Saturday our Bangkok Lawyers informed use that the 1st “Enquiry” will be held at the Rayong Administrative Court. The hearing will be on the 24th of March 2009.
We find this notice from the court being very good news. More about this hearing will be post at a later date after we receive the English translation.
Our legal action goes forward with an enquirer hearing of facts.
We thank all who support the Thai legal system.
The Stopvt7 Group
Objection to Supplementary Statement
Black Case No. 54/2550 (2007)
The Administrative Court of Rayong
23 February 2009
Mr. Aloysius Joannes Maria Tenbuelt No. 1 and 9 Associates Ltigants
Between
Pattaya City Local Office First Prosecuted Person
View Talay Jomthien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. Second Prosecuted Person
The Undersigned, Miss Pachjama Palakes and/or Miss Jirisumai Na Nhongkai, resided at No. 505/12 Ramkhamhaeng Road, Soi Ramkhamhaeng 39 (Thepleela 1) Khwang Wang Thong Lang, Khet Wang Thong Lang, Bangkok, are the legal representatives from of the ligitants, would like to file following objections to the supplementary statement as follows:
1). The 8 litigants acknowledged the supplementary statement given by the 2 Prosecuted Persons and would file the following objections based on the following reasons: …….
2). The 1st Prosecuted Person stated in its supplementary statement relating the measurement of construction restricted area in accordance with Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 that
“…the measurement was conducted by Officers of the Department of Civil Engineering, and the 8 Litigants used to mention that they will take the measurement result if done by the Officers of the Department of Public Works. Whereas the measurement result appeared that the building of the 2nd Prosecuted Person is not within the 200 meter measured from construction restricted zone in which the building of higher than 14 meter will not be permitted, therefore, the issue of 200 meters prescribed under Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) the 1st Prosecuted Person considered that such issue was concluded by the fact that has been already verified.
In addition, the Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 enforced upon the area shown on the Map attached to the Royal Decree promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 applying to area of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klue and Tambol Nhong Prue Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province (See Annex 7). Therefore, the areas applied under the Regulation are only certain areas.”
The 8 Litigants would object the supplementary statement filed by the 1st Prosecuted Person as follows:
It is true that all the 8 litigants would accept the method of measurement conducted by the Officer of the Department of Public Engineering and City Planning, which measured from the MSL into seashore to obtain 100 meter. The acceptance of such measurement will be solely based on academic theory according to details appeared on the letter dated 17 November 2007 (Annex 1 to the objection to additional statement). However, the interpretation of the promulgating of the Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) of the Department of Civil Works and City and Planning who presented it comments in this case to the Court – according to the opinion of the 8 Litigants, was contravened to the spirit and intention of the enforcement of laws resulting impact to the interest of the 8 Litigants and public interests, environment protection which has been presented in the plaints and petitions of the 8 Litigants which can be summarized that:
2.1 The interpretation for law enforcement of the Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) requires consideration on other relevant laws. In the areas of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khue, Tambol Nhong Prue, Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi province, where the first Regulation Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) was initiated, the spirit of this Issue read under the Remarks of the said Regulation:
“The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation is that further to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 applying to some areas of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Klue, and Tambol Nhong Prue of Chonburi Province B.E. 2499, and the aforesaid areas are open public resorts. It is appropriate that the areas shall not be allowed to construct some kinds of building considered to disturb good environment and generating any kind of wastes, pollutions. This Ministerial Regulation is, therefore, issued.”
Later, the Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) was released. The spirit of this Issue read under the Remarks of the said Regulation:
“The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation due to the updating of the construction control areas in Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Klue and Tambol Nhong Prue, by extending the construction restriction area 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 Klue 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 area under the aforesaid Royal Decree. This Ministerial Regulation is, therefore, issued.”
The objective of issuance of the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) is to extend the construction controlling areas in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Klue and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province in which the areas are public resort under the enforcement of Regulation No. 9 which covers
200 meter distance from the building restriction line on the map annexed to the Royal Decree B.E. 2521 toward the shore line. This is the area where the buildings referred in Clause 3 (1) – (8) shall not be permitted. Where the interpretation must be incorporated with the spirit of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519), the extension of construction control under Clause 3 (1) – (8) from 100 meters to 200 meters shall be regarded as extension from the sea toward the land to prevent construction of buildings forbidden under the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 and No. 9.
It is logical to say that the nature and usage of such building will never be possible to build on the sea. Hence, the extension of construction restriction can never be translated that “broader extended” in accordance with the note following the Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) that the construction control line was extended into the sea because the enforcement of such meaning would never be possible.
It is consequently necessary to interpret the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) Clause 3 prescribing the area within 200 meters ….. is the extension of construction control line in accordance with Clause 3 (1) – (8) from the sea toward the land from 100 meters to 200 meters. The 100 meters of construction control extended in the map annex to the Royal Decree B.E. 2521 has not been prescribed in any Ministerial Regulation to control building construction in the sea. The Ministry of Interior shall exercise his authority to set future Regulation governing 100 meter construction control in the sea as appropriate in future.
2.2 The interpretation of Construction Control Line under the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) etc, which the Court admitted the fact appeared in the report presented by the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning as well as the witness’ testimony that the building in conflict is exceeding 100 meters from MSL which resulted Court to terminate temporary protection measure before judgment to the 2nd Prosecuted Person in ceasing construction of the building higher than 14 meters which is extended 11 meters beyond the construction control area under the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) resulting entitlement of construction of the building over 14 meters closer to the sea and inconsistent to the spirit of law, as shown in the Supplementary Plaints filed by the 8 Litigants.
2.3 The 8 Litigants would clarify further that in view of Section 79 of the Building Control Act B.E. 2522 stating “All Ministerial Regulations, Municipal Laws, Provincial Regulations, Rules and Procedures, Notice and other Orders issued pursuant to the power of the Building Construction Act B.E. 2479 or Building Construction within Burnt Area Act B.E. 2476, shall remain in force in so far as they are not contravened to this Act.” The 9 Litigants are of the opinion that not only other Ministerial Regulations, Ministerial Laws, Provincial Regulations Rules and Procedures, Notice, and other Orders issued pursuant to the power of the Building Construction Act B.E. 2479, will remain enforced in so far as they are not contravened to the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2522, but the interpretation, enforcement of the Ministerial Regulations, Local Laws and Orders must also incorporate with the spirit of Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E 2522 and other relevant laws to ensure the spirit of the law be implemented.
Since the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2522 has been enforced, Ministerial Regulations under Section 8 (10) related to sea beach or public resort controlling restriction of the construction of some kinds of building considered to disturb good environment and generating any kind of wastes, pollutions in the same objective of the Regulation Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) and Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) altogether 12 issues. Each Issue was clearly stated mainly that “Within the 200 meter distance from the beach line construction of building higher than 12 meter shall not be allowed.” Details appeared in the Supplementary Plaint.
