stopvt7

Has anyone seen the BBC report on corruption in Thailand?

This current government could be going down? They talk about the court action aginst the government,

Dear ripley

Your Question “Who on (OLD 2006) committee voted for the return of that fund?” It was lead by Lana S. and the retired Thai colonel. The JCC committee has NO authority to act against a AGM or EGM co-owners meeting resolution or make a refund for a special legal fund. AGM or EGM co-owner meet as the authority over the elected committee. The elected committee must follow any legal co-owner voted on and passed resolution!

I was not on the committee but we have a “sunshine rule” that allows co-owners to visit JCC committee meeting. I went and ask why are they were refunding the first “legal fund”? I was told they wanted to be sure no further JCC committee would have a legal fund to spend. Does not this smells of corruption?

Rppley, you nailed know one!! At the April 2007 EGM and new legal fund resolution was passed! Which was billed to the co-owners in 2008! Have you paid ??

Dear Tammi

Yes, I been told that former lawyer Amnat is part of Pattaya City Hall Administration. I was told by Thais he was elect to the Pattaya city console.

Some say he sucking at the BIG TIT!

Dear Tammi

I think it possible for a developer to set up influence at a neighbor condos before they announce their plans to violate a neighbors rights. These developers know about Issue 9. Is it not cheaper to buy influence then to be involved in a long legal court action? In our case I think the influence came from our original JCC builders?

Their a lot of BS floating around Pattaya when it comes to Issue 8 and 9. A good examples is you measure from MSL into the sea 100 meters before you measure onto the land 100 meters. Pure BS!

Some think money bought our lawyers? All I can say is they never explained their action in court before we fired them. Or offered any apology for lying to our group or their change of opinion on Issue 9! With layers like that it makes for a bad expression of law! But we chose to go on. Many would of said you do not have a change under Thai Law and would of quite. Some did advise me maybe we should throw in the towel. I would not hear of it because Issue 9 is a very clear written regulation. We were also advise from the palace secretary to make a appeal to the Admin Supreme Court.

When I was involve in picking up our documents one of our former lawyer told use that our legal action was “still very much winnable”. He said we need a good appeal lawyer! He advise me about the feature article written in the Bangkok Post in the “OUTLOOK” section about a lawyer and I should check it out. Others advised me about the article on Mr. Surachai Trong-ngam and I already had the news paper and we were making contact. That article was wonderful timing!

Imagine our former lawyer thinks our case was still winnable after his partner lost in Rayong Admin Court!! Does that tell you something? Maybe the Admin Supreme Court is honest and not approachable?

I have a high opinion about Admin Supreme Court and their well written court orders!

Dear ripley

Lets keep the facts strait!

After the 2006 JCC committee failed to follow a special resolution passed at a September 2006 EGM (Energy General Meeting). This resolution required the committee to take legal action to stop VT7 building. The JCC committee had a approved resolution to raise 13 million bahts legal fund and to file a suit in court. They fail to act as the resolution required. After no action by the controlled JCC committee many honest committee member resigned.

Then this remaining JCC committee members voted to refunded this special September 2006 legal funds. The JCC committee has NO authority to act against a AGM or EGM co-owners meeting resolution or make a refund for a special legal fund. Read the Thai condo act!

How could this happen? A few committee member told the other members their was a “time limit of 30 days to take legal action” and it had ran out. They could not now do anything legally. They dismissed the hired lawyers 30 days after the September EGM resolution. This action by a few smelts of corruption? There is no time limit of 30 days to take a legal action.

Then a group on 10 co-owners joint together, with financial support of other co-owners, went around the JCC committee and started a legal action. Against city hall for issuing a illegal or questionable building permit to VT7.

At the EGM meeting in 2007 a new legal fund resolution was pass to pay for the group of ten co-owner’s legal action. After all, Issue 9 regulation is clearly written and city hall should of never issue a building permit to VT7 for a condo over 14 meters high. “Ripley” where wear you during at the 2007 EGM? The legal fund was not billed until 2008. This all was explained at the 2008 AGM. Why were you not listening? Why did you not ask question if you did not understand the 2007 legal fund resolution?

