stopvt7

puuchaibaa I don’t know how to “PM” you. What Is PM?

I do know a good lawyer in Bangkok. He is not too expensive. But he charges travel to Pattaya.

At our condo when the co-owners elected six new committee member. After six of the seven committee members had resigned over missing 4.5 million. I reported these facts to the co-owners.

Co-owner elected 6 new members to investigate the missing money. I was the only member that remained. At the 1st committee meeting I gave every the main pages from our regulation and the condo act about committee duties. No one cared about the condo act or regulation about committee duties.

One new member said we the committee and "we can due anything we like" and "why read this?” Not one carried about duties and at the end of the meeting and all the copies were left on the table.

Then our condo lawyer talked three newly elected members into quieting. Then the new elected JPM replace the three members that quite with three that had resigned. It was a real coup and the JPM sent the fake election minutes to the land office. Also one committee menber was not even a co-owner. The land office did remove him (American) but it was never reported to the co-owners.

I went to a coup more meeting and final stop going. Nothing was done about the missing 4.5 million of co-owners fund that was missing on the financial statements.

I filed a police report and after two years nothing is finished. They have interviewed all of the people that sign the fake minute. They heard the AGM recordings of the election.

Amazing Thailand because the next year only I question committee chairmen about his coup. No one else would talk or ask questions. About how nonelected co-owners got onto the committee. Cove up was complete. 4.5 million is still missing!

But today I was told the Pattaya Persecutor Office was ordered the police to do more investigation work.

No one want an honest committee member at our condo. Their much more but you never believe!

Think of the committee as a company’s board of directors and the JPM “manager” as the company president. It operates must the same.

You never say in America the company president has too much power. Only in Pattaya to many dishonest people come to live.

Most co-owners can’t read the yearly financial statement.

Who signs checks? Is not in the condo act. The committee can make the rule because they are in charge to oversee the JPM “manager”. In our condo 3 persons are required to sign a check. They are committee members. The committee made the resolution that the bank requires before they would change signature cards.

We had 4.5 million disappear at our condo. And the co-owners set at the AGM and only one asks question. He was the only committee member that didn’t resign before the AGM. All the other committee members resigned. We had an election that replace everyone but the one person. He was the committee member that reported the missing funds.

After the election of a new committee and new JPM, the new JPM registered most of the old unelected member back unto the committee. They took over as in a coup and nothing was done about the 4.5 million.

The registering of fake AGM election minutes were reported to the co-owners nothing was done at the next years AGM. It was reported to the police and they been investigating for 3 years.

Maybe this is why they call Thailand Amazing?

As I see it. To remove the “manager” (or JPM) requires 25% of the total co-owners votes. I know because we had a recall resolution and the manager keep his job. Even after the majority voting voted to remove him. But it was not 25% of all the co-owners combined. This is very deficit. Most condo can’t get 30% of the co-owners to come to an annual meeting.

The “manager” in the condo act is the same as JPM. But co-owners can contract "manager" duties to a management company. This take a resolution to your condo regulation and the management company duties needs to be written out in the regulation. The management company can be consoles as contract specifies.

As “Section 49 A resolution on any of the following matters shall have not less than one-fourth of the votes of the total number of the votes of all the co-owners combined: (1) the appointment or dismissal of the Manager; (2) the prescription of the activities that the Manager is empowered to impose on other persons to carry out on his behalf.”

You must read your codo regulation for the answere. Or is some cases it is in the old AGM minutes at the land office.

I'm shocked on how some think you can just ignore Supreme Administrative Court orders! That they are above the laws and Thai courts?

Let me remaind you that Thailand is a country of laws and they have a new court system which is the Administrative Courts. People, do not be fooled by your preadjusted thinking about Thailand justice! Our group have Thai supporter and some our high in Thai goverment.

Thier people who moderator this blog which are telling me to cool my free speach rights while post in Thailand. This is shoching because they are frangs who belive they have rights over other free speech liveing in Thailand!

I know what this is about and do not be surprised if I'm block from posting in the future!!

The Thailand constitution is for the free speech! The Thai constitution grants this right of free speech to farangs.