Therefore, it is obvious that the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2522 and relevant Ministerial Regulations which apply to beaches area around the country are aiming to protect environmental surrounding and ecosystem of the beach area measured from the coastline upon the natural highest tide toward the land by 200 meter distance by restriction of construction of some kinds of building that may disturb to good environment including the building higher than 12 meters. Interpretation of the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) to measure 200 meter from the “Construction Control Line” which is 100 meters from MSL further into the sea to be restricted area for construction of building higher than 14 meters shall be in contravention to the spirit of the promulgating of the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2522 alike.
3. In addition to the objection of the 8 Litigants to the supplementary statement referred to in aforesaid Article 1 and Article 2, the 8 Litigants would clarify further that this case has been filed the plaint and supplementary plaint to the Administrative Court of Rayong requesting the Court to order the 1st Prosecuted Person to revoke the Construction Permit No. 162/2550 dated 29 November 2006 granting to the View Talay Jomthien Condominium 1990 Company Limited (The 2nd Prosecuted Person) based on the clarification, facts of law, that have been presented to the Court in our plaint and the various documents appeared in the file of the case. The 8 Litigants are of the opinion that the measurement of the construction control line under the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479, which the Court ordered the
Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning to conduct and to present their comments to the Court is the crucial issue leading toward the judgment of this case. Particularly the interpretation and enforcement of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) and the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 of which the opinion and interpretation may cause disturbance and impact to the public residence within the areas of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Klue, Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province in future.
The interpretation of the spirit of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519 and Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) etc. presented by the 8 Litigants is the interpretation which will be in favor of public interests because the land and beach areas in the territory of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Klue and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung or Chonburi Province are beautiful resorts that deserve protection and keeping up good environment forever resulting pleasant living environment, free of pollution to maintain its tourist attraction characteristic. Should the 2nd Prosecuted Person be allowed to continue its construction of a 27-storey building, other real estate developers might follow suit resulting long line of high-rise buildings along the beautiful beach of the territory of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Klue and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamug of Chonburi Province destroying the most beautiful and well-known resort of Thailand.
With reference to the clarifications, fact of laws as presented to the Administrative Court of Rayong appeared in the plaint and supplementary plaints including the various documents in this file of the case, it is clearly verified that where the 1st Prosecuted Person granting Construction Permit to the 2nd Prosecuted Person to construct View Talay Jomthien Beach Condominium (Project 7) which has 27-level high or approximate 81 meters, not only will cause damage to the 8 Litigants from being blocked off the beautiful sea view, wind blow, sunshine, to the dwelling within Jomthien Complex Condotel Condominium similar to other buyers to the same condominium, it also cause building wall cracks, air pollution thus resulting in respiration sickness to the residents.
The issuance of Construction Permit by the 1st Prosecuted Person to the 2nd Prosecuted Person was to permit construction of illegal building which considered assisting private business operator who has no good intention to the public in constructing the building in conflict.
Consequently, the 8 Litigants would kindly ask the Court to revoke the Construction Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2006 permitting the 2nd Prosecuted Person to construct the View Talay Jomthien Beach Condominium (Project 7) in accordance with the plaint and supplementary plaint of the 8 Litigants.
Yours respectfully,
Signed
…………………………………………………………
Miss Pachjama Palaket, Miss Jirisumai Na Nhongkai
Legal Representatives of the 8 Litigants
Document 1Annex to the Objection to Supplement Statement
Made at Jomthien Beach in front of the conflict building
Dated 17 November 2007
The Undersigned of this document are representatives of the Black Case No. 54/2550 of the Administrative Court of Rayong between Mr. Aloysius Joannes Maria Tenbuelt No. 1 and 9 Associates, the Litigants of the one part and Pattaya City Local Office, First Prosecuted Person and 2 Associates, the Prosecuted Person of the other parts.
The Representative of the Parties entered the observation throughout the measurement process to identify the shoreline at Mean Sea Level (MSL) conducted by the 8 officers of the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning starting by level transfer from the Brass Rivet No. Or Tor MSL CB 0029 which parameter reading 58.989 meters from MSL at the area of Chonburi Meteorological Station (Pattaya) to the area in conflict from Thursday 15 November 2007at 13.00 hours to Saturday 17 November 2007.
Representatives of both Parties considered that the measurement process was conducted properly and accordingly. After measurement, two rivets were installed at the area of conflict at MSL 0.00 meter and 1.4477 meters. Measurement has been conducted from both rivets towards the building in conflict complying with the Court’s order.
To confirm our presence at the measurement throughout the three day process conducted by the officers of the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning and that we are satisfied with the measurement method, we have signed our names in this annex:
Signed………………………………… The 4th Litigant
(Mr. Richard )
Signed …………………………………. Litigant’s Observer
(Mr. )
Signed …………………………………. Litigant’s Observer
(Mr. )
Signed …………………………………. Litigant’s Observer
(Mrs. Napaporn Srinoi)
Signed …………………………………. Litigant’s Observer
(Mr. Thanaset Toomthong)
Signed …………………………………. Litigant’s Observer
(Mr.Chalermchat Vanichratsiri)
Signed ………………………………. 1st Prosecuted Person’s Observer
(Mr. Chavalit Jariyayanyong)
Signed ………………………………. 2nd Prosecuted Person’s Observer
(Mr. Somjet Hasan)
Signed ………………………………. 2nd Prosecuted Person’s Observer
(Mrs. Vilai Supcharoen)
Signed ………………………………. 2nd Prosecuted Person’s Observer
(Mr. Jirasak Sajja-eng)
Signed ………………………………. Observer from Meteorological Dept.
(Mr. Somjet Hasan)
There are another 22 page which is been translated!
Thanks for your support
StopVT7 Group
157 comments:
This must mean their a problem with the expert witness court report? Now more experts may be brought into court for testimony.
Some people will feel very bad, by such good news!
For exchange
Penthouse Condo on the 27th floor in prime beach location in Thailand. Uninterupted sea views. Built with a legal building permit (Honest)
Will accept a beach hut, tent or coconut tree house as long as it has a good view and a legal building permit
I supposed it was your pathetic attempt to be funny. Just tell me when to start laughing.
Fantastic !!!
Now the expert witness, and any other vt7 investor who fancies it, can put their wellies on and go into the water and show us how to do the 200m measurement from into the sea onto the land,
200m from the "phantom" CCL please, not 100m from MSL.
If I were the judge its the first thing I would ask him to do.
HA HA HA HA LOL
In years gone by this sort of case would have been quickly dealt with by the thai tea courts.
Not so now eh, Thai corruption now on full world view.
One of Two messages can now come out of this.
1.Thai land is corrupt and bent, come invest here and be stitched up and screwed.
2.Thailand is straight with its laws, your investments are safe here.
Which do you think the king wishes?
"Now the expert witness, and any other vt7 investor who fancies it, can put their wellies on and go into the water and show us how to do the 200m measurement from into the sea onto the land,
200m from the "phantom" CCL please, not 100m from MSL."
The City of Pattaya has presented it's case and the Courts agree with them. Now stopVT7 has the chance to argue their "intent" case again. My prediction, the Courts will listen on March 24 but will say "sorry". Then stopVT7 can file an Appeal to the Supreme Court (again).