A question to you VT7 investors. Why would you not expect JCC condo owners to protect their sea view and Thai legal rights? When Issue 9 is so clear about no buildings over 14 meter high within 200 meters from MSL can be build. Is it because you do not respect Thai law?

I know some of you investors were not aware of Issue 9. Now you have much information about Issue 9 and our legal action. You can go to VT7 or a lawyer and ask for a refund. Your on strong legal grounds to get a refund.

We think the Supreme Admin Court has fair and honest judges and we think they clearly understand Issue 9 and how to measure from MSL (the control construction line) 200 meters. This is why they want to rule on our appeal! Our attorney think our appeal is clear and very strong because Issue 9 is very clear. Now he looking for a favorable outcome. Because the Supreme Admin Court wanted to hear our appeal!

I been out of the country and on my return I find the Thai news interesting.

Any one read the Bangkok Post today? Imagine a contractor pays a bribe! I would never of thought of a contractor paying bribes as being corruption!

http://www.bangkokpost.com/080708_News/08Jul2008_news03.php

“CORRUPTION

Tuesday July 08, 2008

Inquiry ordered into BMA bribe claims

Bangkok Governor Apirak Kosayodhin has ordered an inquiry into reports of officials allegedly taking bribes from a Japanese firm in return for being awarded a tunnel project in 2003.

Deputy City Clerk Pongsak Semsant, who was yesterday assigned by the governor to lead the inquiry, said he expected the investigation would take about a week as Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) officials had to look through all the evidence.“

Also more interesting reading “Respect for rule of law”. I wonder all the news about the Admin Court could be wearing some who think the court are corrupt.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/080708_News/08Jul2008_news20.php

“EDITORIAL

Respect for rule of law

In a dramatic coincidence, a series of simmering political cases are about to come to a head in the next three weeks. The high-profile verdicts start today. The election cases division of the Supreme Court has scheduled the announcement of a verdict in the electoral fraud case of former House speaker Yongyuth Tiyapairat. A half dozen more important cases will be in the spotlight. Then, on the last day of the month, Khunying Potjaman Shinawatra will hear the ruling in the first case to reach a verdict from the days of the Thaksin government.

The judges of the various courts will present their verdicts in these cases in a composed and dignified courtroom. It is important for all to realise - now, before the verdicts are announced - that the courts have a special place in such circumstances. They have two roles at once. The courts and their judges are vital parts of the system of checks and balances which make up any democratic system. But they also are the thoughtful section of the system. Far more than politicians, and more than the public, the judges carefully weigh all input to the case under examination.

The cases now about to reach court verdicts begin with Mr Yongyuth's today. He was accused, red-carded and found guilty by the Election Commission of dirty tricks including bribery in the general election of last Dec 23. At the Supreme Court, he is charged with bribing a kamnan in Mae Chan district of his native Chiang Rai province, to help his own election campaign and those of other candidates of the People Power party. His sister, Ms La-ong, received a yellow card.

The case is crucial to electoral procedure but its importance goes much deeper. Should the verdict go against Mr Yongyuth today - the PPP, its senior members and the government will all be at risk. Because Mr Yongyuth was a PPP executive when the alleged offences occurred, the entire party could be ordered dissolved. All executives could be barred from politics for five years.

Also coming, tomorrow, is the verdict on whether Public Health Minister Chaiya Sasomsab - an influential PPP financier - cheated by failing to declare that his wife owns more than 5% of a company. If so, he can be thrown out of the cabinet.

Due soon is the verdict in the long-running Klong Dan wastewater treatment scandal, a case with major political implications.

On July 28, the criminal division of the Supreme Court for holders of political positions will rule on whether to proceed with malfeasance charges against ex-premier Thaksin, his entire cabinet and other officials. Allegedly they broke a number of government regulations when they set up the two- and three-digit lottery. If the court accepts to hear the case, three current cabinet members will have to step down to face that music: Finance Minister Surapong Suebwonglee, Labour Minister Uraiwan Thienthong and Deputy Transport Minister Anurak Jureemart. Three days later, Mr Thaksin's wife Khunying Potjaman and her step-brother Bannapot Damapong will face the court to hear the verdict on charges of tax evasion.

