We received the end of December a Rayon court order given us until 2 January 2009 to offer new evidence or our case will be close and a final order would be issued. We offered new evidence which contradicted the expert witness and court revokes the dateline given. Our case goes on! See translation of Rayong Court Order below.
Writ of Court Order ( Dtor. 10.5 )
GARUDA EMBLEM
Black Case No. 54/2007
Red Case No: ../ 25
In the King Sign Manual
The Administrative Court of Rayong Province
8 January 2009
Mr. Tenbult Alewis Maria Plaintiff # 1 and 10 Associates Plaintffs
Between
Pattaya City Hall Official #1 and 2 Associates Defendants
Meaning: Miss Jirisumai Na. Nhongkai, The appointed person of 1st – 5th
and 8th – 10th Plaintiffs
As requested by 1st – 5th and 8th – 10th Plaintiffs to file and Additional and
Revisal Plaint and also adding more Explanation issued on 30 December 2008, the court hereby gives and order to accept the adding and revising in the plaint and because of more matters of fact to be found in the points shown in the Additional and Revisal Plaint however, the court hereby revokes the dateline given for Facts Finding as originally was 2 January 2009 and when the court already revoked the dateline of Facts Finding date, therefore the Plaint of Extensional Request issued on 30 December 2008 of 1st – 5th and 8th – 10th Plaintiffs is not in needed to be considered whatsoever.
Therefore, this is for your information.
Judge of Administrative Court: - Signed -
( Mr. Prasitsak Meelahp )
Rayong Administrative Court
(in the area of Rayong Official Center)
No. 777 Sukhumvit Road Tambol Nuenphra
Ampur Muang Rayong Province 21150
Anonymous asked “what is the new evidence Mr. Stopvt7?” Well, Issue 9 had been promulgated by expanding the Area cover in Issue 8. The expert witness reduced the area cover by the regulation. So this expert witness was wrong in his testimony. See quotes from court filing below:
“8 Plaintiffs would like to add more explanation
Issue 8 the first law promulgating to limit Construction Control Lines over the regions
Ministerial Regulations Issue 9(BE. 2521) had been promulgated for the reason of “According to the adjustment of the Construction Control Line over the regions of Banglamung, ……….. by expanding it as shown in the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree promulgated to enforce the Construction Control Acts BE. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province BE. 2521. It’s appropriate to revise the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (BE. 2519) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts BE. 2479 governing the prohibition for construction certain types of buildings in the Construction Control Line as stipulated in the aforementioned Royal Decree, therefore to be more appropriate and suitable, this Ministerial Regulations is needed to be promulgated”.
The reason for promulgating this Royal Decree, which promulgated to enforce the Construction Control Act BE. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung, …………. is “According to the rapid growth of construction in the regions of Banglamung,………………. and it appears that some constructions did not follow the stipulation of the law governing Construction Control, because the matter that the Construction Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree promulgated to enforce the Construction Control Acts BE. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung……………………….does not cover the aforementioned construction areas, therefore it is appropriate to revise the aforementioned Royal Decree by expanding the area, especially the areas along the sea sides, to allow local officials to enforce the law in those areas, therefore, this Ministerial Regulations needed to be promulgated”.
Therefore, the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 stipulates the intention or purpose of fixing 100 meters measuring from the Construction Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map, along the Sea side inward onto the land, preventing from construction of the types as list in Clause 3. (1) – (8) as shown in the Attached Remark of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (BE. 2519) which stated that…… because…... the aforementioned areas are tourist attractions, some types of construction which may cause interference or disturbance and waste products and ruin the environment should be prohibited to be constructed.
After that, the Construction Control Line of the regions of Banglamung, …………………..had been revised by expanding for greater area, as shown in the Royal Decree promulgated to enforce the Construction Control Acts BE. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province BE. 2521. It’s appropriate to revise the …………………………………………………
Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (BE. 2519) to be more appropriate and suitable by promulgating the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521), as shown in the Attached Note of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 as above, so the provisions in these 2 Ministerial Regulations are considered to be in agreement with and related to each other or have the connected procedures to each other, that is the reason of mentioning or claiming such Regulations………..
The intention or purpose of for promulgating the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9(BE. 2521) is to expand the power of control to all constructions in the regions of Banglamung, Naklua and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province. which are tourist attractions of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9, by fixing the distance of 200 meters, measuring from the Construct Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree BE. 2521, along the sea sides, to be the prohibited area for construction types by the list in Clause 3. (1) – (8). To interpret the statement to be accordance with the intention and purpose of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8(BE. 2519), therefore the expansion of Construction Control Line as listed in Clause 3. (1) – (8) from the former distance of 100 meters to 200 meters must be expanding the distance of the sea side inward onto the land to prevent from prohibited constructions as listed in the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 and 9 which stipulated for more appropriate and in accord.
By Clause 3.(1)-(8) of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9(BE. 2521), prohibits
the 8 types of construction as same as the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8(BE. 2519) by having the reason for promulgating the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) is “ According to the Construction Control Line in the regions of Banglamung, Naklua and Nongprue Sub-districts which had been revised by expanding out of the former distance to be wider than before…..”
The word “ wide ” listed in the Royal Thai Encyclopedia Dictionary BE. 2542 expressed the meaning of the word “ wide” which means spread out more, big such as having a big space
The word “ out ” means moving outward, making it happened such as the car is moving out .., issued the law out….
The word “ of ” means moving out of the place, opposite of “ in”.
The 8 Plaintiffs would like to express to the court that the words “ wide” and “out” and “of” which were listed in the Attached Note of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) are the words for setting the true meanings of such words or phrases by giving a meaning to be an expansion of the distance to make the space wider in order to expand the Construction Control Line to be wider, which when it is used to interpret the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9(BE 2521) will get the meaning of expanding the Construction Control Area as stated in Clause 3. (1) – (8) from before was 100 meters to 200 meters, therefore the expansion must be done at the Sea sides inward onto the land. Details shown in the Attached document NO: 2: a copy of the meaning sheet from the Royal Thai Encyclopedia Dictionary BE. 2542.
And considering the types of building which are under control as stated in Clause 3 (1) – (8) of the aforementioned Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 and 9 will see that those buildings, by conditions and operation purposes, are all needed to be constructed on land. They definitely can not be constructed in the sea. So it can not be interpreted the phrase “expanding out of the former distance to be wider than before” as shown in the Attached Note of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) that it is to expand the Construction Control Line outward into the sea because it will make the expansion of the Construction Control Line can not be enforced in reality by the intention and purpose of the aforementioned Ministerial Regulations. Therefore the interpretation must be done in the way that, by Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) which stipulated to fix the area within 200 meters, is the way to expand the Construction Control Line as shown in Clause 3. (1) – (8) from the sea sides inward onto the land to be wider for 100m meters, to be 200 meters. As for the 100 meters which expands the Construction Control Line outward into the sea as shown in the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree BE. 2521 however has not been stipulated in any Ministerial Regulations in order to take control all constructions outward in the sea especially whatsoever, as for the future, the Minister of Ministry of the Interior will use authorization to issue a Ministerial Regulations to fix the Construction Control Area for certain type of construction in the area within 100 meters outward into the sea.
2.2 Apart from that, the interpretation of the Construction Control Line stated in the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) which was used by the court for fact hearing, as shown in the report of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning, including witness’s testimony, stated that the disputed building is located over 100 meters from the MSL which was the reason for the court to give the order of lifting the Injunction, means the order that given to 2nd Plaint Receiver to temporally seize the construction on the part of building which is over 14 meters high from road surfaces until the judgment or another order is made. The Construction Control Line as stipulated by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) which is measured inward onto the land is 11 meters narrower than the Construction Control Line as stipulated by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (BE. 2519). It gives the result to allow the building taller than road surfaces more than 14 meters to be able to be constructed closer to the sea. It is opposite to the intention of the law, as shown in the following details;
The 8 Plaintiffs would like to express to the court that the Starting point for measurement as stipulated by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 “ Stipulated to fix the area within 100 meters by measuring from the Construction Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map……………..along the sea sides to be the prohibited land for the following types of constructions…… (8) Building taller than 14 meters from road surfaces”
And by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) promulgated to be in accordance with Clause 3 of the Construction Control Acts BE. 2479 which stipulated that “ Stipulated to fix the area within 200 meters by measuring from the Construction Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree promulgated to enforce the Control Acts BE. 2479, over the regions of Banglamung, …………….along the sea sides to be the prohibited land for the following types of constructions…… (8) Building taller than 14 meters from road surfaces”
The starting point for measurement as stipulated in both aforementioned Ministerial Regulations are not the same point. Mr. Supol Pongtaipat, Engineer, on duty on behalf of the Rector of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning had submitted a letter of explanation to the Rayong Administrative Court stated that “ 2. The distance of 100 meters as stated in Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (BE. 2519 ) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts BE. 2479, and the distance of 200 maters as stated in Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521 ) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts BE. 2479 are not the same line because the Coast Line as listed by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8(BE. 2519) is not fixed to be measured at the MSL but by the Issue 9(BE. 2521) is listed to be measure at the MSL only” Details as shown in the Attach document No: 3 – the letter from the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning, Most Urgent No: MOr. Tor. 0710 / 4245, Date: 19 June 2550, Subject: Order for an explanation which was submitted to court by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning. Therefore, from the explanation of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning as above, it shows that what is listed in the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8(BE. 2519) is the measurement from the Coast line which means the High Tide, but in Issue 9(BE. 2521) is listed to measure from the MSL. It means the stating point for measurement listed in both Ministerial Regulations are not the same line……………………………..……………………………………….