View Talay must be shaking in their boots. They must have stopped construction. Right?
View Talay must be shaking in their boots. They must have stopped construction. Right?
Nah - still spending the investors money
And more investors money going down the drain on a TV adverising campaign in a desperate attempt to sell the remaining units before the grim reaper comes
"....a TV adverising campaign..."
VT spends very little on advertising. No fancy ads in magazines or papers. They have their own sales staff so no commission to agents. They have cheap brochures for prospective customers. Never saw a TV ad before. Where do they advertise on TV?
"....a TV adverising campaign..."
VT spends very little on advertising. No fancy ads in magazines or papers. They have their own sales staff so no commission to agents. They have cheap brochures for prospective customers. Never saw a TV ad before. Where do they advertise on TV?
Thinking again - I may be wrong here
Yes I have seen ads on some Sophon cable TV channel - but they may be ads from an agent selling on units rather from VT itself
Must be difficult to sell on units when the whole project is under legal proceedings and could be torn down sometime in the future.
However got to be some mugs out there who have beamed in from another planet and don't know the situation
This case will show the Thai provinces the Admin Courts are really concerned about cleaning up bad government. This will be done by the courts when they uphold Issue 9 and story the building to 4 meter height.
The Thai law is clear for all to read;
Issue 9: http://www.asa.or.th/download/03media/04law/cba/mr/mr21-09.pdf
Issue 8: http://www.asa.or.th/download/03media/04law/cba/mr/mr19-08.pdf
Farang investors should not receive special treatment from Thai laws.
I just read Issue 9. Very clear in one aspect. You measure 200 meters from CCL as shown on the map. Sorry stopVT7, VT is legal!
"Farang investors should not receive special treatment from Thai laws."
Very true. The government or judicial system should not bail out the JCC investors from making a bad decision. Just like many American homeowners expect the U.S. government to rescue them from their bad decision and potential home foreclosure. The JCC investors know they do NOT have beach front property and should NOT receive special protection just because their developer lied and said they had protected sea views.
It is so strange that if you look at the wall on the Northside of VT7 there was written 100 M thus this mean that vt7 was only 100M from CCL. This was written on the wall to mark the line for construction ,before they started construction . Mybe they did all right for Issue 8 and did not know about Issue 9. Did someone on this blog not mention sometime ago, that Jomtien Plaza was 20 M build to close to the sea? if that is true, wat will be the outcome at the court?
We see the VT7 investors are still blind or they thinking tea money can buy whatever they need. These farangs need to quite corrupting our courts.
What farangs you are talking about. The only farangs, who took the case to court are from JCC complex. I suppose you referring to them, the corrupted bunch. Don’t worry, they will be soon gone. The people, who issued the permit and building VT7 are all Thai. Glad to see, you support them. You must be the smart one.
"What farangs you are talking about. The only farangs, who took the case to court are from JCC complex. I suppose you referring to them, the corrupted bunch. Don’t worry, they will be soon gone. The people, who issued the permit and building VT7 are all Thai. Glad to see, you support them. You must be the smart one".
Why are there so many stupid and unintelligent comments om this blog? Sounds they come from VT7 investors who are afraid to lose their money and face! They act like a children somebody steel its candy from...!
"It is so strange that if you look at the wall on the Northside of VT7 there was written 100 M thus this mean that vt7 was only 100M from CCL. This was written on the wall to mark the line for construction ,before they started construction."
Some people think if they constantly repeat misformation it will somehow become true. They are in denial. VT7 is over 100 metres from the MSL and 200 metres from the CCL per the Issue 9 map. At least 3 different surveys have been made. Don't believe what stopVT7 tells you; the Courts didn't.
Some Farangs think that they smart but after more than 10 years living in Thailand , they still cannot read Thai ( 5 year young Thai kids can) cannot speak Thai ( 2 year young Thai kids can)cannot writhe Thai ( 6 year young Thai kid can ) who is stupid ?
Who put the the 100M mark at the wall? think before you act!
Some people think if they constantly repeat misformation it will somehow become true. They are in denial. VT7 is over 100 metres from the MSL and 200 metres from the CCL per the Issue 9 map. At least 3 different surveys have been made. Don't believe what stopVT7 tells you; the Courts didn't.
Oh oh , MSL and CCL are not the same! I read from a previous blog that MSL and CCL are the same . I get confused. Who can explain?
would kindly ask the court to modify the order for the to be named expert witness not to measure 100 Meters, but to measure 200 Meters from mean sea level MSL which equals the Construction Control Line
Thus this means that MSL and CCL are the same ?
I just read Issue 9. Very clear in one aspect. You measure 200 meters from CCL as shown on the map. Sorry stopVT7, VT is legal!
You are right 200 meters from CCL but is VT7 not only 100 meter from CCL?
"Some Farangs think that they smart but after more than 10 years living in Thailand , they still cannot read Thai ( 5 year young Thai kids can) cannot speak Thai ( 2 year young Thai kids can)cannot writhe Thai ( 6 year young Thai kid can ) who is stupid ?"
Stop VT7, who cannot read and write English after 65 years.
Who can explain? It simple!
Issue 9 say “To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line …………………….. at the “seashore””.
Then you go to the map and you fine the “seashore” is found at “MSL”.
These facts have been agreed to by all parts in the court room. Their people who post comments who nerve had been at any court hearing.
I agree with the statement “Their so many stupid and unintelligent comments on this blog? Sounds they come from VT7 investors who are afraid to lose their money and face!”
"You are right 200 meters from CCL but is VT7 not only 100 meter from CCL?"
You asked a question and the answer is the Rayong Court's and Supreme Court's answer (not stopVT7's); VT7 is 200 metres from the CCL and 100 metres from the MSL
"Who can explain? It simple!
Issue 9 say “To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line …………………….. at the “seashore””.
Then you go to the map and you fine the “seashore” is found at “MSL”.
These facts have been agreed to by all parts in the court room. Their people who post comments who nerve had been at any court hearing."
One, you don't understand Thai and depend on what your lawyers want to tell you. You sit in the courtroom like any other dumb farang and have no special insight by being there.
Two, when you go to the Issue 9 map the CCL and MSL are two seperate and distinct lines. Look at the Issue 9 map on your own blog!
"Oh oh , MSL and CCL are not the same! I read from a previous blog that MSL and CCL are the same . I get confused. Who can explain?"
MSL and CCL are not the same, True. Look at the map and read the Court rulings.
Confused? You probably read they are the same on one of stopVT7's other blogs. He also has conversations with himself on this blog which is all part of his propaganda. He was using multiple handles on ThaiVisa too.
Who can explain, I read that going into the sea 100 meter and come back 100 meter is totaly 200 meter! I don't understand . if CCL is 200 meter why they mesure only 100 meter and come back 100 meter?
"Who can explain, I read that going into the sea 100 meter and come back 100 meter is totaly 200 meter! I don't understand . if CCL is 200 meter why they mesure only 100 meter and come back 100 meter?"