There is a single duty for those who support and those who do not like the verdicts: Accept them. Rule of law is vital if democracy is to prevail. Defiance of the law - as some misguided PAD supporters attempted after being ordered to open main roads - is unacceptable. One need not agree with a court decision to accept it respectfully. In these cases and in others coming before the courts, the time for noisy disagreement is over when the judges announce their verdicts.”

One of the next question for the Admin Supreme Court is how you find reading Issue 9 you measure into the sea 100 meters before you measure onto the land? Imagine the court could look at the expert witness report as corruption?

Dear Tammi

I was convinced some of the 2006 JCC committee members were being controlled. Some on the committee only talk why thing could not be done! Much talk about co-owners could be sue if the JCC committee start a legal case against VT or our JCC developers. We were also told the co-owners could lose their condos if we took legal action. Their was a lot of BS floating around. So be aware the first thing a developer wants to do is get control of the management group and / or the committee. To stop any legal action.

That why a group of ten stood up and started the legal action in Administrative Court. One person was convinced that city hall issued a illegal building permit. So he started talking with other. They became convinced that Issue 9 protected 200 meter from the seashore where no building over 14 meters could be built. We found some a lawyers which agree and told us the law was very clear on the 200 meters and they never saw such a strong case. Who those lawyers lost their way in court you can decided?

We now have new lawyers who think we have a real strong action in the Supreme Court! We now wait for a positive decision!

I been called and asked why do I write about saving the beaches? Because, the reason for making Issue 8 regulation into a law was to protect selected Pattaya beach areas for tourism. Then Issue 8 was updated by Issue 9 to expand the protection area. So the 200 meter area came to protest the beaches and their sea view for the condo owners. Who condos were built as the regulation required.

For what ever the reason, along came some builders with city hall which action said <removed> the legal condos co-owners. Because if we clam you measure into the sea before you measure onto the land we can build 100 meters closer to the beaches. Also, we can build more condo and make more money. We can even build in front of condo whose owners were told about Issue 9 when buying their condos. The sales office told JCC buyers not to weary, because nothing over 14 meters high can be built in front of the JCC building to the beach. Or maybe it is because they not able to understand Issue 8 was updated by Issue 9 and who the law work?

If you could look at all the court document you would find a letter from VT7 builder to city hall asking for a building permit at 100 meters from MSL. But Issue 9 said 200 meters. Please read a quotation from Issue 9 “No 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line (found at MSL) see the map......... at the seaside in which the following constructions shall not be built; Building of 14 meters higher than road level.”

Some think this is what behind the Supreme Court asked to hear our appeal. The court was set up to take charge over wrongful action by government. Maybe the court thinks the law is more important then profit for a few. I think the court understands clearly the Issue 9 regulation and plans to enforce the law.

The VT7 investors need not lose with a favorable decision for us. Because VT will need to make refunds and they have very deep pockets. If not them then city hall has big pockets to make refunds and you can make a civil action in Admin Court to collect. So why do you become angry with JCC farangs? Who is protecting Pattaya beach areas for both Thai and farang tourism?

It does not matter why we filed this legal action. What really matter is Issue 9 and its map is the regulation which controls building construction. Thailand laws are for both Thais and farangs. A court win that clearly upholds Issue 9 will be good for foreign investment. So we waiting for the court issue their order.

Then we will understand who is crazy and delusional !

Dear kwonitoy

OK, I can agree that some may only care about beach directly in front of JCC!

Dear jpm76 your statement "As for the whole point of how the JCC board came to fund your expenses, personally I would argue that there was a little abuse of power (ie corruption)". This is BS!

It was a Annual General Meeting (AGM) of co-owners who voted to pay the legal expends to the co-owners how started the legal action against city hall for issuing a incorrect building permit. The JCC board or committee now check and approve the legal expends before the office pays.

jpm76, you do not understand the clear facts of Issue 9 . You chose to ignore the Judges of Supreme Administrative Court. It was very clear in their writings of August 2007 in the first decision. "Nevertheless, ........ 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 (at the MSL) shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree promulgating the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 governing ............. 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."