And on the Enquiry, dated: 15 January 2008, Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul, 7th Class Lawyer of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning, testified, that … “if the measurement is made from the Construction Control Line as referred to The Royal Decree B.E. 2521, it will be the distance of the building as same as measuring for 100 meters from the MSL inward onto the land to reach the shore………………………………………
From the facts explained to the Administrative Court of Rayong Province as above, if the interpretation of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) is made as written in the report of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning and the Testimony of the witness however, the measurement from the Coast Line at the MSL ( +0.00 ) on the NORTH and SOUTH point of the dispute land until reaching the Bench Mark of the land of 2nd Plaint Receiver would be 50.15 and 49.60 meters respectively. If the comparison is made to the Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) which stated to measure from the Coast line to the Bench mark on the land of 2nd Plaint Receiver, it would be 39 meters. It shows the difference of distance approximately 11 meters from the Coast line at the MSL and the Coast line (High Tide ).
The interpretation of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9(BE. 2521) as above shows that the Construction Control Line as stated in Clause 3.(8) which prohibits the building taller than 14 meters from road surfaces to be constructed, is 11 meters narrower than the Construction Control Line as stated in Clause 3.(8) of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (BE. 2519) which giving the result to allow all buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces to be constructed closer to the for 11 meters which is not in agreement with the intention and purpose of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) which stipulated to expand to be wider as above and intends to expand the Construction Control Line along the sea side to be wider. If the interpretation is made to expand the Construction Control Line as stated in the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) is the expansion of the distance of 200 meters along the Sea side inward onto the land, then it will be in accordance with the intention and purpose of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (BE. 2521) as kindly expressed to the Court as above…………………………………………………
Therefore, as shown in the stage of Enquiry, on 15 January 2551, Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul, testified to the Administrative Court of Rayong Province that “ the Disputed building is 103 and 102 meters away from the land from the MSL, inward onto the land”, if this phrase is interpreted that the starting point of the Construction Control Line is the distance of 200 meters from MSL inward onto the land, then it will give the result that the Disputed building is located within 200 meters, which is the Construction Control Area, stipulated in Clause 3.(8) of the Regulations of Issue 9 (B.E. 2521), which prohibits buildings taller than 14 meters to be constructed, as the aforesaid reasons explained to the Supreme Court of Administration as above.
2.3 The 8 Plaintiffs would like to add on explanation to the court that, by Article 79 of the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2522, stipulated that “All Ministerial Regulations / Local provisions / Provincial provisions / Rules and Regulations / Notices / or Other Orders, which promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2579, or the Construction Control Acts controlling construction in the Area which was burnt B.E. 2476, can be enforced as long as they are not contrary to this Royal Decree”. The 9 Plaintiffs see that, not only all Ministerial Regulations / Local provisions / Provincial provisions / Rules and Regulations / Notices / or Other Orders, which promulgated to be in accordance with both aforementioned Construction Control Acts will be able to enforce as long as they are not contrary to provision of the Construction Control Acts Be. 2522, but however the interpretation to enforce the Ministerial Regulations, Local Provisions or aforementioned Order is needed to be interpreted to be in accordance with the intention and purpose of enforcing the Construction Control Acts BE. 2522 and involved laws also, so that the procedure will be correct by the purpose of the Construction Control Acts BE. 2522. In Article 5 of this Act, it grants priority authorization to the Minister of the Ministry of the Interior in issuing Ministerial Regulations for different purposes as stipulated in Article 8 “ for the benefit of security, safety, Fire Protection / Public Health / Environmental Quality Preserve / City Planning / Architectural and Traffic Servicing including other fields which are involved with the procedures to be in accordance with this Act, stipulated for the Minister with Advise from the Construction Control Committee, to be in power in issuing the Regulations to stipulate; ...............................................................
It shows that the intention of The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2522 and the involved Regulations which have been using to control all areas by the Coast line in the kingdom is to preserve the environment and the ecological system of Coast line by measuring from the Coast line at the High Tide caused by nature inward onto the land for 200 meters, to be the prohibited area for the types of constructions which may cause the impact, including the buildings taller than 12 meters as mentioned. So the interpretation which said that the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) stipulates to fix 200 meters from “the Construction Control Line”, which is the distance of a 100 meters away outward into the sea from the Coast line at the MSL, to be the prohibited area for the building taller than 14 meters is also contrary to the purpose of the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2522.
Depending on the grounds expressed to court by the 8 Plaintiffs as above, may the court kindly give an order to accept the Additional and Revisal Plaint with more Explanation submitted be the 8 Plaintiffs,”
159 comments:
Strong, very strong!
Now is the opportunity to make sure the rayong court have the stopvt argument properly presented.
And also to get the expert witness rightfully challenged.
JCC owners have not considered the impact on their condos if StopVT7 wins the case. Having a half finished skeleton of a building left to permanently decay in front - especially in the current economic climate - will have more of an impact on JCC condo values than a completed VT7 building. Continuing to waste money on this costly case will be a lose-lose all round.
Wow, The rayong court must have spotted something here to let things continue.
There will be no shortage of contractors ready and able to take down vt7.
There will be no shortage of contractors ready and able to take down vt7.
In the unlikely case that the court rules in stopvt7's favor do you dreamers actually think that the building will be removed?
As poster #3 puts it you will have a decaying hulk planted directly in front of your lobby.
Very nice feature
An Import Win at the Rayong Court
More spin spin spin, you've won nothing but another hearing in court with the deadlines coming quicker and quicker. You just keep pounding out the same old case with nothing changed. You haven't won anything to date and I don't believe you'll win anything on the last hurrah.
At last stopvt7 have got the message.
"Discredit the expert witness".
Go for him, his view does not stack up.
Maybe ,in view of recent sad events, the expert witness is also re-evaluating his prospects.
Companies interested in flattening vt7 form a queue outside JCC lobby.
Could be that a good few influential members of the judiciary and elite have suddenly realised that their sea views are also at risk if vt7 is declared legal!!!
Do they tor down buildings in Thailand? ........ Oooooooohhhhh, Yes they do !!!! and more than the most of us think. T.I.T
And just what is the new evidence Mr. Stopvt7?
Anonymous asked “what is the new evidence Mr. Stopvt7?” Well, Issue 9 had been promulgated by expanding the Area or zone cover in Issue 8. The expert witness testimony reduces the area cover by the Issue 9 regulation. So this expert witness was wrong in his testimony.
The facts and our testimony shows by expanding of the Construction Control Line as stated in the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 is the expansion of the distance of 200 meters along the Sea side inward onto the land, then it will be in accordance with the intention and purpose of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9
Looks to me you have bought a little more time, but your latest court filing can hardly be called "new evidence".
Just a rehash of the same old same old, "Issue 8, Issue 9" ad infinitum
Nothing new to see here folks, please move on
Evidence has a chain it must follow and the courts use the evidence in making their decision. Asia Law Works sold the Stopvt7 group out by entering false evidence into the Rayong court which need to be corrected. Now, the Stopvt7 group enters new evidence into the Rayong Court which proves the court expert was no expert. Great move!
CAN WE HAVE A MORE RECENT PHOTOGRAPH OF VT7/JCC, PLEASE?
"Having a half finished skeleton of a building left to permanently decay in front - especially in the current economic climate - will have more of an impact on JCC condo values than a completed VT7 building. Continuing to waste money on this costly case will be a lose-lose all round."
(15 January, 2009)
Too Right. The impact of the Hulk is already having ruinous effect on JCC sales & rentals. Once it becomes just another building, values will rise. Enough already!
Now that the stopvt7 case has been properly presented it is clear that the judges recognise its content.
The clear and unambiguous flow of the case being made is now very compelling.
The issue 9 sets out to expand the restricted zone, wheras the expert witness testimony contracts the restricted zone.
Give him lots of detailed questions on this.
If anyone wants to keep vt7, then go build it yourselves 100m+ out to sea, where the expert witness says you can .