Measure 100 metres out to sea from the MSL. This marks one CCL boundary. This is clearly shown on the Issue 9 map. Then measure 200 metres from this CCL toward land. This creates a 200 metre wide restricted construction zone as defined by Issue 9. 3 different surveys made the equivalent measurement by measuring 100 metres from the MSL (so there is no need to physically go out sea.) VT7 is at the 100 metre mark from MSL and consequently legal says the Courts.
Also, remember Issue 9 is not only about 14 metre high buildings. It trys to prevent and restrict fish markets and gas filling tanks like you have at the Nakglua market and Walking Steet.
Is issue 9 not about 200 meter from MSL?
"Then measure 200 metres from this CCL toward land"
OK you said it, just like the expert witness said it.
Problem is that when the judge asked for it to be done nobody could do it.
So lets see you or anyone else show us to do this measurement.
If it is the written law as you claim, then go do it.
We are still waiting for somebody to go do this measurement.
The judges only need look the written audit trail.
1.200m from MSL was originally written into issue 9 for Pattaya.(as it was for everywhere else)
2.The meeting minutes then recored the 200m value was removed as it was "understood".
No argument.
Only the tea money has a problem with this.
The thai judges are not stupid.
They know that vt7 is in the wrong in that its permit was issued in contravention of issue 9.
They understand the consequences of their decision.
The decision is already silently made, the only question surrounds the timing of their announcement to minimise collateral damage,that is why this whole case is still being allowed to go on to reach that point.
"The judges only need look the written audit trail.
1.200m from MSL was originally written into issue 9 for Pattaya.(as it was for everywhere else)
2.The meeting minutes then recored the 200m value was removed as it was "understood".
No argument.
Only the tea money has a problem with this."
Please make some sense. The Thai judges did look at the audit trail and they also understand Issue 9 now. Sorry stopVT7.
""Then measure 200 metres from this CCL toward land"
OK you said it, just like the expert witness said it.
Problem is that when the judge asked for it to be done nobody could do it.
So lets see you or anyone else show us to do this measurement.
If it is the written law as you claim, then go do it.
We are still waiting for somebody to go do this measurement."
I guess math is not your strong point. The Thai surveyors know how to survey. It is written in the bangkok engineering report. Measuring 200 metres from the CCL is the same as measuring 100 metres from the MSL. My 8 year old son understands this. The survey was witnessed by the stopVT7 group. The judge understands Issue 9 and his decision was re-affirmed by the Supreme Court.
"Is issue 9 not about 200 meter from MSL?"
No. 200 metres from CCL.
As I understand, that MSL is further into the sea than CCL.
Is that Right or wrong?
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 sho
Due to this explanation I understand that the MSL and CCL are the same . Why someone first have to go 100 meter into the sea. The CCL is not into the sea but on the land . Please tell mr if I am wrong !
The expert witness claim you measure from MSL at the CCL into the sea 100 meters to the Construction Control (map) Boundary. What happen in court was Stopvt7 lawyers agreed with the witness report. It was a big surprise and shock to the Stopvt7 group. They were fired!
So if anyone took tea money it was Asia LawWorks lawyers?
Read The “Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning, summarizing that, to fix the coast line (seashore) at Mean Sea Level, the measurement must be started at the point of 0.00 meters of the Mean Sea Level. When the measurement is made 100 meters outward to the sea, then it will be the Construction Control Boundary (the map boundary-line) that shown on the Annexed Map ……………………..then made another 100 meters from the aforesaid point into the land, then it will be the distance of 200 meters of the Construction Control Boundary…”
Where in Issue 9 does it say to measure to a boundary-line on the map? That why the court is having it first “enquirer hearing of facts”.
The judges are acting fairly.
"Where in Issue 9 does it say to measure to a boundary-line on the map? That why the court is having it first “enquirer hearing of facts”. "
Very simple. Issue 9 says measure 200 metres from CCL as shown on the map. The CCL and MSL map lines, scales, labels, etc. are those of the maps maker.
There is a hearing stopVT7 because you filed court papers at the court's request. Best you check with your lawyer and get a good translation because your understandings and interpretations have been SO wrong in the past.
The Anonymous person above can’t tell the different between CCL at the seashore and the boundary-line on the map.
The court will figure out the difference now the stopvt7 group has a good lawyer team and can bring in map experts.
to fix the coast line (seashore) at Mean Sea Level, the measurement must be started at the point of 0.00 meters of the Mean Sea Level. When the measurement is made 100 meters outward to the sea, then it will be the Construction Control Boundary (the map boundary-line) that shown on the Annexed Map ……………………..then made another 100 meters from the aforesaid point into the land, then it will be the distance of 200 meters of the Construction Control Boundary…”
Thanks for the explanation. This explain a lot to me.
So if anyone took tea money it was Asia LawWorks
I went to city hall to ask for a good lawyer they recommend me Asia LawWorks.
Now I read this I will consider to take a other Lawyer. It is so difficult to find a good lawyer . I also do not understand why a Lawyer cost more in Thailand than in Europe .
Amnat, an law partner of Asia LawWorks, ran and won a set in Pattaya City government. After agreeing with the expert witness and city hall in court which caused his firing.
Use Asia LawWorks is like playing in a pit full of snakes.
"The Anonymous person above can’t tell the different between CCL at the seashore and the boundary-line on the map.
The court will figure out the difference now the stopvt7 group has a good lawyer team and can bring in map experts."
I hope the City's lawyers get a chance to cross-exam the stopVT7 group's witness at the hearing. Let's see Mr. Witness you want to measure 200 metres from the MSL (although Issue 9 does NOT say to do that) and then there is the 100 metres out to sea as clearly shown on Issue 9 map. That's a 300 metre wide restricted construction zone. No where does Issue 9 say 300 metres or a 300 metre wide zone. Want to guess how the judge will rule?
"Measuring 200 metres from the CCL is the same as measuring 100 metres from the MSL. My 8 year old son understands this."
Oh no it is not!!!
One gets you wet feet, the other doesn't.
The law states to measure 200m from CCL, not 100m from MSL.
They may bring you out to the same point, but issue 9 is clear 200m from CCL.
A philadelphia lawyer used to say "words mean what they say".
You better believe it.
Show us where in issue 9 it says to measure 100m from MSL, you or your 8 year old?
"I hope the City's lawyers get a chance to cross-exam the stopVT7 group's witness at the hearing. Let's see Mr. Witness you want to measure 200 metres from the MSL (although Issue 9 does NOT say to do that) and then there is the 100 metres out to sea as clearly shown on Issue 9 map. That's a 300 metre wide restricted construction zone. No where does Issue 9 say 300 metres or a 300 metre wide zone. Want to guess how the judge will rule?"
LOL BS
The only people who have a problem with the correct interpretation of issue 9 are vt7 and the investors.
The only one with the problem in court will be the expert witness when he is cross examined and his fairy story falls down.
Is he really going to continue to say that issue 9 lets you build skyscrapers closer to the sea than issue 8.
BS
Bring it on!!
"The only one with the problem in court will be the expert witness when he is cross examined and his fairy story falls down."