The Judges of Supreme Administrative Court have already heard the argument about measuring into the sea 100 meters before you measure onto the land 200 meters and VT7 was over 100 meters from MSL. Which the expert witness claimed. Which they rejected! Let me take a quotation from VT7 "Petition to The Supreme Administrative Court" dated 8th of May 2007.

"Then there had been an alteration and amendment to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 where the distance had been increased to 200 m. from the Buildings Control area as per map attached to the Act B.E. 2521 which had been extended into the sea. Therefore, the 100 m. as per the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 and the distance of 200 m. as per the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 was the same point. In accordance with the Act year B.E. 2521 the Controlled Building area shall thus be extended 100 m. further from the shoreline at MSL, the medial sea level, was at the highest point of the sea at natural high tide, the building of the plaint receiver 2 was situated about 205 m. from the Controlled Building area as per the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9."

You may read the whole VT7 petition at: http://openvt7.blogspot.com/

From one so called "crazy and delusion farang" who is not interpret the law. I can read Issue 8 and 9 and understand their meanings. Our group been encourage to follow throw with an appeal to the Admin Supreme Court. We have the most respect for this court and think they understand how to read maps. We respect the kings wisdom in setting up this new administrative court system to hear disagreements between government and the public.

The Admin Supreme Court lunch box story in the newspapers is very interesting. It shows me the honesty of the court to report the money. Our lawyer speaks highly of them and we think their orders in our case have been very fair and shows thier knowledge of the issues.

The Admin Supreme Court asked to hear our appeal and many ("crazy and delusion farang" with Thais) expect a favorable decision.

May the court save our beaches!!

Without a doubt the building is 100 percent legal. What is NOT legal is the distance from mean sea level.

Without a doubt the building is 100 percent illegal! Because their no where on the map or in the regulation you fine the measure into the sea 100 meters. The Supreme Court understood this argument. Before in their first ruling the why they allow the building to be build to 14 meters.

Below I took a quote June 19 court order from the http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

Even thou VT7 has a building permit but the permit violates Construction Control Acts then building can be torn down. This is a very simple case to understand. If the stopVT7 group is right the court will cancel the construction license. Then the court will order the removal.

"The requests for the court to kindly give judgments or orders are as follow;

1. To give an order to minimize the force by suspending the construction license No.: 162 / 2550, Issued on: 28 November 2549 before another order or the final decision is given, and take effect back dated to 28 November 2549. Because 10th Litigants would be extremely damaged until not being able to be solved in the future, if View Thalay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. still be allowed to continue with its construction.

2. To cancel the construction license No.: 162 / 2550, Issued on: 28 November 2549 which was issued to View Thalay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. The First Court of Administration gave an order for View Thalay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. to be an interpleader in this case and determined it to be 2nd Plaint Receiver.

The First Court of Administration made enquiries of both parties on the step of requesting to place the injunction to minimize injured consequences before judgment of the 10 Litigants, and the decision was made as, in this case, the prior point that has been disputed by both parties is the distance from the building, by the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ), stipulated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, which directly involves with the Construction……(page3)

Control Boundary that shown on the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree, stimulated to use the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479 to take control over the regions ...........of Chonburi Province, B.E. 2521. The 10 Litigants and 1st Plaint Receiver have different understanding in the starting point of measurement of the aforementioned Ministerial Regulations. The 10 Litigants fixed the starting point at the lowest point of low tide, but 1st Plaint Receiver fixed the distance of 100 meters outward from highest level of high tide. Therefore, to be able to judge this case, the court needs to inspect carefully and find out the starting point of measurement which was stated in the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521), promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, also to find out if the distance of the dispute building from that point is not in violation to the law."

I would not underestimate the Judges of Supreme Administrative Court. They have been very clear the their writings. Also they made this statement in August at their first court decision. "Nevertheless, ........ 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 ............. 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."

What do you not understand in the word "unlawful"?

The decision was read at the Rayong Court on June 19. When it was made public.

The May 23 date is stamped on the order by the Supreme Administrative Court. I think it the date the decision was made.