Some who watch your action in Bangkok say the Supreme Court wants a 27 stories building before they revoke the building permit. Tearing down a very large build will sent a message to the nation the king’s court is really taking on government corruption.
Whatever, everyone will know if the court is honest?
Ye, just dream on. Needs some justification for the money stolen from JCC?
I can say only one thing , I have a lot of respect for people who fight for the right things. Being a guest in Thailand, and fight for your rights diserve more respect than anyone can think .
As we all know that if we would do the right things, we would not have such big cases . Most of the investers they know that the way VT get the building permit was not Cosher . But they seems not to care about that. The only thing that keep them fighting against the right thigs is the sign of MONEY that keeps the blind and far from the tru. If the Plaitifs win, than justice have been done . If the plaintifs lose, than they will be hystory against the corruption that is kept high in Thailand supported by Farrangs that don't care about ethical lifestyle.
Obama go for the Change , and I hope Thailand will do the same .
To the plaintifs , I can only say congratulations that you have keep ut the heads until today. If the Rayong court believe that going 100 meter in the sea and coming back is the equal of 200 Meter , I will never invest 1 satang in Thailand again. It is just the same as playing poker. I do not believe that Money is the most important thing in Life . If the Thai and Farangs do not respect the Thai Law than it is because Mother Justicia is in question.
Anyone who honestly believes Obama "The Messiah" is going to change the inevitable course of this economy is on drugs or a whackjob looking through Liberal rose-colored glasses...'nuff said about the previous poster! VT7 will be completed, this is no rationale given this worldwide economic meltdown for tearing it down. The court will find a way to allow it...just a matter of time.
I am not so shure about that. Do you know that 90% of the buyers into VT7 are foreigners? do you think the court cares about that ? I am not so shure. I can only hope that there will be an outcome good for everybody .
Win or loss, this case will be history recorded and used as a reference. All the names involved will be shown. Right, wrong, good, bad, cheating, corruption etc. will be engraved. Consequence is so big.
Many of the posters on this board are self-righteous hypocrits who think that THEY are right just because THEY say so. Dumbasses, you have little regard for the Rule Of Law in Thailand so why don't make the country a better place...and LEAVE. It's reminiscent of the overgrown babies (Democrats) in the USA who whine whenever they don't get their way in the voting poles and then try to recount or twist the law to their liking.
It must be very worrying to the vt7investors that the courts still refuse to close this case in their favour, despite several judgements in their favour to date.
I get the impression that the courts are realising more and more as each day passes just what they could be guilty of unleashing here.
It almost seems like they are waiting for stopvt7 to provide an argument against vt7 they would be comfortable to side with.
It seems to me the latest stopvt7 argument has struck a chord with the courts.
If vt7 got the go ahead in Pattaya then the tea money would come to have the same 100m law all over Thailand.
Can you imagine the bedlam that would cause for the courts...all for the sake of a few vt7 investors....dream on.get over it.
"Can you imagine the bedlam that would cause for the courts...all for the sake of a few vt7 investors....dream on.get over it."
I can imagine it, together with Thai courts. Have you seen Central Festival, just open in Pattaya. Guest what, it’s illegal if you accept the law trying to be bullied by StopVT7 through the Thai system. StopVT7 is hoping to take the commission from all the contractors, who are waiting to demolish half of Pattaya buildings.
Stop accusing the authority of accepting bribes without any prove. And if you can’t agree with the court ruling, better pack your things and leave this country. Nobody gonna cry for you and Thailand will be better country without bullies. But of course your small brain can’t comprehend the damage can be done to this country by your stupid statements. So dream on. The outcome is already known long time ago.
It seems to me that foreigners ( Farangs) think ( if they can think ) that Thai people don't want the court follow the law . You are wromg . The Thai respect the law at the courts . Maybe as long the case is not in the court they can play a game , but once in the courts the case is very serious and they will have to follow the law. The lawyers can try to turn the case with as mach as posible arguments but at the end it will be the law. MANY CASES IN Thailand don't go to the courts because of this reason. But this case is in the court and it is not easy . Remember when the Lawyer from VT fell down in his chaer last time . Maybe next time he will stop to breathe.
"I can imagine it, together with Thai courts. Have you seen Central Festival, just open in Pattaya. Guest what, it’s illegal if you accept the law trying to be bullied by StopVT7 through the Thai system. StopVT7 is hoping to take the commission from all the contractors, who are waiting to demolish half of Pattaya buildings.
Stop accusing the authority of accepting bribes without any prove. And if you can’t agree with the court ruling, better pack your things and leave this country. Nobody gonna cry for you and Thailand will be better country without bullies. But of course your small brain can’t comprehend the damage can be done to this country by your stupid statements. So dream on. The outcome is already known long time ago"
Your brain is small and twisted by investment.You know the law, and you saw what happened in the court room.Even your small brain can see that.
Does your small brain see all the new condos that would be built in front of existing condos all around the thai coast.
Where is your concern for those people?
Everybody will fight for their rights, the court now realise this, and nobody going to cry for vt7 investor and vt who try to change the law.
Dream on buddy.
VT 7 has now reached 27th floor. The roof parapet is already built on the main section of the buoilding and work continues as normal despite the latest court developments. I have taken a photograph but can't post on this site.
And why wouldn't VT continue building up to the 27th floor? If they stop, then the investors no longer have to continue with the payments. They have to carry on building and hope for the best (from their point of view). If they stop, they are quite literally f--ked. If they continue, the tea money might bear dividends...It's a difficult position to be in and one could almost sympathise. But, hey, they chose their path and also chose to carry on spending VT7 investors/speculators money. Nice location tho, but ever so probably illegal beyond the 4th floor.
"Have you seen Central Festival, just open in Pattaya. Guest what, it’s illegal if you accept the law trying to be bullied by StopVT7"
Central and VT6 are almost on level with each other about 50 meters back from the road edge of beach road. I took a long hard look at VT6 when it first started construction and yes my first thoughts were that it looked illegal according to the 200 meter rule
However passing by one day I happened to be there at low tide and with this location being in about the center of Pattaya bay the low tide line is way way out. So I guess MSL is further out from the beach than the Jomtien location of VT7
So why did Central and VT6 decide to build at the "legal" 200 meter mark?
Surely if VT6 wanted to optimise the land and used their interpretation of the law - 100 meters from MSL then they could have built much closer to the road and had room for a second tower behind
They chose not to - I wonder why?
Seems strange that in this location they seem to have kept to the 200 meter rule. I guess in this location it would have stuck out like a sore thumb if they had built at 100 meters wheras at Jomtien the front of the building is about level with the footpath of Jomtien beach road but set back behind the shops and police box so doesn't stick out so much.
Yesterday some official of cityhall told me that the law in Thailand is the same as in every country. I ask if the court order to demolisch, do they have to follow the decision of the court . The official said yes . He told me that they have made a letter for the Juristic Person of jomtien plaza to demolisch the building in the fron within 45 day's . I ask and if they do not do it what happen ? The official told me that Cityhall will do it them selves and send the bill . I said that I don't believe until I can see with my own eye's. The official show me the document that cityhall will post on the building.I could not believe that they do this in Thailand . He said that the most foreigners have the wrong perception of the Thai law.
Be causes of the BS!
Any building over 5 years can not be demolished.. Jomtien Plaza need not to wary but View Talay 5, 6 and 8 need to wary!
No building can be demolished without first someone taking a court action
What's wrong with view talay 5, 6, and where is 8.
No building can be demolished without first someone taking a court action
You are wrong ,the buildings in the front of Panchalea jomtien beachrd have been demolisched, Theprasit rd demolisched, sukhumvith rd demolisched , If you want I can give you a whole list of buildings that did not have the requiered building permits that have been demolisched even when they where there for more than 10 years . Everything is depending if you have documents or not . Thailand is a very bureaucratic country and no official will put himself in trouble for the problems of an other. The Best example the temple in Naklau the government have stopped the monks to build a temple into the sea , the skelet is still there take a look at it.
Lucky VT7 has got all the necessary permits.
There is no evidence here of an important 'big win'. All courts and lawyers need revenue to maintain operations and this is what has happened here.
VT7 has all the required permits and no investor is going to let it fail.
JCC owners should have bought the land years ago. Why didn't they?
The question should be , how did they get the building permit.
"The question should be , how did they get the building permit."
They applied for the permit in Pattaya City Hall. It’s not a big deal. Hundreds of them are issued every year.
The court have now realised the national importance of the verdict in this local dispute complying with the law, and not the tea money.
The court are not going to create a precedent where another tier of skyscrapers are allowed to be built between the sea and existing lawful buildings all around thai coastline.
Boy oh boy,, I was walking with my boyfriend on the old KFC building, and My boyfriend read the Thai document. He tell me that the building have to be removed within 45 Day,s. The document have the official garuda emblem and comes from cityhall.