PS: In the next few days I be posting a Court document on our Blog at:

Dear Guderian

Your statement: “There is no salvage value worth talking about, and I don't see VT paying for it, no matter what the court orders.”

You must be limited in your knowledge? Their are large amounts of aluminum, steel and plastic and in today markets their more salvage value then labor to tear VT7 down. Then the land in worth millions of dollars.

Then the court orders the building to be torn down to 14 meters. don't weary the money setting at the building sight to do it.

Now we just wait for the Supreme Administrative Court order. .

Dear SmartFarang

Their was never a plan for a Amusement Park!

VT5 has built building “C’ and “D” . The plans call for VT to building VT5 building “A” and “B” on the land in question. The same old Russian style boxes! Sorry, no offence to the Russians because they have much better taste then VT in buildings design.

Dear plasticpig

What part of “VT7 will be torn down to 14 meters” do you not understand?

Issue 9, the map or drafting minutes you don't understand? They all are very clear!

We trust the Supreme Administrative Court will make a clear decision which even you will understand.

Dear Guderian

Your statement:”what the alternatives really are now? If the courts eventually found against VT, would they really go to the enormous expense of demolishing VT7"

When the Supreme Administrative Court SAC upholds Issue 9. That you measure onto the land 200 meter from MSL, As it is explained in the drafting meeting minutes. The only alternative for the court is to order the building to be returned to 14 meter height. Their more then ought in salvage value to tear the VT7 building down.

It was not nice of Rayong to fool with the SAC and their previous below decision!

“Nevertheless, where No. 3 (8) under the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 prescribed that the 200 meter line measured from the construction control line shown in the map .................. on the seaside shall be restricted from constructing of any building exceeding 14 meter high from road surface. Therefore, if the Construction Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2006 granted by the Defendant No. 1 to the Defendant No. 2 should appear to be unlawful against the Ministerial Regulation thereto as being claimed by the ten plaintiffs, the Court of First Instance should have sentenced this point of being unlawful, i.e. the judgment shall be focused on the permission of construction the building exceeding height limit by the Defendant No. 2. Whilst the Administrative Court of First Instance ordered the provisional measure to cease construction before judgment, the building’s base rocks were built, the construction did not reach the height limit of 14 meter above the road surface. Where the Administrative Court of First Instance issued the order of provisional measure to effect temporary protection by ceasing the entire construction is, therefore, in excess of what reasonable under the circumstances.

The Supreme Court, therefore, gives an order to amend the order of the Administrative Court of First Instance. That the Defendant No. 2 shall cease the construction performed, under the Work Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2007, on the part exceeding 14 meter height. On a temporary basis until the Court has ordered otherwise.

Mr. Vorapoj Visarutpich

Judge of Supreme Administrative Court

Sorry VT7 investors but you have been warn and you just ignore the law. VT7 will be torn down to 14 meters!

Thailand is a country of laws!

Dear ThaiBob OldLover

Your comment (pouring cement unevenly) or form the news article “however when cement was placed on the second floor of the construction, it was not evenly spread and the weight is thought to have collapsed the structure”. Is a bunch a BS!

I sent my summer and vacation from the age of 16 working in construction and at a concrete plants. They are pouring this concrete so wet that the “slump” is so high it flows like water. It can not pile up enough to cause a collapse. So don’t try to BS use about the collapse.

Also, today after work stared, at 8:55 AM a large tuck came to VT7 building sight carrying about 30 plus workers. I bet it came from their other construction sight which was close for 30 days?

ThaiBob OldLover you need to get back on subject!

Dear OhdLover / ThaiBob

Your statement “The V in VT stands for viagra.” Viagra wears off and then the erection falls.

In this case the Admin Supreme Court will knock VT erection to 14 meters!

To keep you updated about our lawyer Surachai Trong-ngam read the below Bangkok post articles. In my conversation with Khun Surachai he said it seldom a lawyer has such a clear legal case as in write our appeal. The Thai regulation Issue 9 is very clear written.