It will be any of stopVT7 group's witness's for hire that will face cross-examination. They will have to explain why you want to measure 300 metres!
"The law states to measure 200m from CCL, not 100m from MSL.
They may bring you out to the same point, but issue 9 is clear 200m from CCL."
They are equivalent. As YOU say they bring you to the same point but if want to go boating, you go right ahead! By the way, once the MSL is established these old survey methods are out-dated. This is the age of satellite mapping and laser measurements, someday there will be fire-sale on surveyors tripods. Even stopVT7 knows how to measure and draw lines on a map!
Due to this explanation I understand that the MSL and CCL are the same . Why someone first have to go 100 meter into the sea. The CCL is not into the sea but on the land . Please tell mr if I am wrong !
Is it correct that MSL and CCL are the same line?
Who is the expert to explain ? I really like to know the real answer on this !
Even StopVT7 don’t believe his explanation any more and keeps asking the same question.
CCL, MSL and seashore or coast line is the same point on the Issue 9 map.
On Issue 8 map CCL and seashore or coast line are at the same point. On Issue 8 map the seashore is found at high tide not MSL.
This is agreed upon in the Rayon Court room!
So anyone who tries to say someone different is full on BS!
Now measure 200 meters!
Sorry vt7 investors you have more problems then being full on BS.
"CCL, MSL and seashore or coast line is the same point on the Issue 9 map.
On Issue 8 map CCL and seashore or coast line are at the same point. On Issue 8 map the seashore is found at high tide not MSL.
This is agreed upon in the Rayon Court room!
So anyone who tries to say someone different is full on BS!"
Quite on the contrary. Best read your posts on your own blog with an open mind and try to understand. What the bangkok engineers, surveyors, Rayong Court and recently confirmed by the Supreme Court is that CCL and MSL are NOT the same, despite your claim that they are same. Please read the engineering reports and court rulings. And this is not BS.
About is misinformation!
CCL, MSL and seashore ..... is the same point on the Issue 9 map.
"About is misinformation!
CCL, MSL and seashore ..... is the same point on the Issue 9 map."
You sound like a broken record. Read the Court rulings. Go to the Issue 9 map. Read. Learn. CCL and MSL are not the same. No BS.
Issue 9 set out to "expand" the construction restricted beach area over issue 8.
If you believe the expert witness, he has achieved this "expansion" by introducing a new construction restricted area in the sea (LOL), and actually reducing the previous land based construction restricted area.
He is saying you can now build closer to the sea than before.LOL.
Now who in their right minds are going to believe that!
"They are equivalent. As YOU say they bring you to the same point but if want to go boating, you go right ahead"
Now we are getting somewhere with you.
Two completely different physical actions.
The words in issue 9 say measure 200m from CCL.
So when your ready, we are waiting for you to do the measure the law says to do, not something different that just happens to take you to the same place.
Or is it just that you cannot do the expert witness untruth.
I want to know why the words "200m from MSL" that were originally in the Pattaya document were removed and replaced by the "understood" decision.
The inclusion of the "200m from MSL" words were good enough for the other thai coastal areas, so why not Pattaya??
The king court needs to launch an investigation into why this was done and the people who did it.
These people must now account for their actions at the time.
Just like Bernie Madoff, the slammer awaits them.
"If you believe the expert witness, he has achieved this "expansion" by introducing a new construction restricted area in the sea (LOL), and actually reducing the previous land based construction restricted area."
The expert witness has not introduced a new resticted construction, but Issue 9 introduced an expanded zone. Do not forget, Issue 9 is not exclusively about 14 metre high buildings. There is a long list of restrictions and 14 metre high buildngs is only one them. Issue 8 created a 100 metre wide restricted zone from the CCL and Issue 9 expanded that to 200 metres and wrote the MSL into the regulation. StopVT7's own lawyers in brief's to the Court tried to explain prohibitions against building into the sea at Nakglua market and Walking St. The Court realizes Issue 9 is an encompassing environmental regulation and is much more than just regulating high buildings.
"I want to know why the words "200m from MSL" that were originally in the Pattaya document were removed and replaced by the "understood" decision."
Because they weren't.
Today have you read “The Nation” newspaper page 6A? It’s about a Rayong Admin Court case where maps were use. From the picture it looks this this development is set back over 200 meters?
I called one of the Stopvt8 complaints and they are aware and this case and its having and effect. He said No more comments until after enquirer hearing of facts.
"The expert witness claim you measure from MSL at the CCL into the sea 100 meters to the Construction Control (map) Boundary. What happen in court was Stopvt7 lawyers agreed with the witness report. It was a big surprise and shock to the Stopvt7 group. They were fired!"
Asia LawWorks told StopVT7 what he wanted to hear and what could happen, as any lawyer would tell but he didn’t want to listen. In court, like StopVT7 said, lawyers have to be sworn, so they cannot lie and had to agree with the expert witness. There wasn’t any need to bribe the lawyer to tell the truth. And they didn’t lie for StopVT7 .
Thailand is the country of LAWS.
lawyers have to be sworn, so they cannot lie and had to agree with the expert witness.
Lawyers don't ly they only say watt their client want and if this is a ly it is a ly from the client never from the lawyer .So if the lawyer ly at the court he did not, it was watt his client told him to do in his place. As everybody knows 50% of the people in the court are lying!
I know and the lawyers know, which of 50% StopVT7 is.
I know and the lawyers know, which of 50% StopVT7 is.
It is good you don't mention your name or adres . You must be very shure to insult stopvt7, this is a crime !
Can you explain please, what exactly is my crime? I thought knowing something isn’t a crime. Obviously I didn’t know enough. You seem to know a lot if you get so upset.
Learn to read or consult your underage kid, if you have any. That’s what StopVT7 supporters do. Act on their 8 year old kid’s opinions.
How could you believe StopVT7 or his supporters, who cannot read and write, make the wrong assumptions and come to wrong conclusion?
All I ever said was, "I know and the lawyers know, which of 50% StopVT7 is. He is in the 50% of people in the court, who are not lying." I have removed the last sentence because it was well understood.
Hear a piece of BS!! “Lawyers don't ly they only say watt their client want and if this is a ly it is a ly from the client never from the lawyer”
I was told by people in court that Amnat and Markus Klemm of Asian LawWorks file a court Thai document at the hearing and asked no question of the expert witness. In this document the group leaned after the hearing of Asian LawWorks traitor action.
The Stopvt7 group had meeting for several days with Asian LawWorks and all clear understood the problem with the expert witness report he could be torn apart in questioning at the Rayong hearing by using the map and written law.
It been said VT7 investors do not know or care to understand the truth. They blindly follow VT7 like others follow Bernie Madoff. They only woke up after losing their investment,
He is in the 50% of people in the court, who are not lying." I have removed the last sentence because it was well understood.
Now it is clear! By the way I am not a investor of VT& and I do not own jomtien complex. I only follow this Forum and can see that not many people really understand Issue 8 or 9 . They do not want to understand because both sides are afraid of losing and that's why they interprete issue 8 or 9 on their own way!