What’s the walking on the old KFC building has to do with VT7?
"What’s the walking on the old KFC building has to do with VT7?"....Nothing obviously. There are a few posters here who are living in a dream world. VT7 has complied with all aspects of Thai law which has been confirmed by both the Rayong Court and most recently his Majesty's Supreme Court. This last ditch effort by the VT7 opponents will fall on deaf ears.
"Boy oh boy,, I was walking with my boyfriend on the old KFC building, and My boyfriend read the Thai document. He tell me that the building have to be removed within 45 Day,s. The document have the official garuda emblem and comes from cityhall."
Sounds very romantic. Has your boyfriend given you more info on Thai law? Is your boyfriend StopV7 by the way.
"VT7 has complied with all aspects of Thai law which has been confirmed by both the Rayong Court and most recently his Majesty's Supreme Court. This last ditch effort by the VT7 opponents will fall on deaf ears."
Dream on.
Last I heard no final decision had been made by any court.
Both courts have oscillated on this, but I think this latest stop vt7 evidence submission conveys an extremely powerful principle to the court, and clearly discredits the expert witness fairytale.
Garages in the sea...LOL.
"VT7 has complied with all aspects of Thai law which has been confirmed by both the Rayong Court and most recently his Majesty's Supreme Court. This last ditch effort by the VT7 opponents will fall on deaf ears."
You are right about that. My Boyfriend tells me that the document on the old KFC is there because they did not have the legal building permit. If the owner do not remove into 45 day's than cityhall will do it. My Boyfriend is not a lawyer but his friend is the official of City-Hall.
"Dream on.
Last I heard no final decision had been made by any court."
Who is doing the dreaming? It is what stopVT7 does not say that is important not what he hopes. The Rayong Court was prepared to close the case on January 2 but gave the opponents one last chance deadline. All the allegations of tea money, corruption, etc. were just that, unfounded allegations. The court will now dispense with this so called "new evidence" and stopVT7 knows it. I wonder how much more JCC money he can waste since it is not his own?
All the allegations of tea money, corruption, etc. were just that, unfounded allegations.
You will never find because T.I.T
in Thai,we have a tell of Sritanonchai who always twtsted the rule to his own advantage using idoit logic. This kind of people still plenty around. Specially,when having big money and power. This is why Thailand has come to this political situation. I have no wonder very few bravehearts to say no to tea M.
"However passing by one day I happened to be there at low tide and with this location being in about the center of Pattaya bay the low tide line is way way out. So I guess MSL is further out from the beach than the Jomtien location of VT7
So why did Central and VT6 decide to build at the "legal" 200 meter mark?
Surely if VT6 wanted to optimise the land and used their interpretation of the law - 100 meters from MSL then they could have built much closer to the road and had room for a second tower behind
They chose not to - I wonder why?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your guess and assumptions are incorrect. You can easily go to Google Earth and view the satellite maps and even do measurements using the ruler Tool. You will see that VT6 is about 150 meters from MSL and the new Central Mall close to 100 meters (just like VT7). We know that if VT6 could have put 2 buildings on that plot they would have done so!
Now ask yourself the question, "Do you really think a Court will change the law using what stopVT7 calls "promulgation" and "the intent", and potentially have to declare many buildings (including Central Mall) illegal and therefore demolished?"
Have you also considered the possibility that the old high-rise buildings were given legal building permits and followed Thai law AND that it is the opponents of VT7 who got it all wrong when they misinterpreted the regulation governing seashore development? It was a good try to protect their seaviews(?) but their effort will fail because they are legally WRONG.
The reason why VT6 did not build so close to the sea. VT keep the front forthem selves to have the land in the front of VT6 for business use . They will proberly rent that office to the Thai Military bank . You can ask in the landoffice and look at the title deed of the land . Who takes it all??? VT 6 have lost it,s prime piece and they did not know . VT 6 lose their view and they did not know . The fam of VT owns the plot on walkingstr side and VT 6 did not know . I tell you there are so many things that the most people in Pattaya don't know and if they know they sleep in silence and peace.
Your guess and assumptions are incorrect. You can easily go to Google Earth and view the satellite maps and even do measurements using the ruler Tool. You will see that VT6 is about 150 meters from MSL and the new Central Mall close to 100 meters (just like VT7). We know that if VT6 could have put 2 buildings on that plot they would have done so!
Now ask yourself the question, "Do you really think a Court will change the law using what stopVT7 calls "promulgation" and "the intent", and potentially have to declare many buildings (including Central Mall) illegal and therefore demolished?"
Have you also considered the possibility that the old high-rise buildings were given legal building permits and followed Thai law AND that it is the opponents of VT7 who got it all wrong when they misinterpreted the regulation governing seashore development? It was a good try to protect their seaviews(?) but their effort will fail because they are legally WRONG.
10 February, 2009
You obviously have your head stuck up your own backside. Either that or you are blind and completely stupid ! Just as a point here, can you show me or anyone where on Google earth it indicates the "MSL" at any given point. Maybe you are making great attempts to protect your own investment in "VT7", obviously what any normal person would do.
"Now ask yourself the question, "Do you really think a Court will change the law using what stopVT7 calls "promulgation" and "the intent", and potentially.."
The big problem you have is that this argument makes issue 8 and 9 basically the same at 100m from MSL.
So why introduce issue 9?
Also the written audit trail shows issue 9 was intended for use at 200m from MSL.
Thai court has now realised how many influential sea views (of good people and not so good people) are now at stake if the tea money wins.
"You obviously have your head stuck up your own backside. Either that or you are blind and completely stupid ! Just as a point here, can you show me or anyone where on Google earth it indicates the "MSL" at any given point. Maybe you are making great attempts to protect your own investment in "VT7", obviously what any normal person would do."
So just because you cannot see MSL on Google, you are trying to say that VT6 and Central Mall might be more than 200m from MSL. You bunch of StopVT7 supporters are the most stupid guys I ever met. Or you must be very well paid by StopVT7 through JCC co-owners. And please, don’t let him write any comments, 4 year old kid makes more sense than him. Just let him play with that funny guy. He likes him.
"So just because you cannot see MSL on Google, you are trying to say that VT6 and Central Mall might be more than 200m from MSL"
Just put something sensible up to refute the posters point of view...if you can...
My guess is you cannot!
So just because you cannot see MSL on Google, you are trying to say that VT6 and Central Mall might be more than 200m from MSL. You bunch of StopVT7 supporters are the most stupid guys I ever met. Or you must be very well paid by StopVT7 through JCC co-owners. And please, don’t let him write any comments, 4 year old kid makes more sense than him. Just let him play with that funny guy. He likes him.
11 February, 2009
________________________________
You quite clearly do not understand the the concept of "MSL", how it is calculated or it's significance. You also appear to ignore the reasons why issue 9 was put in place. As you indicated Google Earth as a reference, it is quite clear that VT7 is a lot closer to the seashore than VT6. The previous poster who mentioned that the low tide mark at Pattaya Beach in the area of VT6 is a lot further out, has a very significant point. As you said, from GE the measurement to the high water mark is approximately 150 metres for VT6. The same measurement for VT7 is approximately 60 metres shorter. Maybe you should revisit your interpretation of the regulations, have you even considered you might be wrong?? It is quite possible that the so called expert witness could be discredited for his interpretation of issue 9, as it does not follow the spirit of why the issue was conceived in the first place. Finally, I do not think we have ever met, so I do not think you are qualified to accuse me of being stupid. For the record, I have nothing whatsoever to do with "StopVT7" and receive no financial incentives for them. Have a nice day.
"You obviously have your head stuck up your own backside. Either that or you are blind and completely stupid ! Just as a point here, can you show me or anyone where on Google earth it indicates the "MSL" at any given point. Maybe you are making great attempts to protect your own investment in "VT7", obviously what any normal person would do."
............
Children. Children Children. Stop the name calling and address the poster's valid point. On this very blog you can see the MSL clearly measured and marked on a Google map by stopVT7 himself (page down 3 or 4 pages). The MSL near VT6 if anything is closer to land than at Jom Tien. As stopVT7 points out in his latest filing with the Court, the MSL and high-water mark are nearly the same (11 meters apart). Clearly the poster was right that VT6 and Central Mall fail the 200 meter from MSL test.
"The big problem you have is that this argument makes issue 8 and 9 basically the same at 100m from MSL.
So why introduce issue 9?
Also the written audit trail shows issue 9 was intended for use at 200m from MSL.
Thai court has now realised how many influential sea views (of good people and not so good people) are now at stake if the tea money wins."
Not really. If enforced, #9 prohibits building into the sea (such as in Nakglua and Walking Street) and widens the restricted construction No audit trail shows measuring 200 meters from MSL the way stopVT7 wants to re-write the law. Also, remember administrative courts were partly established to find corruption and graft. The Rayong Adminstrative Court was ready to close this case until a last-hour court filing by the VT7 opponents.
