in many matters of facts and points of law of the interpretation of the Construction Control Acts, by the Administrative Court of Rayong Province, to enforce the law in the order given, by interpreting that, …. The area which prohibit the buildings with the height over 14 meters is fixing at the distance of 200 meters from the Construction Control Line, which is the distance of 100 meters out into the sea from the Mean Sea Level at the coast line…, was the interpretation that make the Construction Control Area of The Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) becomes 11 meters narrower than the Issue 8 (B.E. 2519). This result is in contrary to the intentions and purposes of the law which was issued to protect the environmental conditions along the sea sides. This point was revealed by the 8 Litigants in the Appeal of 15th February 2008.
With the reasons, facts and points of law that have been mentioned above, the fact shows that in Clause 100, 1st Phrase of the Regulations of the Supreme Court’s Grand Meeting, governing the procedures of trying the Administrative Cases of B.E. 2543, stipulated that, the judicial decision or the order of the First Administrative Court, which was not stipulated to be final by the law or by this Regulations, the Appeal can be lodged to the Supreme Court of Administration. Thereby, the order of lifting the Injunction which was given by the First Administrative Court, was not stipulated to be the final order in accordance with the law or the aforesaid Regulations, which ordered to lift the Injunction, therefore, the 9 Litigants have the right to lodge the Appeal against the order from the Administrative Court of Rayong Province, to the Supreme Court of Administration as stipulated in Clause 49 / 1 of the same Regulations. Also the order of lifting the Injunction is the type of order that creates the negative impacts to the rights, freedom, environmental conditions and properties of the 8 Litigants and a lot of people who live around the dispute building. The Appeal of the 8 Litigants is also consist of the suitable matters which needed to be considered to set The Standard form the Supreme Court of Administration. The 8 Litigants request with respect, for the Supreme Court of Administration to replace the order of rejection of the Administrative Court of Rayong Province by accepting the Appeal which was lodged by the 8 Litigants, therefore, the justice will be served.
Respectfully Yours,
Signature: ……………………. The Approved Persons of the 8 Litigants
Miss Jeerisumai Na. Nongkai, Miss Patjama Plagaid, Mr. Teerapan Pankiri, Mr. Surachai Trong-ngam
49 comments:
So, how many litigants ARE there???
8? 9? 10? To have so many variations mentioned in the same document seems extremely careless.
Also - given the 30 day limit for appeal after the judgement on the injunction, isn't this being submitted late?
Be careful VT7 will come back with another (joke) reason. 14 meter from the road...the road is on the mountain behind.
Green peace...where are you?
"So, how many litigants ARE there???
8? 9? 10? To have so many variations mentioned in the same document seems extremely careless.
Also - given the 30 day limit for appeal after the judgement on the injunction, isn't this being submitted late?" Yes, the number of litigants seem to be dropping like flies. The first appeal to the Rayong Court was filed in time but that Court denied the Appeal. If I understand all this legal stuff completely the Supreme Court did not deny the Appeal a second time but said they would review and rule on it. This is all about reinstating the temporary injunction since the Rayong Court has not given its final ruling on the original complaint.
This is now very complicated and drawn out,all because the Thai courts don't have the balls to apply their own laws.
All prospective farang property purchasers in Thailand beware,give it a miss,go somewhere democratic and lawful where you have half a chance!
pretty obvious the "fix" has been in place for a long time. still, this legal case makes it a requirement that the powers-that-be answer legitimate questions in writing - difficult at times & not the way they prefer to do things. Cockroaches like the dark. Hey StopVT7! keep shining that light on the case! Whatever the outcome it's worth the effort.
My comment on the number of litigants mentioned in the appeal document was not aimed at "the number of litigants dropping like flies". (I understand there have been some complications having nothing to do with the actual case.)
what I was pointing out was what seems like sloppy legal work in preparing the document.
Leave aside suspicions of corruption, etc. for now. Does anyone have any idea why the Rayong court is taking so long to reach their decision? and the Bgk. Supreme Ct. in reaching theirs? Do all cases take this long? What do the lawyers say about this - is it typical?
Given the circs, are there any time constriction imposed on the courts for returning a judgement? Any way to compel them to act in a timely fashion? Would seem that - with VT7 coming up rapidly the courts would recognize great harm to BOTH parties in delaying judgement.
Yeah. What's the deal? Particularly concerning the injunction. If judgement goes against VT7 they lose big time bucks at the rate they're building & JCC still has major headaches for a long time to come.
Was browsing the net today & found interesting conversation/information. Google "vt7 vs jomthien complex april 2008" and click on "omthien ondo wners sue for sea view - thailand's forum".