If you fly above Jomtien shoreline it is very strange that vt7 is so close to the sea in that area.
You only see buildings closer to the sea at Pratumnua but they are all closer to the sea at nthe same level . In Jomtien Dongtan VT7 building is a real ecception .
The previous post is nonsense.
Have a look at The Adriatic Palace Hotel and condos on Dong Tarn and you'll see they're virtually built on the beach.
"The previous post is nonsense.
Have a look at The Adriatic Palace Hotel and condos on Dong Tarn and you'll see they're virtually built on the beach."
Very true and there are other buildings too.
I read that stopVT7 group's restricted area is 300 metres wide. I thought the law said 200 metres.
Today’s The Nation newspaper article
Yes, the picture shows the buildings at 200 meter set back from the seashore. The paper talks about maps and the environment.
Is this other court case why the court ordered an enquirer hearing of facts?
"I read that stopVT7 group's restricted area is 300 metres wide. I thought the law said 200 metres."
Yes you are right. The distance from the MSL to the CCL is 100 metres as shown on the map and as part of the Rayong and Supreme Court record. StopVT7 groups say measure another 200 metres from the MSL landward. 100 + 200 = 300. Let's here how stopVT7's hired witness explains that one! (lol)
The above Anonymous Obama
Go spill your BS somewhere else!!
I believe many writhers never been at vt7 building! If they where there, they can see very well how close vt7 is to the sea, not over 100 meter. if it have to move 200 meter more it would be nice just behind JCC, I read somewhere that JCC is 200 meter from CCL . 24 March is comming soon.
"The above Anonymous Obama
Go spill your BS somewhere else!!"
Actually that poster makes good sense. Looks like he can add too.
Only 8 day's left!
"The Court realizes Issue 9 is an encompassing environmental regulation and is much more than just regulating high buildings"
But in this case it is the high building which is the issue.
And the expert witness is saying you can build high building closer to the sea under issue 9 than before under issue 8.
So explain the environmental benefits of that .
"Yes you are right. The distance from the MSL to the CCL is 100 metres as shown on the map and as part of the Rayong and Supreme Court record. StopVT7 groups say measure another 200 metres from the MSL landward. 100 + 200 = 300. Let's here how stopVT7's hired witness explains that one! (lol)"
BS.
Clearly no understanding of issue 9.
Issue 9 says to do one activity, ie measure 200m to land from MSL.
vt7 expert witness says to do 2 activities,
first measure 100m into the sea from MSL, and second measure 100m to land from MSL.
Where in issue 9 it says to do 2 measures??
Where in issue 9 it says to do 2 measures??
NO WHERE!
Where in issue 9 it says to do 2 measures??
It doesn't have to say that, becouse it's well understood.
"It doesn't have to say that, because it's well understood."
What a joke! Because I have been in these court hearing and nothing understood! Both sides argue their case to the judge!
Issue 9 said to measure 200 meters from the seashore which is found at MSL on the map.
Nothing can be added which is not stated in writing in Issue 9!
Issue 9 said to measure 200 meters from the seashore which is found at MSL on the map.
Nothing can be added which is not stated in writing in Issue 9!
And thats it, be shure of that! If I was the expert whitnes I would use my glasses very well .
Maybe he was doing the olympics 200 meter in two times, the result is always less and less is better for the olympics.
STopVT7 posted on his blog:
"More about this hearing will be post at a later date after we receive the English translation."
Have you posted the translation yet?
200 meter is 200 meter !
"200 meter is 200 meter !"
Yes, it's not 300m.
"200 meter is 200 meter !"
"Yes, it's not 300m."
Agreed !
Its not 300m, only 200m.
200m to there.
Not 100m to here and 100m to there.
Its not 300m, only 200m.
200m to there.
Not 100m to here and 100m to there.
And the lawyer have agreed that VT7 is only 100 meter from CCL !
read the documents carefully again. VT7 Is noway 200 meter from CCL . Even before down the thrue will get tru!
Yes, you measure 200 meter from CCL found on the map at the seashore or MSL unto the land.
“It is consequently necessary to interpret the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) Clause 3 prescribing the area within 200 meters ….. is the extension of construction control line in accordance with Clause 3 (1) – (8) from the sea toward the land from 100 meters to 200 meters. The 100 meters of construction control extended in the map annex to the Royal Decree B.E. 2521 has not been prescribed in any Ministerial Regulation to control building construction in the sea.
”Consequently, the 8 Litigants would kindly ask the Court to revoke the Construction Permit”
the 8 Litigants would kindly ask the Court to revoke the Construction Permit”
And this in favour of the future of Thailand beaches!Now its up to the court to respect the law of the King. MANY INVESTORS ARE FOLLOWING THIS CASE AND THEY WILL ONLY FEEL SAFE IF THEY KNOW THAT THEIR INVESTMENT IS SAFE CONFIRM THE THAI LAW!
So, who's your lawyer these days?? (A vital question I don't hear anyone asking.)
Only 5 day's left before court hearing!
What you gona do after the hearing, cause you your case is lost already. Leave Thailand.
There are 8 rich farangs, they couldn’t even find 10 as law required, who don’t agree with Thai law, which have been implemented for over 20 years. For the benefit of saving their sew view they trying to change the law and put the future of 50 or so buildings in danger. Those people don’t care about anything but their sew view. They want to pull down all the buildings and make hardship to their owners. In the letter to the court they treating the judges like 5 year old kids telling them what the words mean, how they are interpreted, what judges should think and what decision to make. These farangs think they are above the law. They have disrespect to Thai law, people who settled down in Thailand and bought condos, which now all could be destroyed and have disrespect to our beloved King. All for the benefits of saving the sea view of some rich farangs. These 8 people should be thrown out of Thailand, never allowed back and all their asset confiscated.
What a load of twaddle
Just to set the record straight
There are a handfull of buildings built contrary to the law. The majority of this handful begin with the letter V
Perhaps that brings into perspective who has been bending (breaking) the law and it ain't JCC
StopVT and the JCC team have NO intention MOTHING NADDA with the other buildings.
It is up to the affected condos who have had their views tresspassed to bring their own conditions to court if they wish - starting with VT5 I presume
If this sets a precedent then so be it then the 50 nay dozens of condos legally built will be able to ensure their views and justice will be done
The precedent has already been set, about 30 years ago, 20 years before View Talay company was known. If StopVT7 didn’t like the development in Jomtien, Pattaya and Naklua, he shouldn’t settle here. And now he wants to put all these buildings in danger, make people homeless, just to save his seaview. The half rounded building, next to JCC complex, built about 30 years ago, won’t be legal if StopVT7 has its way. He sees this building every day. Where was his brain when he bought into JCC. Thai beach is not only for rich and selfish farang like StopVT7. And now he claims in court, that the building next to his apartment upset his mood. Go back where you come from, before they throw you out.
Don't worry your little cotton socks
There is a five year threshold after completion of a project to submit an appeal
The only people who will be made "Homeless" are VT7 investors. I am sure they have another home to go to. I don't see VT7 owners sleeping on the beach waiting for completion LOL
Thai beaches are for thai people and their kids to enjoy.