We wait for the SAC decision.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/170808_News/17Aug2008_news08.php

Sunday August 17, 2008

Call to restrictlead mining in Kanchanaburi

Mining farm stares at another defeat

By Piyarach Chongcharoen

Environmental activists in Kanchanaburi said it was time the authorities used the Klity lead contamination case as a lesson to strictly control and regulate lead mining in the province. Following the Appeal Court's ruling on Thursday that the cash compensation being offered to eight residents of Lower Klity village who had suffered from lead poisoning be raised to 29.55 million baht, Pinan Chotirotseranee, chairwoman of the Kanchanaburi Conservation Group, said the Klity disaster has shown people how badly mining operations can impact on the environment and humans.

In the past, officials have always tried to protect the interests of miners and failed to compel them to comply with environmental regulations.

Mrs Pinan said authorities recently allowed another lead concentration firm, Kanchanaburi Exploration and Mining Co (Kemco), to continue its operations close to the Lead Concentrate Co's mine, which was ordered closed after the discovery of the Klity creek contamination.

Kemco has been contracted to extract over 60,000 tonnes of lead in one and a half years' time, or by April 3, 2009, said Mrs Pinan.

Allowing Kemco to continue with lead extraction in the area would only lead to the spillage of more lead into Klity creek, inevitably affecting people living downstream, she said.

For this reason, she called on concerned agencies not to extend Kemco's licence. If the mining activities are stopped, the forest around the mine would also recover from the contamination.

Right now, apart from the 14,989 tonnes of lead sediment in Klity creek, a forest area covering almost a hundred rai behind Kemco is also covered with lead sediment.

Klity residents have described the area as a ''lead sea''.

Surachai Trongngam, a lawyer from the Environmental Law for the Wants (EnLaw), noted that the Kanchanaburi Appeal Court's verdict marked a major development in the consideration of environmental cases by Thai courts.

The court based its ruling on financial damage, opportunity loss, and the health of pollution victims.

The court raised the compensation of each of the eight residents to between three and 3.8 million baht.

Surapong Kongchantuk, director of the Karen Studies and Development Centre, said after the ruling that Lead Concentrates (Thailand) Co will have to toughen its defence in court in another case involving 151 other affected residents who are demanding over one billion baht in compensation from the company, if it hopes to win the case.

Mr Surapong said taking legal action against violators of environmental laws would help improve environmental conditions in the country, as it would set a precedent for other investors.

******************************

http://www.bangkokpost.com/topstories/tops...s.php?id=122272

Residents file pollution complaint with court

JAKKRIT CHAIYARIN

Rayong _ Residents of Map Ta Phut have filed a complaint with the provincial administrative court against Deputy Prime Minister and Industry Minister Kosit Panpiemras and the National Environment Board for failing to declare Map Ta Phut a pollution control area.

In their complaint lodged on Monday, 27 representatives of people living in 11 pollution-affected communities accused the NEB and Mr Kosit, the board chairman, of negligence of duty.

Declaring the tambon a pollution control zone would require the government to contribute more resources to solving pollution problems in the area.

Surachai Trongngam, who led the residents group and represents the Environmental Law Centre, an independent law group, said the complaint was lodged to protect the rights of residents who were exposed to toxic chemicals released from factories in Map Ta Phut.

The group asked the court to inquire whether the agencies responsible had taken any steps to tackle the pollution, as they were required to do by law.

He was confident that evidence submitted to the court showed that the NEB and Mr Kosit were negligent in their duties.

''Our main evidence is the results of scientific inquiries and recommendations from the Pollution Control Department, which state clearly that Map Ta Phut areas have pollution problems, particularly air pollution,'' he said.

The department had forwarded its recommendations to the Natural Resources and Environment Ministry, which had agreed that Map Ta Phut should be declared a pollution control zone, he said.

''The ministry later handed the recommendations to the NEB.

''However, the NEB resolved on Jan 11 this year not to declare the area a pollution-control zone as recommended,'' said Mr Surachai.

The representatives submitted to the court the findings of a study by the National Cancer Institute, which found the incidence of respiratory disease and lung cancer in the Map Ta Phut area was significantly higher than in other areas in the country.

Suthi Atchasai, coordinator of the Eastern People Network, said a number of residents of Map Ta Phut suffer from respiratory ailments and cancer, but their plight had been ignored.

Our appeal is an environmental legal question at the Supreme Admin Court!