I guess the difference in dates is a scheduling problem?

I understand city hall and VT7 has 30 days to respond. Before Supreme Administrative Court will schedule their time to decide. When they may decide is their decision.

I posted The Supreme Court of Administration Decision 19 of June 2008 at:

http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

The ending quotation from the decision below:

"Thereby, if the Supreme Court of Administration considers that the matters in the appeal of the litigants is strong, the litigants will loose the temporally protection during trial of the First Court of Administration IN TIME, the matter is considered that the order of lifting the injunction during trial, given by the First Court of Administration is NOT THE PROHIBITED ORDER for appealing during trial, as stated in Clause 100, 2^nd phrase of the regulations of the Grand Administrative Meeting of the Supreme Court, governing the Administrative Procedures of B. E. 2543. Therefore, the 8 Litigants, then have the right to lodge an appeal against the aforementioned order to the Supreme Court of Administration within 30 days from the day of receiving the order given by the First Court of Administration, as stated in Clause 49 /1, 1^st phrase of the mentioned regulations. The First Court of Administration should…………

11

should assign the court officer to send the Appeal against the order dated on 15 February 2551 of the 8 Litigants, including the order of lifting the injunction given by the First Court of Administration and all involving documents / or copies of documents to the Supreme Court of Administration within the short period of time, following Clause 49 / 1 of the same regulations. The decision of giving out the rejection order against the appeal of the 8 Litigants, is not in the agreement with the consideration of the Supreme Court of Administration.

The court, hereby shall give the order to accept the Appeal against the order, dated: 15 February2551 of the 8 Litigants to take under court’s consideration.

Mr. Worapoj Wisarupitch - Signed - (Responsible Judge)

Judge of the Supreme Court of Administration

Mr. Ampol Sighagowin - Signed -

Chief of Judges of the Supreme Court of Administration

Mr. Wichai Cheunchompunoot - Signed -

Judge of the Supreme Court of Administration

Mr. Paiboon Sianggong - Signed -

Judge of the Supreme Court of Administration

Mr. Udomsak Nitimontri

Judge of the Supreme Court of Administration"

We are where we are because the Bangkok Supreme Administrative Court want to hear from the horses mouth ("expert witness"), how they managed to get the law so wrong 1 year ago when they ruled for the plaintiffs !!

I think you're confusing the horse's mouth with another part of the equine anatomy.

Ditto!

Dear jpm76

Your statement “(but I really struggle with the fact that they have already been forced to pay for these costs through back hand channels...that is blatant self interest, whether it was you or the influence of others in your crew - it was highly unfair, and in my eyes amounted to a theft of other less interested parties owning in JCC).”

Please do not fall for accusation by VT investors without the facts. Our funds first came from volunteers co-owners how supported our group of ten. Why a group of ten is because it only took ten to file the original action in court. Then at the next Annual General Meeting our JCC committee supported a co-owners resolution that passed. This condo owners resolution was offered to take over paying the legal bills for the group of ten. At this AGM their was not one vote against resolution.

Now the JCC committee reviews all legal expends, pay approved billing and approved the hiring of our new Bangkok lawyers. This special legal fund cost is very small compare to the benefits which co-owners will gain by wining on Issue 9. Our legal action is about Issue 9 and the rights to protect one property. Issue 9 is a environment law and one other purpose of this law is to protect tourist beaches. That why we were given money from others which are not co-owners of JCC condos.

Both Thai and farang agree Thailand is a country of laws (Issue 9) and we have rights, self-interest or not, to be protected by this law. The Administrative Court were special set up to protect the Thai and farang rights against wrongful government action. Such as the incorrect issuing of a building permit which violated Issue 9.

VT7 investors should understand the above facts and we wish them no harm. But, we will fight for our protection under the aforesaid regulations. Our action is the first ever case brought to any Thai court using Issue 9. Also we are very able to read maps even thoufgt Pattaya City Hall can not! The Issue 9 map is clear and “Ministerial Regulation of Issue 9, referring to the annexed remark of the aforesaid regulations which stated that, the area of construction control is expanded. The expansion of construction control stipulated in Section 3. ( 1 )- ( 8 ), the construction control area must be measured from the MSL, onto the land for 200 meters, then it will fulfill the intentions of the regulations of Issue 9 and it will be operative , and truly useful for public.”