They are not for rich farang investors to build skyscrapers where they want for tea money.
Sure the judges will protect the beaches for the future generation of thai families and their kids.
Pattaya corruption is now finished.Thanks to vt7 investors for this good for thai.
These farangs think they are above the law.
No no you are wrong! The figure of Farangs that think that they are above the law is at least 90%.
Those who remember the old day's know very well who have learned the Thai people how to ....... thanks to those Farangs that are not welcome in their own country !
Who learn the Thai to bend the law? Who, ..... Farangs !
Who agree to keep Illegal buildings ..... yes ...... Farangs. Who don't care about the law? Yes ..... Farangs!
Try to fill in for yourself if you can and know watt it means.
Are you among the 8 people who filled the court case? If yes I understand why you think you can win. How the court can protect the beaches for the future generation if you say that it’s legal to build a high rise building on the beach, as long as it is beyond 200. going into the land. Anyway your logic is wrong. No wonder, many of you consult your five or six years old kids to give them an opinion.
Judges are not kids and won’t be bullied by some rich farangs, who want to protect their 180 degree view regardless of the consequences.
By the way if you not among 8 people, why you haven’t joined them. They needed 10. As I see it, only 8 people believe in StopVT7.
“There is a five year threshold after completion of a project to submit an appeal”
There is no threshold. The threshold means the same as the legal permit. You find somebody like StopVT7, who try to twist and change the law.
Anyway your kid’s logic won’t help you. Just wait and accept the verdict as it won’t be what you hope for.
“There is a five year threshold after completion of a project to submit an appeal”
You are wrong ! Everybody can complain in City hall during 10 years! If you think a permit is wrong , city hall will give you 10 years. Start from the building permit first day.
If in this 10 year a investigate show that something is wrong or Illegal, they can revoke the building permit by the supreme court!
Somebody on this forum allready stated that in Jomtien a building have received 8 years ago a legal building permit.Now 8 years later some investigation shows that the building permit was not clearly and legaly given, this case is now in the supreme court of Rayong.
it won’t be what you hope for.
And wat is your hope?
I hope that the rumors of these 8 people to be kicked out of Thailand is true.
Yawn
Just go back to sleep. You wouldn't understand it anyway.
I hope that the rumors of these 8 people to be kicked out of Thailand is true.
I believe that you are a very bad person with a very bad behaviour . You belong to the 90% that is not welcome in their own country . It sounds like you have been registered ever before! Keep the peace where the peace is . Keep the rubisch wear the rubisch is ( Its in your mind). By not showing respect for people who fights for their rights, you have lowered yourself to the level of garbich.
Give up your childish psychology. It’s completely wrong. By offending people you lower yourself to the idiot. Don’t classify people, who are more intelligent than you and whom you cannot understand as bad people. I have nothing against half-witted people like you. It’s not your fault.
If you are completely wrong about me, you can be very wrong about StopVT7. He is selfish, arrogant and the bully. Under the pretext of saving the beaches he is fighting to save his view. He doesn’t care about anything else. For years he has seen developments around the beaches and done nothing. He is a hypocrite. It’s my opinion. And if you don’t agree with me it doesn’t make me a bad person. But that might be a bit difficult to comprehend for you.
I learn some of your childish psychology.
I believe you are very naïve person, who believes every BS he hears. You probably have done nothing significant in your life. The only way you can get sex is to pay for that. How is that. Have I lower myself enough to your level?
you can be very wrong about StopVT7. He is selfish, arrogant and the bully.
Did you ever talk with stopvt7? Do you really know him?
Have you ever talked to Hitler. Good. He could have change your mind.
To stopvt7:
who's your lawyer? who's your lawyer? who's your lawyer?
To stopvt7, from hapless JCC owners:
Who's our lawyer? Who's our lawyer? Who's our lawyer??????????
SO: Who be JCC lawyer??
"Give up your childish psychology. It’s completely wrong. By offending people you lower yourself to the idiot. Don’t classify people, who are more intelligent than you and whom you cannot understand as bad people. I have nothing against half-witted people like you. It’s not your fault.
If you are completely wrong about me, you can be very wrong about StopVT7. He is selfish, arrogant and the bully. Under the pretext of saving the beaches he is fighting to save his view. He doesn’t care about anything else. For years he has seen developments around the beaches and done nothing. He is a hypocrite. It’s my opinion. And if you don’t agree with me it doesn’t make me a bad person. But that might be a bit difficult to comprehend for you."
What an idiot.
You dont even understand issue 9.
Next time let your 5 year olds have a go.
Might get more sense then.
LOL
"Are you among the 8 people who filled the court case? If yes I understand why you think you can win. How the court can protect the beaches for the future generation if you say that it’s legal to build a high rise building on the beach, as long as it is beyond 200. going into the land. Anyway your logic is wrong. No wonder, many of you consult your five or six years old kids to give them an opinion.
Judges are not kids and won’t be bullied by some rich farangs, who want to protect their 180 degree view regardless of the consequences.
By the way if you not among 8 people, why you haven’t joined them. They needed 10. As I see it, only 8 people believe in StopVT7."
What a dork you are.
Where have you been for the last 3 years.
Paying for your sex on the boybeach I bet.
"What a dork you are.
Where have you been for the last 3 years.
Paying for your sex on the boybeach I bet."
Another dickhead from StopVT7 supporters.
What a dork you are.
Where have you been for the last 3 years.
Paying for your sex on the boybeach I bet."
Another dickhead from StopVT7 supporters.
The true hurts!
Still asking:
WHO IS YOUR LAWYER, STOPVT7?
STILL ASKING: Who is our lawyer?
signed,
(JCC owner paying the bills)
"What a dork you are.
Where have you been for the last 3 years.
Paying for your sex on the boybeach I bet."
Another dickhead from StopVT7 supporters.
The true hurts!"
You are a dickhead, it's true and it doesn't hurt me.
If you ever finish slanging each other off, can we get an answer:
WHO IS THE LAWYER???????????????
"If you ever finish slanging each other off, can we get an answer:
WHO IS THE LAWYER???????????????
20 March, 2009"
Don't tell the vt7 investor supporters anything.
Don't give them the slightest leeway.
Keep them guessing.
Keep your words for the expert witness in court.
"What a dork you are.
Where have you been for the last 3 years.
Paying for your sex on the boybeach I bet."
Another dickhead from StopVT7 supporters.
The true hurts!"
You are a dickhead, it's true and it doesn't hurt me.
Go play with your 5 year old beachboy you dork.
Pay him for the sex.
You are a dickhead, it's true and it doesn't hurt me.
You sounds very frustrated to me!
It is almost the 24 th, try to relax.
""If you ever finish slanging each other off, can we get an answer:
WHO IS THE LAWYER???????????????