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/post-a62618-...d-compair-v2-En

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/post-a62769-

ThaiBob

Your statement "Does it take a rocket scientist to understand the term mean sea level and that VT7 is only a hundred meters from MSL?" Yes, everyone is in agreement on this point (actually about 103 meters).”

But, Issue 9 states "to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore (at the sea shore is found on Issue 9 map at MSL) that building of the following types are not permitted for construction"

Read the map: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/post-a62623-

Also ThaiBob

Your statement: Do you think the SC will overturn its lower Court and throw a Court ordered report and survey from an unbiased source out the window?

Yes! They done it before. Read the ending on the first Admin Supreme Court decision.

http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/search?updated...p;max-results=7

The court said: “Nevertheless, where No. 3 (8) under the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 prescribed that the 200 meter line measured from the construction control line shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree promulgating the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 governing Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klue and Tambol Nhong Prue of Ampur Bang Lamung Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 on the seaside shall be restricted from constructing of any building exceeding 14 meter high from road surface. Therefore, if the Construction Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2006 granted by the Defendant No. 1 to the Defendant No. 2 should appear to be unlawful against the Ministerial Regulation thereto as being claimed by the ten plaintiffs, the Court of First Instance should have sentenced this point of being unlawful, i.e. the judgment shall be focused on the permission of construction the building exceeding height limit by the Defendant No. 2. Whilst the Administrative Court of First Instance ordered the provisional measure to cease construction before judgment, the building’s base rocks were built, the construction did not reach the height limit of 14 meter above the road surface. Where the Administrative Court of First Instance issued the order of provisional measure to effect temporary protection by ceasing the entire construction is, therefore, in excess of what reasonable under the circumstances.

The Supreme Court, therefore, gives an order to amend the order of the Administrative Court of First Instance. That the Defendant No. 2 shall cease the construction performed, under the Work Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2007, on the part exceeding 14 meter height. On a temporary basis until the Court has ordered otherwise.

Mr. Vorapoj Visarutpich

Judge of Supreme Administrative Court”

This look like the Rayong court and the so-called expert witness report revised the Supreme Administrative Court order. Who could an expert witness report not address this SAC order? It not nice to ignore SAC decision and lower court to throw it out of the widow!!

Stop VT7 is beating his drum trying to convince us that he is worried about the beach. He is simply trying to protect his sea view. I don't blame him. On the other hand people are talking about map reading and map experts. Does it take a rocket scientist to understand the term mean sea level and that VT7 is only a hundred meters from MSL? In my humble view, the court will have no choice but to declare VT7 illegal. Will VT7 be knocked down? I seriously doubt it. This may drag out for years until the project is finished and people will eventually just give up and forget it.

The Thai must use "mean sea level" in a completely different way than it is used in English terms. MSL is a vertical measurement not a horizontal one.

Wikipedia states: MSL means the "still water level"—the level of the sea with motions such as wind waves averaged out—averaged over a period of time such that changes in sea level, e.g., due to the tides, also get averaged out. One measures the values of MSL in respect to the land. (The level {heigth} of the land).

I can only quess that they refer to the "shoreline" when the sea is at it average level.

Is Loei as beautiful as I think? and I think it is.

Here we go agin, miss informing and changing the meaning of a word and misrepresent of the facts!

mean sea level (MSL) halfway between high and low tide, used as a standard in reckoning land elevation or sea depths.

For the court accepted definition read the Mayors letter point 5 on page 3 defines "mean sea level"

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/post-a63164-

Then read Issue 9 "to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore (now found on the map at MSL) that building of the following types are not permitted for construction"

Dear ZZZ

Our appeal is at the Admin Supreme Court as of July 4. The court informed use they received our appeal and the court records on July 4 from Rayong.

We could see a decision within about 60 days? It is a estimate! Because we know this court is very busy as any one who been reading the Bangkok paper understands. The court keeps their work schedule and they do not make it public.

We have not receive any info that City hall or VT7 has response to our appeal which the court requested.

This 60 days is only a guess!

OhdLover / ThaiBob

Here where you may find the June 19 letter:

Posts: 292 Dated 2008-08-17 at 05:40:04

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Jomtien-Condo-Owners-Sue-Sea-View-t113118.html&st=2050

Khun Surachai explained to me that Issue 8 map defines the construction control line at the seashore on the map and Issue 9 map redefines the CCL at MSL.