Also - VT's official site states Mar.2008 "court has passed it through" and they're all okay for finishing. Given that Rayong Administrative Court has not yet ruled on the construction (only on the injunction), isn't this an outright lie IN WRITING, clearly for the purposes of defrauding the public? Aren't there legal penalties for this?
that's "jomthien condo owners sue for sea view - thailand's forum"
I believe the official VT website is:
http://viewtalaycondo.com
I didn't see anything there that was not factual.
Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the Home Theater, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://home-theater-brasil.blogspot.com. A hug.
If the story on Thai Forum is true, there's a damned good case for getting Asia Law Works disbarred. Can understand if the plaintiffs don't want to pursue - they've got their hands full & pockets empty (did they pay in full?). But let's get the Grapevine going on Marcus Klemm & Amnat so they don't get the chance to do this to others.
Remember one thing. This is a site created to publish propaganda from Jomtien Complex . Do not believe everything you read, because it is not true.
As a funny thing side note I recommend you to read this article to see how much change there has been in JCC tactics, instructed by their lawyers:
http://www.pattayadailynews.com/shownews.php?IDNEWS=0000001954
Maybe,to some degree,..but not in the same class as the propoganda expressed by the city hall/view talay "expert witness".
Of the two sides ,I know who I believe,and I know who I wouldn't trust!
Why not join together and demolish all the buildings within 100m. It is only about 50 of them. We can gather together and just destroy all of them. Pattaya will be like Berlin 1945 but we would have achieved the goal. We have to show these Thais what Farang can do. Let’s show them.
Yes, shine the light on these buildings so all the cockroaches can escape. Let’s pulled them all down. And by the way we want total alcohol banned in all the bars so these stupid farangs cannot get drunk and stay at home.
"Why not join together and demolish all the buildings within 100m. It is only about 50 of them. We can gather together and just destroy all of them. Pattaya will be like Berlin 1945 but we would have achieved the goal. We have to show these Thais what Farang can do. Let’s show them."...I think you meant within 200 meters but I totally agree. In fact, I will donate 50 satang to start the "owner compensation" fund.
Recent "stupid farang" references make me wonder:
Do you want Jomthien to become a concrete ghetto?
Do you think rule of law is a "stupid farang" concept? Not a Thai concept?
I don't understand this kind of thinking. Rather suspect you're not thinking at all.
Let's get back on track. What's up w/ the case? Any inkling when we can expect to hear from Supreme court about the injunction? From Rayong about the judgement?
have looked all over net & can't find progress reference on vt7 construction. Can someone inform on this site how many floors they've built since 14 meter injunction was lifted? or a picture?
I understand from a friend that they are nearly 12 stories up.
so building goes on unabated without any news on the appeal.
Surely someone can enlighten us as to what is happening.
VT is merryily selling these condos so it appears all is lost.
await any update.
thanks.
Not only are they still selling condos, but a friend of mine in the real estate game says the front units are are reselling (by real estate flippers) for close to double the original price
"viewtalay7.blogspot.com" reports that as of Apr.25 VT7 has completed 9 flrs. & is working on 10th.
Today ~9.5 floors and very noisy. My view is gone.
How is the appeal?
Whoever invested in vt7 have a big chance to lost their money. Soon or later the law has to be enforced as it should be.
While JCC has just a small chance to lose their view.
"From your mouth to God's ears"
does anyone have legal/lawyer's comment on the length of time this has been sitting with Rayong & Bangkok administrative courts? Is this the norm?
"Whoever invested in vt7 have a big chance to lost their money. Soon or later the law has to be enforced as it should be.
While JCC has just a small chance to lose their view.".....please let's us know what drugs you are taking, we want some!
While JCC has just a small chance to lose their view
Perhaps an updated photo is in order?
10 floors up and rising
The Bangkok Supreme Administrative Court obviously have a problem with the ruling of the Rayong Administrative Court in lifting the injunction.That's why they have allowed the appeal.
In law, if no legal case for appeal then no appeal allowed.
If there is a legal case for appeal,then appeal allowed.
Taking into account the flimsiness of the expert witness testimony,the shallowness of the plaintiffs lawyers,and what the words of the regulations actually say,anybody above 14m don't hold your breath.
You are reading too much into the fact the Supreme Court will listen to the appeal. Only in small percentage of cases does a higher court overturn a lower court's decision. I thought they would get a hearing just because of the unethical behavior of their original law firm and that the Court probably wants to give these foreigners the appearance of fairness. The fact remains the evidence (annexed map) supports the expert witness testimony. The pendulum or burden of proof now swings back to the litigants. They must have new evidence and cannot rehash old arguments if they expect to win.
Well stated by previous 2 posts, but am still wondering why it's taking so long to get response from the courts. Bangkok has still to inform us of their ruling on the injunction.
Rayong still hasn't ruled on the original case against vt7 & it's already been a YEAR!
For or against - wish they'd just come out with it so we could all move on.