20 March, 2009"
================================
You'll never know. Just a couple of names on recent court documents stopVT7 had filed but who knows how much he had to pay these lawyers to take his case. Rember it's not his money he is playing with. Mr. Surachai Trong-ngam the noted environmental lawyer appears out of the case. Maybe he told stopVT7 the truth, he has no case, or maybe stopVT& accused him like he did ALW? STopVT7 has removed postings from his blog that are unfavorable to his case, yet he complains about censorship. The stopVT7 case is obviously in shambles.
Even a blind man can see that VT7 is to close to the beach! So wats the point?
"keep them guessing"
Like the vt7 lawyers & interested parties have no idea who JCC lawyers are?? What the hell is your game?
There can be no possible harm in divulging to this site and to the JCC owners the name of the lawyer they're paying for.
WHO IS THE LAWYER?
"Even a blind man can see that VT7 is to close to the beach! So wats the point?"
How close is to close. Can you please be more specific.
Jomtien p\Plaza Condotel is by law 20 metre to close to the Sea!
I guess that VT7 is even closer to the sea than Jomtien Plaza Condotel ,that's why even a blind man can see that VT7 is less than the 200 meter requiered by law.
After reviewing you documents I found this fact. The construction control line (CCL) on the map is found at the location of arrow on the map at “coastline at MSL”. When making the measurement using the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 and its map you measure 200 meter unto the land from the construction control line (CCL) found on the map at the coastline. This 200 meter area from MSL at the coastline onto the land prohibits construction of building over 14 meters.
The law clearly on stoptVT side!
Can the judge understand is another question?
“WHO IS THE LAWYER?”
Hey stupid read the blog court posting. It give stopvt lawyers name.
The idiot needs to look at the documents before he shows off his stupidity
Can the judge understand is another question?
Can he?
We will know after 24 march!
“WHO IS THE LAWYER?” Stupid can you read?
The Approved Persons of the 8 Litigants: Miss Jeerisumai Na. Nongkai, Miss Patjama Plagaid, Mr. Teerapan Pankiri, Mr. Surachai Trong-ngam
Also for your info the 2nd Plaintiff (vt7) lawyer is Mr. Preecha Techamuanwaiwit
Four against one dose not look far! Except the one has vt7 investor money paying his bills and hold tea parties!
What you should be wearing about is if the litigants have expert witnesses.
StopVT7 wrote, "The Approved Persons of the 8 Litigants: Miss Jeerisumai Na. Nongkai, Miss Patjama Plagaid, Mr. Teerapan Pankiri, Mr. Surachai Trong-ngam
Also for your info the 2nd Plaintiff (vt7) lawyer is Mr. Preecha Techamuanwaiwit
Four against one dose not look far! Except the one has vt7 investor money paying his bills and hold tea parties!
What you should be wearing about is if the litigants have expert witnesses."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From a recent stopVT7 posting on February 23, 2209: "....The Undersigned, Miss Pachjama Palakes and/or Miss Jirisumai Na Nhongkai, resided at No. 505/12 Ramkhamhaeng Road, Soi Ramkhamhaeng 39 (Thepleela 1) Khwang Wang Thong Lang, Khet Wang Thong Lang, Bangkok, are the legal representatives from of the ligitants,....". So Mr Surachai Trong-ngam, the noted Thai envionmental lawyer, is no longer on the case. Also, it will be intersesting to hear how any "hired" stopVT7 witness explains his 300 metre measurement or 300 metre wide restricted construction zone. Remember the Rayong and Supreme Court record shows a 200 metre wide restricted construction zone as shown on the annexed map and VT7 is outside of this zone. In effect, stopVT7 wants a 300 metre zone. Where does Issue 9 say anything about 300 metres?
"If it had been a snake it would have bitten me." Thank you for pointing out my idiocy and general stupidity in your inimitable fashion.
Thank you also for finally highlighting the information I was going for which is that the environmental warrior-lawyer, Khun Surachai, IS NO LONGER ON THE CASE. Be interesting to know the date and circs of Khun Surachai's separation from the case.
Remember the Rayong and Supreme Court record shows a 200 metre wide restricted construction zone as shown on the annexed map and VT7 is outside of this zone. In effect, stopVT7 wants a 300 metre zone
Thus this means that Grand Condo , Jomtien condotel, Jomtien Plaza and many more are in BIG DANGER that they are 300 meter from the restricted zone! oh oh I think those owners might have many sleeples nights, if, VT7 is indeed 200 meter, or as you say, 300 meter from CCL. I hear that somebody wanted to build in front of Jomtien Plaza Condotel but that the owners have stopped him . But If you are right than they can build a high rise in front of Jomtien Plaza Condotel because just like the Grand Condotel they have a big plot in front of them and if some crazy farangs vote to build in front they can do if they build on the same line as VT7 .
Oh oh I see big changes comming to Jomtien Beach only walls of big buildings !
Will we know tomorrow the outcomme of the court? I believe that many investors want to know, so they can rust in peace about their investment and the Owners of JCC about their view end seabreeze.
Khun Surachai is still on the law team!
"Khun Surachai is still on the law team!"
His name is not on the lastest court filing.
His name is not on the lastest court filing.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Maybe he does not want to be linked to a losing case?
"Khun Surachai is still on the law team!"
He is the head of our Bangkok legal team and reviews or writes all court documents and Supreme Court appeals.
Some people draws conclusion without asking questions or reading posted documents.
May the GODS be on the good side!
"May the GODS be on the good side!"
There is no good or bad side in this case; it is all about what the law says and supported by the evidence. The courts interpret laws and the both Rayong and SC have stated VT7 is outside the 200 meter restricted construction zone. This is supported by the annexed map and independent surveys. I see nothing in the opponents arguments for the courts to reverse themselves. Hopefully the court will end this folly soon and everyone can get on with their lives.
And, the outcome is?
Why is no one showing the results of the 24 March Enquiry Hearing? For those of us not local to Pattaya, we are on the edge of our seats!!!
"Why is no one showing the results of the 24 March Enquiry Hearing? For those of us not local to Pattaya, we are on the edge of our seats!!!"
It was a hearing, don't expect some kind of ruling.
"Why is no one showing the results of the 24 March Enquiry Hearing? For those of us not local to Pattaya, we are on the edge of our seats!!!"
You can bet the house (or condo) that there was no big news today from the Rayong court otherwise there would have been a screaming big healine from stopvt7 proclaiming an
IMPORTANT WIN IN RAYONG.
I think every-one except StopVT7 has forgotten about this case. Units are selling well, the main block is almost sold out, the roof is being topped off and they're now building the pool. ANy-one who really believes this is goign to come down, dream on!
stopvt7 said...
"Khun Surachai is still on the law team!"
He is the head of our Bangkok legal team and reviews or writes all court documents and Supreme Court appeals.
Some people draws conclusion without asking questions or reading posted documents.
23 March, 2009
And some people lies thru they teeths!
"And some people lies thru they teeths!"
Yes the expert witness.
""And some people lies thru they teeths!"
Yes the expert witness."
Why is it lying when he reads what it is the Bangkok engineering report. Recall that the surveyor and report was ordered by the Rayong. The Bangkok engineering department is independent of this case. That is why the Courts believe them and not stopVT7!!
Post a Comment