The June 19 letter tells you to measure from MSL which the "Meeting on the Drafting of Ministerial Regulation No. 8 tells you which direction to measure.

That is you measure from MSL onto the land!

You make a measurement from a line not a Area on the maps. Adding the facts!

Below is Minutes from "Meeting on the Drafting of Ministerial Regulation No. 8

"Meeting on the Drafting of Ministerial Regulation No. 8" part of Issue 9

"Further amendment was to delete the wording "towards the shore" since the wording was clearly understood, then the following wording was used instead "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 change 100 meters to 200 meters)

"The amendments were consented by the meeting because the meeting wanted to protect the beach by controlling the construction which may impact the natural look of sea beach area"

And review :

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 (now found on the map at MSL) that building of the following types are not permitted for construction"

Issue 9 has a reason attached: "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

OhdLover / ThaiBob

I'm sure you will not be able understand the above facts or add them. Because it is above your "paid grade?"

Do you understand now why Khun Surachai said the legal facts are total in our favor.

OhdLover / ThaiBob

Here is the June 19 letter which was posted earlier.

We are looking forward to a fare decision of our appeal which point out the flaws of the so-call expert witness report.

Thailand is a country of laws and honorable ASC Judges.

OhdLover said: "So can you give the names of the corrupt people you are suggesting to exist in this case? you accuse of corruption many times, but never in the open.

Enlighten us with your knowledge/opinion."

****************************************************************

This is a honorable court! I'm sick of OhdLover / ThaiBob accusation of corruption!

You will find out that Rayong make a mistakes believing this so-called expert witness. Not all judges understand map reading. But, their was no need for this witness or this report. All they need to do was read city hall document and June 19 leter which explain why the building was issued an building permit which does not comply with Issue 8 and 9.

The Supreme Administrative Court did read Issue 9 maps before they made this statement: "Ministerial Regulation No. 9 .........................prescribed that the 200 meter line measured from the construction control line shown in the map .....................on the seaside (at MSL) ................shall be restricted from constructing of any building exceeding 14 meter high from road surface. Therefore, if the Construction Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2006 granted by the Defendant No. 1 to the Defendant No. 2 should appear to be unlawful against the Ministerial Regulation thereto as being claimed by the ten plaintiffs, the Court of First Instance should have sentenced this point of being unlawful, i.e. the judgment shall be focused on the permission of construction the building exceeding height limit by the Defendant No. 2. ..........

You do not need to read anything between the lines! Just add the facts!

Dear spacebass

Your statement "The question is does he know enough of the judges not farang claptrap".

Read this interesting article on Thailand king who palace worked very hard to set up a honest Admin Supreme Court. All the court orders I read about in the newspapers and talk about with Bangkok legal experts tell us the Admin Supreme Court is intelligent and acts honestly and correctly in their decision. We do not need to know or influence the Judges.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080821/en_af...lthpeopleroyals

Thai king world's wealthiest royal: Forbes

Thu Aug 21, 3:47 PM ET

NEW YORK (AFP) - With a fortune estimated at 35 billion dollars, Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej is the world's richest royal sovereign, and oil-rich Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan of Abu Dhabi is far back at No. 2, Forbes magazine reported Thursday.

King Bhumibol, 80 and, at 62 years on the throne the world's longest-serving head of state, pushed to the top of the richest royals list by virtue a greater transparency surrounding his fortune, Forbes said.

It said that the Crown Property Bureau, which manages most of his family's wealth, "granted unprecedented access this year, revealing vast landholdings, including 3,493 acres in Bangkok."

Forbes called it a good year for monarchies, investment-wise. "As a group, the world's 15 richest royals have increased their total wealth to 131 billion dollars, up from 95 billion last year," Forbes said on its website.

We are looking forward to a fare decision of our appeal which point out the flaws of the so-call expert witness report.

Thailand is a country of laws and honorable ASC Judges.

After AsiaLawWorks betrayed the plaintiffs, they secured the services of Khun Surachai Trong-ngam, Thailand's foremost crusading environmental attorney. He has taken on major corporations on issues of dumping, pollution, and other damage to the environment. He wins most of the time.