Read our whole appeal which the Admin Supreme Court wlll decide at: http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

Dear Thaibob

You gasping at straws! The Admin Supreme Court Ordered told City Hall and VT to response to our February 16 “Appeal the order of lifting the injunction”

You may read it at; http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

Ending Quotation below;

“3. The facts seen from the order of lifting the injunction / or the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Administrative Court of Rayong province, given the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment given on 16 January 2008 , by using facts from the report of the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning / and the testimony of the witness, summarized that The Construction Control Line shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 – Controlling over the region of Banglamung / Naklua / Nong Plalai / Nongprue Sub-districts of Chonburi province, The B.E. 2521 is the distance of 100 meters further into the sea from the MSL, the dispute building would be over 200 meter from the building control area as referred by the Section 3 of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ), which buildings over 14 meters from road surfaces are also not permitted to be constructed. The aforesaid decision of the Administrative Court of Rayong province shown many points of mistakes and errors of the inquiry for hearing/ interpretation and enforcing law in order to control the constructions by law, in the way of which is contrary to the intentions / or purposes of law which stipulated to verify and protect. The result of the aforesaid interpretation is the construction control area referring to the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B. E. 2519 ) becomes 11 meters which is in opposite with the intentions and purposes of law.TT As for the interpretation of intentions and purposes of the Ministerial Regulation of Issue 9, referring to the annexed remark of the aforesaid regulations which stated that, the area of construction control is expanded. The expansion of construction control stipulated in Section 3. ( 1 )- ( 8 ), the construction control area must be measured from the MSL, onto the land for 200 meters, then it will fulfill the intentions of the regulations of Issue 9 and it will be operative , and truly useful for public. This case has no cause to lift the aforesaid injunction / or revoke the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment. With all reasons, facts and matters of laws submitting in this appeal to the Supreme Court of Administration, 9 Litigants need to request for court’s kind consideration to give court’s decision or order to revoke the order of lifting injunction or protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Administrative Court of Rayong province, as requested by 9 Litigants and with the operative result further on.

Yours Faithfully,

Signed: The Approved Person of 9 Litigants

Mr. Surachai Trong-ngam”

This is what the Admin Supreme Court will be considering.

For the eight still standing together to protect the Thai beaches!

Dear prospero

Admin Supreme Court will NOT even consider “mitigate damages for the investors of VT7”. That issue is not a part of any question in front of the courts or a public benefit issue.

The Admin Supreme Court doesn’t have authority “mitigate damages for the investors of VT7.” Admin Court is only for issue between government or between civil and government. To “mitigate damages for the investors of VT7” would be a civil matter first heard in the local Pattaya courts.

People have talked of VT7 influence? I understand VT7 has local influence.

Dear prospero

Your question “the history of Thai courts in removing illegal portions of builds?” When I asked our Bangkok attorneys a seemlier question they sight three samples. Since their been one example talked about in the news paper. I had a meeting with one of are Bangkok Thai advisors who was involved in removing a illegal building in Bangkok.

We are working in the Thai nation courts and I would not challenge their authority. A illegal building can still be illegal even though it had a local building permit. Specially when the local permit breaks the nation law. This is not hard to understand!

We wish no harm to VT7 investors, but have some respect for the King’s court.

http://nationmultimedia.com/2008/06/13/opi...on_30075398.php

"We must all pull together to solve our problems

By Thanong Khanthong

[email protected]

The Nation

Published on June 13, 2008

On Wednesday evening at the Chitrlada Palace, His Majesty the King granted an audience to new judges serving the Constitution Court and Administrative Court.

They took an oath of office. They all swore before the King to pursue their judgeship with honesty and integrity.

His Majesty gave the judges his blessing. He also called on them to perform their duty to the utmost to prevent the country from sliding into calamity.

In his speech to the judges of the Administrative Court, the King said: "If you don't perform your duties well enough, it also means that HM the King is not performing his duties well enough. Before this, we had a lot of turmoil. Now don't let more turmoil happen again.