"Not really. If enforced, #9 prohibits building into the sea (such as in Nakglua and Walking Street) and widens the restricted construction No audit trail shows measuring 200 meters from MSL the way stopVT7 wants to re-write the law."
Dont get your point about Naklua and walking street.Where does it say in issue 9 that is so?
All other coastal areas are written up as 200m from MSL.
Pattaya was also written as 200m from MSL in issue 9, somebody then removed the 200m reference,because it was "understood". All recorded in meeting minutes.There is an audit trail of events if the judges care to look at it.
I dont get this.
Rayong court listened to the evidence before it and allowed vt7 to continue construction.
The supreme court did not want to get involved saying the expert witness had spoken.
So both courts had sided with city hall,vt7, and the expert witness , in allowing vt7 to continue construction.
Then, bombshell..., having already accepted the expert witness testimony as the law, and sanctioned by the sc, Rayong suddenly does not ratify its judgement but asks for further evidence from stop vt.
If Rayong and the sc were so convinced of the legitimacy of the expert witness testimony, as to allow vt7 to continue construction all this time,what the hell are they doing asking stopvt again now for any further evidence?
Be worried vt7 investors, something has spooked rayong here for sure.
Maybe the expert has seen the demise of his civil engineer colleague and re-evaluated his options.
"If Rayong and the sc were so convinced of the legitimacy of the expert witness testimony, as to allow vt7 to continue construction all this time,what the hell are they doing asking stopvt again now for any further evidence?
Be worried vt7 investors, something has spooked rayong here for sure."
No spooking. I think you have missed the point. Quoting stopVT7 from this blog "We received the end of December a Rayon court order given us until 2 January 2009 to offer new evidence or our case will be close and a final order would be issued." In other if you don't have anything else to say by Jan 2, we (the Court) will close this case and make it final. Legally and in fairness, the "new evidence" must be read before the Court finally puts the nail in the coffin.
"No spooking. I think you have missed the point. Quoting stopVT7 from this blog "We received the end of December a Rayon court order given us until 2 January 2009 to offer new evidence or our case will be close and a final order would be issued." In other if you don't have anything else to say by Jan 2, we (the Court) will close this case and make it final. Legally and in fairness, the "new evidence" must be read before the Court finally puts the nail in the coffin."
I think you have missed the point here.
Up to now the court have stood behind the expert witness.By asking for any further evidence from stopvt the court have cast doubt on the expert witness .
If the court were sure the expert witness had it right, why give someone yet another chance to counter.
This tells me the court have doubts about the expert witness and are looking to back off.
"By asking for any further evidence from stopvt the court have cast doubt on the expert witness ."
Do you really believe that?
"By asking for any further evidence from stopvt the court have cast doubt on the expert witness ."
Do you really believe that?
Let me ask you the question..
If you had made your mind up that the expert witness interpretation of issue 9 was correct, then all other interpretations have to be wrong.
So whats the point of asking ?
Unless of course you had doubts about the expert, as the court now clearly have.
"If you had made your mind up that the expert witness interpretation of issue 9 was correct, then all other interpretations have to be wrong.
So whats the point of asking ?
Unless of course you had doubts about the expert, as the court now clearly have."
Now we understand. When the Court told the stopVT7 lawyers that they were going to close the case on January 2 they were actually hoping stopVT7 lawyers would make one more legal filing thereby giving the Court the opportunity to change directions and reverse all it's earlier decisions (which by the way were also upheld by the Supreme Court). Very logical, now everything falls into place.
The news of the court will sound like thunder!
"The news of the court will sound like thunder!"
Not sure about the thunder but since latest Court filing was not a formal Appeal so I suspect that stopVT7's lawyer will simply get a letter from Court stating upon review of all the evidence this case is closed. The question is will stopVT7 waste everyone's time and money and file an Appeal with the SC?
When the court closes the case, does StopVT7 go for Centrall Festival Mall?
The impact of suing many international brands and Hotels would be much bigger than just one building.
Lucky StopVT7 has tapped to JCC funds and can fight all these important cases. There are many buildings, which are illegal and just waiting to be destroyed. About 50 or more. StopVT7 cannot stop until they are all pulled down. After all, the law is very clear about it and StopVT7 explained the law very clearly on his side, and if some parts are not clear and some words are missing, it’s only because they are too obvious to be included. and StopVT7 hasn’t got any doubt that he is right. If he could only convince these corrupted courts to see his way.
LOL
The only word you need be worried about is "expand".
LOL
"The news of the court will sound like thunder!"
Its all those pennies dropping, from all those influential thai elites ,with sea view condos 200m from MSL.
All those "elite thais" will have snared absolute beach front sites or built to the old 200 mtr rule alreaady.
correction.. I meant the old 100 metre .. rule although come to think of it, its the same same anyway isn't it ??
StopVT7. Will you post the verdict on this forum?
"StopVT7. Will you post the verdict on this forum?"
Don't expect a traditional "verdict". Recall both Rayong and SC have ruled on the Appeal already. Expect stopVT7lawyers to get a notification from the Court that the case is closed. We expect stopVT7 to post and share that on his blog like he has always done in the past and if he will continue his court fight.
If I was a JCC owner I would consider buying at VT7 (JomTien side only) or at JomTien Plaza and renting my unit at JCC.
Why are there so many really stupid bloggers on this site, leaving unintelligent comments against JCC? Are they buyers in VT 7, afraid of losing their money?
"Why are there so many really stupid bloggers on this site, leaving unintelligent comments against JCC? Are they buyers in VT 7, afraid of losing their money?"
Not hardly. Some here are in denial; those JCC seaviews are gone forever. The reality is those folks need to look for alternatives.
If the court decide that Stopvt7 is right, will they torn VT 7 down?
If stopvt 7 is right , City hall will have to torn it down!
I see the English as a Second Language crowd from JCC is alive and posting on this forum.
Coming up on 2 months since the end of December, and what news?
View Talay 7 is here to stay regardless of the court ruling. If they pull down View Talay 7 than another 50 buildings have to be pull down and that will never happen. The worst what can happen to VT7 investors is to pay the compensation, like one only payment of 500B from each investor to JCC complex for maintenance of the building. StopVT7 doesn’t believe that and keep wasting JCC co-owners money. But what can you expect from this guy, who cannot read and write and he can only count up to 4.
It ain't over yet!
Yes, you are right. It ain’t over yet. VT7 not quite finish yet. The building is finish high wise but they still have to do some work outside and inside the building. It will be ready in about 8 months.
People, who believe VT7 will be demolished, believe Elvis is still alive.
Never in the history of Thailand any building with the legal permits has been thorn down and VT7 won’t be the first one. But for some people Elvis is still alive….
YES, Elvis is still alive !
Never in the history of Thailand any building with the legal permits has been thorn down .
Your information is wrong!Building permits can be reviewed at Cityhall within 10 years . If there is a complaint ( As you have now with VT7)the supreme court will look at it .Yes they have torn down buildings with building permits . Theprasit Rd , Thapraya Rd , Jomtien Beach Rd, Sukhumvith Rd , and so on and so on . Only Foreigners think that they can do everything in Thailand because this is Thailand. They are wrong . Thailand is a country of LAWS!
The buildings you mentioned haven’t had got all the legal papers. VT7 has all the legal permits according to Thai law. Rest assure that in Thailand people can feel safe investing in project with all the legal permits. They are protected by strong Thai law. Thailand is country of LAW.
The buildings you mentioned
Mr know it all , Witch buildings did I mentioning?
You did mentioning the building with no permit, Mr. think know it all.
Never in the history of Thailand any building with the legal permits has been thorn down .
Your information is wrong!Building permits can be reviewed at Cityhall within 10 years . If there is a complaint ( As you have now with VT7)the supreme court will look at it . Yes they have torn down buildings with building permits. Theprasit Rd , Thapraya Rd , Jomtien Beach Rd, Sukhumvith Rd , and so on and so on . Only Foreigners think that they can do everything in Thailand because this is Thailand. They are wrong . Thailand is a country of LAWS!
Read the post and tell us where it mentions "WITHOUT" permits! I can understand that you would be desperate to protect your investment, but please don't expect others to be as blind as you!
"Never in the history of Thailand any building with the legal permits has been thorn down .
Your information is wrong!Building permits can be reviewed at Cityhall within 10 years . If there is a complaint ( As you have now with VT7)the supreme court will look at it .Yes they have torn down buildings with building permits . Theprasit Rd , Thapraya Rd , Jomtien Beach Rd, Sukhumvith Rd , and so on and so on . Only Foreigners think that they can do everything in Thailand because this is Thailand. They are wrong . Thailand is a country of LAWS!"
