Dogmatix

Stickman does appear to produce any evidence for his assertions.

In Western countries it is given to boys over the age of 9 because men get HPV related cancer of the penis and throat regardless of being straight, gay or trans.

Options to renew a 30 year lease are perfectly legal. The problem with them is that the Land Code only allows a lease of a maximum of 30 years to be recorded on the title deed and only leases that are on the title deed can be enforced by a court. That doesn't mean you can't sue the land owner for reneging on the options to renew but you cannot get a court order for the new lease to be recorded on the title deed and to evict anyone installed in the property by the land owner after the first lease has expired. But the owner could get a court order to evict you, once the first lease has expired. You could sue for financial damages though which would require an assessment of the financial damage incurred through the owner's refusal to agreed to a renewed lease at whatever price was in your agreement which may have been zero or a token amount, since all is paid upfront. That would mean suing for the cost of leasing another property for another 30 years. Other problems would be: 1) If the owner was a company, it might have gone bust or been dissolved 30 years after the original lease was signed. Even if still in existence, it might not have enough assets to pay the compensation ordered by the court and the process of enforcing seizures and auctioning seized assets is long and painful, even if you got a favorable court ruling. 2) The original owner, if an individual, may be dead and his or her heirs will not be bound by the option to renew agreement because they were not the parties who signed it. 3) The original owner, whether a company or an individual may have sold or otherwise reassigned the land. In this case the new owners are not bound by the option agreement. You can only sue the party that signed the agreement, if they still exist. So basically these options to renew, while perfectly legal, are not worth the paper they are written on and are a complete and utter con by developers, agents and lawyers.

I wonder how many get through with huge quantities stuffed in suitcases. Personal belongings must have been carried only in carry on bags. Fairly fresh weed has a very strong smell and dogs, even new trainees, would easily pick up that sort of quantity even if carefully packed up. The Thai authorities were probably tipped off anyway.

They definitely had enough to get suspended in Singapore. Lucky the Thais arrested them rather than let the Singaporeans get them.

Good luck in getting assistance from British Embassy or David Lammy. The latter is too busy figuring out how to brown nose Donald Trump after slagging him off repeatedly before he was re-elected.

That what lawyers do here. The missus took someone to court upcountry for land encroachment because they sold her their agricultural land and leased it back from her but stopped paying the rent and refused to vacate it or let the wife's new tenants work the land. She was countersued with a complete cock and bull story made up by a lawyer accusing her of being a loan shark but unsupported by any hard evidence. Luckily the judges didn't believe any of it and ordered the family to either start paying rent or vacate the land within 6 months.

Send him back to Switzerland with the dogs. I am sure Swiss police will deal with him more promptly than their useless, corrupt Thai counterparts.

Thai workers will be needed to build giant sized golden statues of Donald Trump iall over Gaza according to the blueprint I saw on video.

If you want peace and quiet the most perfect place to buy a condo is right in the middle of a red light district. I don't see how the cannabis is a problem for other residents or even how they know its there, unless they go into the units in question. Seems to be always used as an provable allegation in these condo rental accusations.

Yes. It is totally antiquated at the Land Dept with those ancient title deeds falling to pieces with many supplementary pages stapled on to accommodate loads of transfers. Lots of fraud takes place, including production of fake deeds for forest reserve land, much of it done by Land Dept officials.

RIP

There is an exact equivalent of a sole trader in Thailand. Not easy for a foreigner to do but the OP's wife could do it, if there were any advantage. Thais can just do any business, as long as it doesn't require a license, in their own name. Examples would be trading goods or operating or renting out a house or condo by the month or longer. There are licensing requirements for a hotel or guest house but this can still be done by a sole trader. You file a PND 90 tax return in your own name. Americans can operate sole trader businesses or partnerships under the Treaty of Amity and Economic Relations which allows them to operate any business structure that Thais can use but they need to apply for an alien business license. Non-Americans can theoretically get a WP as a sole trader because it is not specified in the law that the employer must be a limited company but Immigration and/or your local Labour office may not be willing to support this. Normally a limited company is the best choice, if you want a WP. Under the current Thai regime you can probably avoid filing for Thai tax on your UK business, apart from income earned from it that you remit to Thailand. Technically, if you are doing the work from Thailand, the income you earn from it is Thai taxable and you need a WP to do it. But in practical terms you wouldn't get a WP to run a sole trader business in the UK from Thailand. So it is probably better not to file for tax for work done that you don't have a WP for, as you may be creating the evidence for prosecution for working without a WP. A DTV visa should get you round the WP requirement but you would technically have to file for Thai tax on your income but you can claim double tax treaty relief on the UK tax. I think another option is just to get a spouse visa and don't mention you are working, since you are just quietly doing that at home. Then you are just liable for Thai tax on income remitted to Thailand, also subject to double tax relief.

Sounds like they only arrested them for overstaying, as they didn't catch them with any illegal dope. They will just be deported, if there is insufficient evidence against them.

The plod on the islands used to make a boat load of cash from importing and dealing in ganja. Busting their backpacker customers, shaking them down and reselling the dope. Legalisation deprived them of a hugely lucrative line. The new legit dealers who have taken away their business can't really expect the plod to get upset, if foreigners nick one jar of weed.