"If we do not do what we have sworn to do, it would create problems. Therefore, you have to be strict with yourself and become stronger in doing your duty, which is performed under the Royal Signature. This means that what His Majesty is doing, you have to do as he does. If you don't perform to your utmost, you'll be in trouble.

"You can foresee what's going to happen. If you don't do or don't help to resolve the problem, not only the four or five of you will be in trouble, everyone will face trouble too. If we're in trouble, we won't get good results. Bad results will bring about calamity. We have already faced calamity before. A bad result will create an even worse situation.

"In your role as Administrative Court judges, you have to help in the administration of this country. Whatever hardship you may face, I wish you success in carrying out your tasks. Let the administration [of the country] not be faced with calamity. Let the administration carry on successfully.

"Since you are knowledgeable and have studied your field, you know what to do. Millions of people will suffer if you fail in your duty. I wish you every success. You have to use your skills and your knowledge in order to succeed in your assignment. Then you'll be able to feel proud of yourselves. HM the King will also feel proud of you.

"If you fail, the work of The King will also be affected. I would like you to have strong determination in what you are doing. Millions of Thais will feel proud of your accomplishments. Then the country will enjoy progress. The benefits will fall on everybody."

I translated HM the King's speech from Thai into English and italicised some of the important sentences. You can feel that His Majesty is very concerned about the situation of the country at the moment. At the same time, you also learn of the uniqueness of Thailand's administration, which has the Monarchy as the symbolic head of all branches of government.

"Therefore, you have to be strict with yourself and become stronger with your duty, which is performed under the Royal Signature. This means that what the HM the King is doing, you have to do like him." By this remark, you come to appreciate the fact that since the Judiciary is performing its duty in the justice system under the auspicious Royal Signature, it has to abide by the highest values of justice as obligated by His Majesty himself. I have found no other beautiful phrase to describe the special symbolic bond between the Monarch and the Judiciary -

"What HM the King is doing, you have to do like him."

Another meaningful remark from His Majesty is: "You have to use your tools and your knowledge in order to succeed in your assignment. Then you'll feel proud with yourself. The King will also feel proud with you." This means that if the Judiciary performs its duty with sound knowledge and the value of justice for all, it will not only create pride for itself but also for the Monarchy.

Finally, HM the King warned that: "If you fail, the work of the King will also face calamity." It means that His Majesty alone can't restore peace and normalcy to the country if other branches of government fail to do their job adequately.

HM the King's speech reflects a unique symbol, the relationship between the Monarchy and other branches of government and the Thai people. More often than not, foreigners and many Thais also do not quite grasp the role of the Monarchy. But as HM the King told Thai diplomats several weeks ago, "We are Thais. Foreigners might look at us as satpralad (strange monster). But we're still Thai."

Dear prospero

You are right on the issue!

The Admin Supreme Court decided they wanted to hear our appeal because it relates to the Public Benefit and the rule of law. The supreme court doesn’t have to hear every case presented to them. It would been easy for them to of ended everything by rejecting our petition. But the accepted our appeal shows their interest in Issue 9.

If they chose View Talay 7 can continue building during the appeal procedure. Which we thing would be very risky because of the interest of the Admin Supreme Court in our appeal. Also the history of Thai courts in removing illegal portions of builds it risky to go on working.

<br />Do you care to elaborate on that rumour? There may be trouble ahead......<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I heard that the VT7 lawyer dropped into his seat when he heard the decision.

The case will continue, that's all I know.

Yes, this did happen in court today!

He is a old man and it worry us. Then moments later he stood back up while the judge finished reading the Admin Supreme Court Order.