The plaintiffs had to convince Surchai that their crusade against View Talay concerned a crucial environmental issue -- that of over development and protection of Thai beaches. If Surchai did not think the case was about defending the enviroment, he wouldn't have taken it on. He doesn't work for anyone and any cause.

q

Dear Prospero and other

Most time it is lonely carrying on the fight! Thanks you for your support and Prospero well written question for ThaiBob!

I doubt he will answer you. Because he refuse to face factual question from our appeal, Minutes for the Drafting of Issue 8 (which is a import part of Issue 9) and the Supreme Administrative Court first order.

Liberals do not address facts. But they give you a feel good argument which they want to hear and ignore the facts!

q

I have been asked. Why I helped start the group of ten and sued city hall for issuing a questionable building permit against Issue 8 and 9. Which is Thailand’s first environment law? Because I thought the new Thai Admin Court system was made up by honorable judge. We sued because we believed in the Supreme Administrative Court. Now, the case I read about in newspaper convinces me this Supreme Court is better then I thought.

Other condition of our group was to keep the public informed!

The Bangkok Post

Today's Top Stories

Trial in absentia

“The Supreme Court ruled on Friday to proceed with the corruption trial against ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra and Khunying Potjaman in the Ratchadaphisek land case, because the couple are not required to be present for the hearing.

Mr Thaksin and his wife skipped bail last Monday and fled to Britain. The Supreme Court has issued warrants for their arrest, and prosecutors may request their extradition.

Lawyers for the couple asked the court to suspend the hearings while Mr Thaksin is out of the country. But the court struck down their request, insisting that the trial would proceed in absentia, as scheduled.

"The court considers that the defendants are still in the court's jurisdiction because the defendants had surrendered to authorities, and the court had granted them bail," chief judge Tonglor Chomngarm read.

"The court still has jurisdiction to proceed with the case and there is no reason to dismiss the case," he added. “

For the full story go to:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/topstories/tops...s.php?id=129661

Dear ThaiBob

Your statement "This project has passed Thai environmental review law. This is not about the environment." as many other of your statement it is incorrect. Vt7 since the project started been breaking the environmental impact study and their requirements. We filed protects and I was at those meets. I have a copy of VT7 impact study requirements. Bangkok office came to Pattaya and held meeting then left and told city hall to fix the problems. Then we (group of ten) suit city hall to stop VT7 using a Thai environmental law called Issue 9. Pattaya City Hall violated Issue 8 and 9, a environmental law, by giving VT7 a building permit! I have no control of a newspaper headline or the starting of this blog and it's name.

ThaiBob you never answer my questions. Like a liberal you have a dislike for facts.

Now, My question "why did they appoint a so-called expert witness?" Is this a hard question for your "rational qualitative reasoning" mind? So I tell you. To make a map locating VT7 building from MSL (or CCL) which the so-called expert witness fail to follow the court order.

What do you think Supreme Administrative Court will think of so-called expert witness report?

A. Trash!

B. Rubbish!

C. Waste of time!

D. All of the above

All of the above because "aligment of the coast line be taken at MSL" which the Supreme Administrative Court already knew.

Now they know for sure VT7 is only 102 or 103 meters from MSL (or CCL)!!

Rational reasoning tell a logical person the building permit will be taken away and the Supreme Court will order Rayong to supervises the tear down of VT7. The lower court must correct their mistake!

On 2007-04-08 stopvt7 introduced himself as Richard Haines on this site. (look it up) Therefore I didn't have reason to believe he meant to keep that private.

I did not "out" him and wouldn't do a thing like that.

Meanwhile, I am not "Lana".

My name was published in the Bangkok Post. Which surprised me. I'm not shame of my name! I wish that the old JCC committee would of done their duties. Then I would not of had to stood up with many other co-owners which started the legal action. If I did not believe the talk from the palaces office about the new Admin Court System and my research I would not stood up. But, I do not care for the intimidation and threats which been made.

Thailand a wonderful country for retirement and since I'm retired I do mind doing something for the Thailand people and their beaches. People who know me knows volunteer work is important part of my life.