What a crock of s##t! Please name one building that has been approved by the Planning Board, passed Environmental Review, been approved and granted a building construction permit by the City of Pattaya and then later torn. Get over it stopVT7, you lost and stop wasting other people's time and money (obviously not your own).
StopVT7 cannot name any building with legal permits, which was torn down, because that has never happened.
He is the blind one, who gets up every morning and cannot see the building in front of him. And guest what, this building is here to stay. People bought condos in this building in good faith, because it had all proper permits.
And Thai law will protect these investors from small bunch of people, who want to protect their sea view and change the interpretation of the law. But we have a strong Thai law behind us to protect us. THAILAND IS COUNTRY OF LAW.
StopVT7 cannot name any building with legal permits, which was torn down, because that has never happened.
He is the blind one, who gets up every morning and cannot see the building in front of him. And guest what, this building is here to stay. People bought condos in this building in good faith, because it had all proper permits.
And Thai law will protect these investors from small bunch of people, who want to protect their sea view and change the interpretation of the law. But we have a strong Thai law behind us to protect us. THAILAND IS COUNTRY OF LAW.
For goodness sake, you are very bitter and twisted in your views and manners, lighten up a bit! You may do yourself a mischief. Anyway, the question could be posed, if the permits had been issued correctly and legally and the testimony of the expert witness was reliable and unquestionably correct, then would any of this come about ???
Thailand a country of laws.... LOL
Its perhaps the most corrupt on earth, another zimbabwe.
And if you think the thai elite (including judges and politicians) are going to lose their seaview about this, you are demented.
All around thailand law is 200m from MSL.
Is pattaya thailand...or not?
Issueing of vt7 building permits must be investigated by abbhisit.
Or it could be posed, if not for bully StopVT7, would it come to this?
So much time and money waisted for this losing fight. Wouldn’t that money be better spent for the maintenance of JCC building as originally planned? And now even co-owners of JCC cannot have a say where their money go. StopVT7 takes control of the money against their wishes. And if he is so right, why he couldn’t even find 10 people from about 2000 owners of JCC, who agree with him and want to pursue this case.
And soon you will see one building will be torn down , only 100 meter away from VT7 ''and it have legal building permit!'' If you do not have the right information, you better say nothing, unless you are shure where you talking about . My boyfriend his friend is working at cityhall and he told me that more than 400 complaints of buildings are made at cityhall . You read good 400 !Never before this happen in Thailand and surprise , surprise the most complaints are comming from ... yes foreigners ! and please don't call me Mr stopvt7 because I do not know him.
Maybe you don’t know Mr. StopVT7 but both of you write terrible English. I suppose you communicate with your boyfriend in Thai, as you wouldn’t understand each other in English. You both should attend English classes for beginners. That’s what I do. Do wonders.
"And if you think the thai elite (including judges and politicians) are going to lose their seaview about this, you are demented"
Thai elite bought into VT7 so they are not going to destroy themselves. They left JCC to be run down by StopVT7.
both of you write terrible English.
Correct but I can speak French, Russian, Thai, German , Chinese, I will stop because your brain cannot follow anymore !
Do yourself a favor and count the Bahts of profit you will never see.
So do I.
I speak few languages and English is not my native language. And you must have stayed with idiots too long if you think you are smart. Don’t put people down as you not in this league. Go sell yourself on the beach, so maybe one day you can afford place on your own.
How on earth you conclude that "StopVT7" is a bully, is beyond comprehension. But, there you go, that's your opinion. Alas, it may not be the opinion of many others. All I can say is "Это жизнь" Петух.
Yes, “ That’s life”, why are you interested in this case anyway? Don’t you have anything else to do? At least I am involved financially in it. And if you have read T.V. from beginning you would know why I call him bully.
Exactly!!! All 2287 posts. Your financial interest in VT7 is obvious and I fully understand why you would want to protect those interests. I can imagine the delays and uncertainty are becoming quite a worry. And, to be honest, must be a pain in the backside. But there are two sides to every story. "If" the VT7 permits and the testimony of the expert witness are questionable, then surely StopVT7 has the right to contest them, under Thai Law. You may also have to admit that "StopVT7" might also have a financial interest in this, apart from the sea views. Due in part to the depreciation in value of property in JCC, as a direct result of VT7 being built where it is. I also have my doubts that the building will be demolished, but that does not mean to say that the permits have been issued legally/correctly and that the testimony of the expert witness is right. Finally, I have plenty to do, but I find time to take an interest in many things. There may also be an indirect financial interest for me. Спасибо Добрый вечер, и
You are not only good looking, but can write intelligent posts too.
Thank you and good night to you too.
The judges have obviously found something in the latest stopvt submission that they consider warrants further investigation.
Now the expert witness is being found out for his lies.
"The judges have obviously found something in the latest stopvt submission that they consider warrants further investigation.
Now the expert witness is being found out for his lies."
BS....one judge is the evidence collector and fact gatherer, and then he turns the case over to another judge who actually reviews everything and makes the ruling. The first judge must look at everything without bias or prejudice, hence he accepted this "new evidence" (lol). You are confusing a judicial process with your fading hope of a happy ending for stopvt7.
"Now the expert witness is being found out for his lies."
You mean the truth hurts, doesn't it? It was a court ordered bangkok engineering report and survey that the expert witness testified about. He didn't lie unless you believe everything in the report was a lie and the survey was a lie too.
Watt is so strange for me, is that the exper say '' go 100 M in the sea and turn 100 M back .
This is for me the same distance of 100 M and not the 200 M requiered by the Law.
Yes, but than again you are not an expert.
"Watt is so strange for me, is that the exper say '' go 100 M in the sea and turn 100 M back .
This is for me the same distance of 100 M and not the 200 M requiered by the Law."
No. What the expert said is you go to sea 100 metres from MSL. This establishes one boundary (also called construction control line - CCL) of the restricted construction zone. Then you measure 200 metres toward land from this CCL. This is equivalent to measuring 100 meters from the MSL. This is shown on the Issue 9 map. (The restricted control zone is 200 metres wide.) This is all in the bangkok engineering report and how the survery was conducted. This what the exper testified about. StopVT7 says you measure 200 metres from the MSL which the Court ruled is contrary to Issue 9. This Court ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court. StopVT7 is simply wrong.
And if both are wrong?
It doesn’t matter, who is wrong or right as VT7 is here to stay. The law is not very clear at the moment and the court might rectify that in the future. That would be very satisfied verdict, specially for StopVT7 as the law would be clarified and his beloved beaches would be protected and future development more regulated with the clear law. VT7 investors would be happy too, as they get their condos. Clearly win, win situation for everyone.
LOL...
The big problem for the vt7 investors is that now, after proper and correct submission of stopvt case , clearly outlining the case,(not like ALW ), the judges now see that what the expert witness says is not what it says in issue 9.
He made it up.
Be sure your lies will find you out.
How do you know what the judges start to see now? Have you talked to them. It’s only your wishes and dreams. So stop dreaming and twisting facts. We are still waiting for StopVT7 to mention the buildings, with the legal permits, which were torn down. Apparently there were many of them. In Jomtien and Sukumvit Rd., and so on and on. Can you help us with these facts, before spreading more rumors?
Have you consider writing fairy tales stories?
"How do you know what the judges start to see now? Have you talked to them. It’s only your wishes and dreams. So stop dreaming and twisting facts. We are still waiting for StopVT7 to mention the buildings, with the legal permits, which were torn down. Apparently there were many of them. In Jomtien and Sukumvit Rd., and so on and on. Can you help us with these facts, before spreading more rumors?
Have you consider writing fairy tales stories?"
Whatever drugs you're taking please share.
"The big problem for the vt7 investors is that now, after proper and correct submission of stopvt case , clearly outlining the case,(not like ALW ), the judges now see that what the expert witness says is not what it says in issue 9.
He made it up.
Be sure your lies will find you out."
Now we understand. The expert witness from bangkok, the bangkok engineers and surveyors (who BTW have no interest in this case) all reach the same conclusion. The City of Pattaya has been right for many years and has been issuing permits properly. So stop making the expert witness your scapegoat. Stopvt7, JCC investors and you were simply mistaken. Get over it and get on with your lives.
"How do you know what the judges start to see now? Have you talked to them. It’s only your wishes and dreams. So stop dreaming and twisting facts. We are still waiting for StopVT7 to mention the buildings, with the legal permits, which were torn down. Apparently there were many of them. In Jomtien and Sukumvit Rd., and so on and on. Can you help us with these facts, before spreading more rumors?
Have you consider writing fairy tales stories?"
"Whatever drugs you're taking please share."
I take an aspirin. Your stupidity gives me the headache.
Pity there is no cure for you, so just keep dreaming and live in the fairy tale world.