Does ANYBODY know whether it's typical for the courts to take so much time over a case?? Even if they are having difficulty making up their minds, shouldn't there be some sign of life? Even if there is lots of backdoor dealing, aren't the courts themselves bound by any law to show some response in a reasonable amount of time?
As far as I have ever known the higher court is there to correct the mistakes of a lower court when they happen.How many times it happens is irrellevant,as long as where there has been a mistake they do correct it.
The appeal court must think there is a case to be heard otherwise they would have rejected the appeal.
After all the Bangkok Supreme Administrative Court have already ruled in favour of the plaintiffs at earlier hearings.
My take on the annexed map and the expert witness is not as you indicate that the annexed map evidence supports the expert witness testimony,but more like the expert witness concocted a story to fit around some undefined small detail present on the map.
It further appears the plaintiff lawyers "agreed with this"???
The words in the regulation are what counts.
The court clearly does not need any "new" evidence to allow appeal,it has got a big problem with the "old evidence" it has already seen.
Now that the plaintiffs know the city hall and vt argument,I dont see any problem in a decent lawyer knocking them over.(if you'll excuse the pun)
As far as we know neither Bgk nor Rayong has set a time for a hearing of the arguments. So much for "appearance of fairness".
yeah - but WHEN? Has there been any communication or action whatsoever from either the Rayong or Bgk courts since Rayong lifted the injunction and Bgk accepted the appeal? Plaintiffs? stopvt7 blogspotters - have you had any intimation from the courts that they're paying attention? Legal brains - any experience w/ courts to indicate whether this silence and lack of response is normal?
Tactic !!!
I must say that the amount and quality of the information posted by the stopvt7 group has been tremendous in helping one understand the issues involved here.An extremely well presented and Professional effort.
And to maintain that focused Professionalism in the face of some quite distasteful ,mixed up knocking at times.
All one can ask is that the Bangkok Supreme Court goes about its business as Professionally.
Measure out into the sea!!! LOL
Where is the Professionalism?
You do not measure in to the sea. But the Construction control line is 100m out at sea, and when measuring towards land it is 100m on the shore. Total 200m. VT 7 is legal
Loud laughter in Court.
Old Chinese proverb for you..
The expert witness can fool some of the people all of the time.
The expert witness can fool all of the people some of the time.
But the expert witness cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
Get over it guys,go deal with it.
"Loud laughter in Court."...Oh yes, but Judge wasn't laughing and the litigants left the Court crying, whining and pointing fingers at their attorneys.
"You do not measure in to the sea. But the Construction control line is 100m out at sea, and when measuring towards land it is 100m on the shore. Total 200m. VT 7 is legal".....Oh My God, somebody who can understand how to read a map!
You must have it upside down.
Go read the words in issue 9.
Show me one previous building permit issued on the basis of what the expert witness said was the law.
No earlier building has ever been positioned on Dongtan Beach on the basis of the expert witness reasoning.
He made it up and you know it.
The Rayong judge had no choice after the antics of the plaintiffs lawyer.
But the Bangkok Supreme Court smells a rat,and thats why the appeal has been allowed.
You must remember they have seen the issue 9 words and map earlier,before the expert witness had his dream,and said vt7 infringed the law.
Dream on.
"You must have it upside down.
Go read the words in issue 9."....No. Go read the map. The map illustrates clearly how the words should be applied.
"Show me one previous building permit issued on the basis of what the expert witness said was the law. No earlier building has ever been positioned on Dongtan Beach on the basis of the expert witness reasoning."...Wrong. VT3, JomTien Plaza,VT5, etc., etc.
"He made it up and you know it."
He didn't make anything up, unless you are suggesting he falsied the map.
Look at Royal Cliff, Adriatic VT 3, VT 5, The beach, North point and so forth, they are all closer to the beach than 200m. Wonder why?
Approximately a third of the high rises on the beach are closer than 200m. Because it is legal.
I have only read the petition to appeal. I have not read anything regarding a hearing. Thereby the appeal has not been accepted, but the Supreme court of Administration are considering if there should be one.
So don't bring up false information and say that the appeal has been allowed, because it has not, they are still in the process of considering if there should be an appeal.
Look at Royal Cliff, Adriatic VT 3, VT 5, The beach, North point and so forth, they are all closer to the beach than 200m. Wonder why?
Approximately a third of the high rises on the beach are closer than 200m. Because it is legal.
Well if this was the understood ,accepted,law,why did city hall and vt7 lawyer not explain this to the earlier Bangkok Supreme Court hearing which the plaintiffs won?
The reason they didn't is because the expert witness hadn't made it up at that point.
The court reached its decision on the information in front of it,ie map and issue 9!!!
The law is simple,strait forward and undrstandable by a average. Until,cheaters try to twist it.
WHOA THERE! Has the appeal to Bgk. Supreme Court been accepted? or not?
Post a Comment