BIG WIN! At the Administrative Supreme Court

Today we won our “Petition - The Appeal against the Rejection order of the last appeal” dated the 27 of March 2008. What happened was Rayong Court had block our appeal to the Administrative Supreme Court. Then we had to Petition the Admin Supreme Court to hear our “Appeal the order of lifting the injunction” dated 15 of February 2008. The Administrative Supreme Court decide they needed to hear our appeal which is relate to the Public Benefits. The supreme court doesn’t have to hear any case and today win is very positive action in our fight to stop View Talay 7 construction. This decision means the Admin Supreme Court disagreed with something in the 16 of January Rayong court order which lifted the View Talay7 injunction what aloud construction to start on the contested 27 store condominiums. They order View Talay and Pattaya City Hall to give their answer to our appeal within 30 days. Then the court will decide concerning our appeal.

Again, today is a very BIG WIN! Now the Admin Supreme Court will go on to rule on Issue 9 measurements and examine the expert witness report which is part of our 15 of February appeal. With the lifting on the injunction.

Issue 9 is a well written regulation which effect the beach environment by restricting no building over 14 meters high within 200 meter from the seashore. We have a very strong legal case to stop the VT7 building. Also we understand this is not simple legal case and it would take time before the final decision.

You may read both the 27 of March 2008 “Petition - The Appeal against the Rejection order of the last appeal” which we won. Also, read the 15 of February 2008 “Appeal the order of lifting the injunction” which the court will next make their decision. Go to: http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

This Administrative Supreme Court order was sent to the university in Bangkok for English translation. The finished the translation will be posted on our blog; http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

Let me say “Thanks you” to the stopvt7 remaining group of 8 and the JCC co-owners who dared to believe in the Thai legal system.

Today may justice be done!

Off to court to protect Pattaya beaches!

Dear jpm

The Rayong court order asked only for the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning to fine MSL and measure the location of the VT7 building to MSL. The Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning acted as the expert witness failed to follow a simple court order when they sent their report to the court. The expert witness had to be verbally asked in the court hearing to answer the court order. That why I question if he was a expert witness?

The Supreme Admin Court heard the argument early about “measurement into the sea before you measure on to the land” in VT7 Petition to the Supreme Administrative Court on 8th May 2007

Go to: http://openvt7.blogspot.com/ and read VT7 Petition to the Supreme Administrative Court. Which we won!

The Court rejected the arguments to “measure into the sea” when the court said. “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 of construction the building exceeding height limit by the Defendant No. 2.”

We do not clutching at straws but we do understand the facts! I also like this little guy!

The Supreme Admin Court has hear the argument May 2007 about” measurement into the sea before you measure onto the land” which they rejected. The expert witness could not read and respond correctly to a Rayong court order. The expert witness report to the Rayong court should had been rejected by the judge because of Clauses 55. We with our lawyers believe Issue 9 and our brief is clearly written and the law is on our side! These are a few reasons why we expect a favorable answer on this Thursday from the Supreme Admin Court.

Dear ThaiBob

I guess because over many year I have read many brief and court decision. Read our brief and look for a answer by Supreme Administrative Court to address our brief questions.

We think Issue 9 and our brief questions are clear! We expect a favorable and clear answer..

ThaiBob statement: "And are we still waiting for Rayong Court's final ruling on this case?......or did they make a "de-facto" ruling when they denied your appeal and you then appealed to the Supreme Court?"

Yes, their no final ruling by Rayong court. No "de-facto" ruling, it was a normal act to be deny an appeal by a lower court!

The Supreme Admin Court decision could end the case or their decision could direct Rayong to take a direct action. They could order Rayong to restore the building to 14 meters in high?

Yes, VT7 has a legally issued building permit but the Pattaya building permit could violate a nation regulation and this could cause the Supreme Admin Court to order the restoring of the nation law. But, that's a guess and I find it impossible to out guess a court! Their many positive ways they can answer our case.

What important is the upper new court uses a coherently thought with written information found in the regulation whem applying Issue 9. That why our little case will be examine by groups not involved.

This will be a big decision, announced on Thursday in Rayong. by the Supreme Administrative Court. It will be done in a formal reading..

Jomthien Complex did not go to court because of loss of sea views or protection of the beaches - they went to court because the Law says that no building over 14 meters can be built within 200 meters of the sea shore.

Dear JaiDeeFarang

Beach Protection equals Sea View!

What is wrong with protecting both?

So let go of your complaint about sea view. Sea View has nothing to do with the upcoming court decision next week.