"We are still waiting for StopVT7 to mention the buildings, with the legal permits, which were torn down."
Also, we are still waiting for somebody to name the buildings on Walking Street with the ILLEGAL permits or NO permits which were torn.
If you would do your invstigation you would find out witch buildings are ton down last year. And,as I told you I am not stopvt7 .y boyfriend his friend works at cityhall andhe tell me many stories of Fallangs who make complaints at Cityhall about Illegall constructions and now they will torn down one building less than 100 M from VT7.
City of Pattaya has been right for many years and has been issuing permits properly.
The city of Pattaya do not need to investigate and will alway's give a permition to build . This thusnot mean that issue a building permit is right.
As you all know at this moment there is a complaint from a owner that somebody have build a hotel on his land . The building permit is legaly issued but the owner use 50% of the neighboursland . Many Thai peopel want to know the outcome .
There are many complaints at cityhall and VT7 is only one of them. Many people like t writhe on this blog but nearly know how things are working in Thailand . I will tell you, The law is the law and Thailand is Thailand and is a country of laws!
Yes, Thailand is a country of laws, and that’s why it took VT7 couple of years to get all the necessary permits. All the permits had to be thoroughly checked and ensured they are all pass the strict Thai law. Thanks to strong Thai law, people can invest in Thailand without any fear of losing money. And every day I pass VT7, I see the big billboard reminding me that VT7 is built according to Thai law with all the permits. They are really like doing things in Thailand according to the law.
Yes, Thailand is a country of laws, and that’s why it took VT7 couple of years to get all the necessary permits. All the permits had to be thoroughly checked and ensured they are all pass the strict Thai law. Thanks to strong Thai law, people can invest in Thailand without any fear of losing money. And every day I pass VT7, I see the big billboard reminding me that VT7 is built according to Thai law with all the permits. They are really like doing things in Thailand according to the law.
Firstly, What a Dork!!! I am sure that Thailand is a country of laws, But what that has got to do with the propaganda that VT7 post outside their site, I have no idea. As everyone knows, anyone can make a poster and post it for all to see. If it is true is another thing!
I have to say, I have yet to see a compelling argument from anyone on the VT7 side, whereas Stop VT7 does have an argument, which although, weak, does have merit and substance.
From all of these posts, there is nothing which provides substance to the VT7 side, all I see is a weak attempt at protection of their investment....which is understandable, but is a lotto as the whether it will have any affect on the outcome of this issue
Oh, and there is this post that needs to be addressed.
"Now we understand. The expert witness from bangkok, the bangkok engineers and surveyors (who BTW have no interest in this case) all reach the same conclusion. The City of Pattaya has been right for many years and has been issuing permits properly. So stop making the expert witness your scapegoat. Stopvt7, JCC investors and you were simply mistaken. Get over it and get on with your lives".
Who is twisting the facts? I would suggest you are sir. No one has made the expert witness the scapegoat. His testimony has been contested, nothing more nothing less. If he is wrong, then he will be found out. If he is right then the law will prevail.
It’s not just the poster but the enlarged legal document posted for people like you, who after so many years still don’t know if the permit is true or false. I can assure you that the permit is true and legit. It’s the same permit, which have been issued for many other building along the cost. VT7 is no different than the other 50 or so buildings within 200m from seaside.
“Now the expert witness is being found out for his lies”, and you recon the statement like that is just contest of his testimony, nothing more nothing less. I don’t think so. So who is twisting the facts now.
You StopVT7 supporters twisting the facts and changing your wishes into facts.
StopVT7 supporters in their blindness believe that if they win the case, VT7 will be torn down. StopVT7 is trying to convince that pulling down the buildings with the legal permits is nearly daily occurrence and happened many times before, but so far hasn’t supplied any facts. But in reality VT7 is here to stay. The worst, what can happen for VT7 investors is payment of some sort of compensation. You cannot just single out one building and pull it down. You have to pull down all the buildings and there are a lot of them. So just keep dreaming, twisting the facts and spread rumors but VT7 will stay here.
"Yes, Thailand is a country of laws, and that’s why it took VT7 couple of years to get all the necessary permits. All the permits had to be thoroughly checked and ensured they are all pass the strict Thai law. Thanks to strong Thai law, people can invest in Thailand without any fear of losing money. And every day I pass VT7, I see the big billboard reminding me that VT7 is built according to Thai law with all the permits. They are really like doing things in Thailand according to the law.
01 March, 2009
Anonymous said...
Yes, Thailand is a country of laws, and that’s why it took VT7 couple of years to get all the necessary permits. All the permits had to be thoroughly checked and ensured they are all pass the strict Thai law. Thanks to strong Thai law, people can invest in Thailand without any fear of losing money. And every day I pass VT7, I see the big billboard reminding me that VT7 is built according to Thai law with all the permits. They are really like doing things in Thailand according to the law.
Firstly, What a Dork!!! I am sure that Thailand is a country of laws, But what that has got to do with the propaganda that VT7 post outside their site, I have no idea. As everyone knows, anyone can make a poster and post it for all to see. If it is true is another thing!
I have to say, I have yet to see a compelling argument from anyone on the VT7 side, whereas Stop VT7 does have an argument, which although, weak, does have merit and substance.
From all of these posts, there is nothing which provides substance to the VT7 side, all I see is a weak attempt at protection of their investment....which is understandable, but is a lotto as the whether it will have any affect on the outcome of this issue
Oh, and there is this post that needs to be addressed.
"Now we understand. The expert witness from bangkok, the bangkok engineers and surveyors (who BTW have no interest in this case) all reach the same conclusion. The City of Pattaya has been right for many years and has been issuing permits properly. So stop making the expert witness your scapegoat. Stopvt7, JCC investors and you were simply mistaken. Get over it and get on with your lives".
Who is twisting the facts? I would suggest you are sir. No one has made the expert witness the scapegoat. His testimony has been contested, nothing more nothing less. If he is wrong, then he will be found out. If he is right then the law will prevail."
==========================
When other posters ask questions and/or provide information this poster knowing he can not add anything intelligent to the discussion calls other posters names.
It is not our responsibility to investigate your allegations that buildings have been torn. You made the statement and therefore you must back it up. It has also been reported in the Pattaya Mail in the past that the ILLEGAL construction still remains despite the efforts of the City to remove it.
Here is some more VT propaganda for you:
1. VT has an offical land title deed (#104646).
2. VT7 passed environmental review confirmed again in April 2007.
3. VT7 has an approved construction permit granted on Nov 28, 2006.
The KFC building which is 100 metres from VT7 does not have valid permits. Comparing the two buildings is like comparing apples and oranges.
The recent court rulings (including the Supreme Court) support the City of Pattaya and View Talay. I know you must feel frustrated and misled by the stopvt7 bandwagon but your pain will be over soon.
You might have a building permit. The question is .Did you get it the right way or the tea money way ?
Hm Hm.
The building 100 M from VT7 have legal permit nr 337/2445 cityhall have given now a letter that in 45 day's it have to be torn down.
At the end of beachrd the same story !Don,t forget the
What the major told about Illegall buildings ( Pattaya People TV)
This legal case will prove the Thai King has an honest or dishonest court. Why? Because it does not take much of a education to understand what the law states you measure 200 meters from MSL.
The court expert witness measured only 100 meters from MSL then make other claims witch are not written in Issue 9. Where is it written in the regulations to measure 100 meters from MSL to the maps borderline? NO where!
This leaves the question is the court honest and will they uphold the law?
You have some law students watching for the answer.
If it doesn’t take much education why you couldn’t find 10 people, like the law requires, to share your point of view. So you are saying that co-owners of JCC are not well educated. And now you are saying that the Thai court is corrupted.
From so many thousands of people, you only have 7 or 8, who agree with you and only because they were bullied to join you and promised money reward. But you cannot bribe everyone. Especially Thai court. So don’t discredit them because they don’t think your way.
There are over 50 buildings, which are against your law and would have to be destroyed. And that will never happens. A lot of international people watch this case, who bought properties and buildings over many years, like Hilton Hotel, as they believed Thailand is a safe place to invest with the law, which has been applied for many years. Is one bully with somebody’s else money to waste gonna change all that. And you are right, this case is not over yet. It will be over once you are kicked out of this country.
You make a sound like cheap cahrly's when they are drunken .
Watt have real investors to do with vt7?
This case is not above its buildings permit but, it about Issue 9 and if the VT7 building is to close to the sea. After the ruling on Issue 9 then we will find out if the building permit was legally or illegal issued. This is about one building and the court could care less about other buildings which are not part of the case.
International people should not thing they are above the Thai law.
It’s not how big or how small the investment is, but how safe people feel to invest in Thailand. They would like to know that their investment made according to Thai law with all the proper permits are safe. Would it be Multinational complex or one bedroom unit. And if in the process somebody lose part of the view, it is just bad luck, it happens all the time.
StopVT7 wants to change all that and demolish all the buildings, including international Hotels, big shopping centre and many apartments buildings. He doesn’t care about international investment, about Thailand, people who lose their apartments, many of them Thai as long as he can save his 180 degree sea view.
So you saying that there is one law for one building and another law for the other buildings. It must be StopVT7 law. I always though there is one law for everyone. But what you can expect from StopVT7 supporters, who cheat, bribe, twist and make up facts.
"StopVT7 law. I always though there is one law for everyone. But what you can expect from StopVT7 supporters, who cheat, bribe, twist and make up facts."
LOL...
Only the expert witness and the tea money have done that in this case.
Now the judges see it to.
LOL....all your investments hang upon if the judges want to go with the vt7 tea money.
Before very yes, now very NO.
I find it so comical that the expert witness and Bangkok civil engineer and big man bangkok say to measure 200m from construction control line.
Then when they try to do it they cannot do it because there is water there. HA HA.
So they have to say it same same do 100m from MSL.....HA HA.
What a comical tradgedy for vt7 investor.because if everybody can see, so can the judges.
I will beleive the vt7 argument when I see them measure 200m from into the sea with a measure.
But you know what! they cannot ,because what the expert witness say is a contrived, manufactured lie.
Any vt7 investor want to show us how to go and do the 2oom measure from the sea??HA HA
I know you cannot comprehend that but it is relatively easy to measure in the water, but in this case not necessary. So just go ahead and discredit the witness and the court and all the Thai authorities again.
But just look out of the window and what can you see. You can admire this building until you leave Thailand. It’s here to stay. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Friend, who was last time in Thailand about 10 years ago, just ask me what happened to these building on Walking Street. That time, he read articles in local papers, how they are illegal and soon to be demolished. Are they still there? Ha Ha Ha Ha.
The buildings at walking street are not over 14 M high thats why they still there . If .... was only 14 M high there would be no courtcase .
On February 23 our lawyers filed new information with the Rayong Admin Court. I'm waiting for the English translation witch I will post after receiving. It is nice to see so many people are taken interest in our legal matter. Thanks!
"I find it so comical that the expert witness and Bangkok civil engineer and big man bangkok say to measure 200m from construction control line.
Then when they try to do it they cannot do it because there is water there. HA HA.
So they have to say it same same do 100m from MSL.....HA HA."
Do you understand that measuring 100 metres from the MSL is the same as 200 metres from the CCL? My 8 year old son can understand that. The Thai surveyors understood that also. I wish you could did.
Please remember the CCL, seashore and MSL are all found at the same line on the map. This Bangkok civil engineer measured from MSL (CCL, seashore) onto the land 100 meters then measured into the sea 100 meters to the “construction control AREA or ZONE borderline on the map.
Then he claimed this was the same as Issue 9 which said “To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line (see the map)........................ at the seashore in which the following constructions shall not be built:
When you look at the map you will fine the seashore at MSL.
"Please remember the CCL, seashore and MSL are all found at the same line on the map. This Bangkok civil engineer measured from MSL (CCL, seashore) onto the land 100 meters then measured into the sea 100 meters to the “construction control AREA or ZONE borderline on the map.
Then he claimed this was the same as Issue 9 which said “To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line (see the map)........................ at the seashore in which the following constructions shall not be built:
When you look at the map you will fine the seashore at MSL."
The only person that believes this is you and your dwindling supporters. The maps on your own blog show the CCL and MSL are not the same. The City, bangkok engineers, surveyors, witness, Rayong Court and now the Supreme Court all understand that. Your attempts at saying CCL=MSL have been rejected.
Looks like View Talay website www.viewtalaycondo.com has been hijacked. French mafia or StopVT7.
Not much lose anyway.
The only person that believes this is you and your dwindling supporters. The maps on your own blog show the CCL and MSL are not the same. The City, bangkok engineers, surveyors, witness, Rayong Court and now the Supreme Court all understand that. Your attempts at saying CCL=MSL have been rejected.
Since when, YOU,can read a map?
You have learn, to read between the lines!
Your statement is WRONG! “The maps on your own blog show the CCL and MSL are not the same”
I read this from the blog:
Quotation from Rayong court 16 of January 2009 stated “measurement was made from the building control AREA (or zone) shown in the map “ This is not CCL or MSL.
A quotation from July Supreme Admin Court which said ”prescribed that the 200 meter line measured from the construction control line shown in the map”
If you could read the Thai maps you fine CCL and MSL are the same place.
"Your statement is WRONG! “The maps on your own blog show the CCL and MSL are not the same”
I read this from the blog:
Quotation from Rayong court 16 of January 2009 stated “measurement was made from the building control AREA (or zone) shown in the map “ This is not CCL or MSL.
A quotation from July Supreme Admin Court which said ”prescribed that the 200 meter line measured from the construction control line shown in the map”
If you could read the Thai maps you fine CCL and MSL are the same place."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why argue with people here because the only opinions that count are those of the Thais and court system. That is the Bangkok engineers, city planners, the Rayong Court, the Supreme Court, etc. who are Thai and can understand the map. Go to the posting on this blog, "Request a Court Hearing to make 200 Meter Measurement" (posted 9-28-07) and there on the map you will see CCL and MSL are not same. This is one blog map that is not marked-up with editorial comments and falsehoods. Face up to it, the City had it right all along and the Court agrees. Thank God, Thailand is a country of Laws!!
Never before has Thais been so well informed about a legal matter.
Go and read Thailand Government Issue 9 with map
http://www.asa.or.th/download/03media/04law/cba/mr/mr21-09.pdf
Go and read Thailand Government Issue 8 with map
http://www.asa.or.th/download/03media/04law/cba/mr/mr19-08.pdf
Below is a good translation of the Thai law:
Issue 8 “to fix the 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction”
Issue 9 “to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction”
Issue 9 gives a reason for the update: “Note: The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation due to the updating of the construction control areas in Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol
Nhong Prue, by extending the construction restriction areas as appeared in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 controlling over the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521. It is, therefore, appropriate to amend the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 governing restriction of the construction of some kinds of building within the controlling areas under the aforesaid Royal Decree.
Thailand is a country of laws and all should wait for the final Supreme Admin Court decision!
Despite constant and important court wins for StopVT7, VT7 investors agree with court decision every time because they believe in justice system in Thailand. StopVT7 supporters already stated that if verdict is against their wishes, it means court is corrupted, dishonest and bribed.
Despite constant and important court wins for StopVT7, VT7 investors agree with court decision every time because they believe in justice system in Thailand. StopVT7 supporters already stated that if verdict is against their wishes, it means court is corrupted, dishonest and bribed.
At least we know how YOU think about this matter.
I am not a investor or a stop VT7 Suporter, I am only watching on the side line . Will the Thai court will do it the Thai way ( bend the law ) or will they listen to their BELOVED KING who create this supreme court, so their will be JUSTICE. We all kmow that for Thai money is important, but we hope that Thai also can be proud to folow the law. Before critisese the one's who wants to follow the law, ask yourself if you like the law?
"Thailand is a country of laws and all should wait for the final Supreme Admin Court decision!"
I think you meant to say when the Rayong Court issues it's final decison.
I have followed the postings on this blog and the long thread on ThaiVisa. I have read Issue 8 and Issue 9 and all the maps. I understand why the Courts have ruled the way they have. Speaking as a lawyer the JCC folks have a very weak case. I admire their tenacity but final outcome does not look good for their case but I do wish them the best.
Please. No personal insults of VT7
Speaking as a lawyer the JCC folks have a very weak case.
We are lucky that you are not the VT7 Lawyer
Speaking as a lawyer the JCC folks have a very weak case.
Don’t buy this BS! He know lawyer!!
1. the intention of the law is clear. just only some cheating . people want to twist it for ther interest.
2. the is intended to protect the beach. nothig to go in the se where no boby have the permit or own the sea anyway. this is comom sense and need no lawyer to understand.
3. the lawyer and specialist (?) involved in this case as theyare just a tool to twist the law. and,make it up for a good reason to be on thir side.
4. noboy is stupid but only tactic and big money to pay off.
5. I see that this casewas ugly since beginning. I wish that my beloved king will may watching. And,some day they will get consequences. .
6. i wish all these people who is doing bad thing for their own interest thing twice and become good people.
7. i feel sorry for the vt7 investor but the build is illegal and you cannot get legally transferred of your unit.
You shouldn't drink and write.
Has the expert witness been in the water yet to show us all how to do the 200m measurement yet.
I dont think so because he MADE IT UP.
Not looking good for vt7.
"Speaking as a lawyer the JCC folks have a very weak case."
LOL
Who with ALW???
LOL
Post a Comment