Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

prospero · June 30, 2008

As I understand it, most of the units in View Talay Seven will be occupied by prosperous big-bellied foreigners who will sit on their balconies drinking beer, looking out to sea, and looking down on the rest of the country.
 Well.... how well informed you are.... I am the prototype of your "prosperous big-bellied foreigners who will sit on their balconies drinking beer" !!! Oh wait... I am 1.72m, my weight is 68kg and I dont drink beer.... so.... what is it? Did I buy in the wrong building or is your information wrong? Tell me, how on earth do you want to claim the BS you are writing here??? Did you personally visit all the people that bought units in VT7?? (send me the list) Did somebody hide in the bushes in front of the VT-office and take a picture of all buyers??? (send me the pics) Please tell me how you know all of this... or be brave and apologise, admitting you are, as we say in Holland, talking out of your neck. And along with that state that your contribution to this topic is worth... ZERO!!!

I never said you were a prototype

You do seem to be the protype of a hot-under-the-collar dutchman who can't take a bit of artistic license. I'm very happy you're so svelte and sober.

Chill.

Edited June 30, 2008 by prospero

ThaiBob · July 1, 2008

[quote name='stopvt7' post='2059903' date='2008-06-29 19:00:49'

....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. [/color][/b] "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."

....."

===============================================================================

I think jpm76 understands the facts better than most and certainly better the one person (who shall remain anonymous). The lastest SC court document (June 19) is more relevant and should not be ignored.

"....the layout was made as ordered and presented by the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning, summarizing that, to fix the coast line 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 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 Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea, and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province, B.E. 2521, 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, as stipulated in clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), stipulated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, which had been amended by adding the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521), which stipulated to be in accordance with The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, which stated to prohibit the building with the height over 14 meters from the road surface. The measurement result reported that the building of 2nd Plaint Receiver is not in the boundary of 200 meters."

The SC could have stopped construction again but didn't, so the construction continues at full speed.

jpm76 · July 1, 2008

What do you not understand about the words "process of law"?
Nothing is illegal yet until the full process has been followed. Presently, the VT7 building is fully legal with full legal building permission.

As your own point 2 above acknowledges, the First Court of Administration clearly wrote that there was a difference in interpretation as to what the law stipulates, and more specifically between the opinions of the 10 (now 8) litigants and that of VT and Pattaya City Hall. You constantly assume that you are right, and the only one with any grey matter, but everyone else recognises that this is exactly the central points under dispute ie the interpretation of the law. You continually post your arguments and continually remind us just how right that you think you are. But, then you are probably the only one who knows the "TRUTH" since if it differed from your OPINION, then it would have to be wrong.

Only after the whole "PROCESS OF LAW" has been exhausted will we know how the courts interpret the meaning of the law. Both sides have their merits, and to assume that you are 100% correct only shows ignorance and inability to ever see any viewpoint other than your own (I bet that you are very annoying in a "discussion"!). In the meantime, it does not matter how many times you post the same arguments here, they will still be subject to the final interpretation of the Thai courts.

Your small victory is only the right to have some form of appeal (vs being completely thrown out of court and told to pack your bags and not come back). I think that the court ruled correctly also, as you should have had a right to appeal (it is part of the full legal process), but it does not make you any more right in the meantime. It certainly does not mean that you will win because your arguments were not good enough last time. Your SC appeal win was only upholding your legal right to have your case heard again, this time ON APPEAL. How could a SC court rule otherwise, unless your arguments were completely ridiculous. I understand that your arguments have merit, and you have others that have joined your crusade along the way, but you completely REFUSE to acknowledge that there are other interpretations that interpret the law differently (NOT THAT I EXPECT FOR YOU TO COME TO ANY OTHER CONCLUSION OTHER THAN WE MUST BE CORRUPT because that is all we have heard form you).

We will not know this outcome for a while I suspect, but I doubt that it will prevent you from continually posting the same old arguments here just in case you happen to find another chance websurfer who has not followed the full course of these postings. You will always find the support of those who naturally assume corruption in countries like Thailand, and admittedly, it goes on, but IN ALL PARTS OF THE WORLD, not just Thailand. I think that there is enough of a case to assume that corruption was nowhere ever in this case, and I would posit the difficulty that VT7 had in getting all of its planning approvals in the first place - they had to go to great lengths,[/color] but that neither supports or removes any allegations of corruption. My point is that you cannot assume, nor post to the general public, unsubstantiated allegations of corruption, when the facts do not even

There are only differing interpretations of the laws in question, and I think that we can both say that third party observers have come to this post and argued for both sides. There are those that just assume corruption in places like Thailand (or perhaps are Seattle-type protestors of the world order of capitalism and individualism), and then those, who may feel that the arrogance of foreigners who come to another country and try to make allegations against all the locals (including specialist professionals) who do not agree with THEIR PERSONAL viewpoint and interests (and I do not think that you have any record of being a beach-protecting environmentalist until VT7 threatened your view, so cut the crap about being ALL about the beaches) is a bit too much to take, and argue against your attitude.

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) in that scenario because I cannot understand how a full HOA of owners can be forced to pay for the crusade of 10, no now 8. As I have posted before, I think that either JCC felt a bit guilty about some of the things that it had represented to its owners, or it was clear abuse of power. If your case is ALL ABOUT PROTECTING THE BEACHES, then please explain to me the relationship between JCC owners and encroaching environmentalism - was it a condition of sale that you must all be active environmentalists. No, the irony of this case is that you allege corruption, but yet have managed your own little version of it. Nothing that you can say to me could convince me that all the JCC owners were all so passionately involved in your case that they were willing to fund your case, else they would have been part of your legal action from the start. I think that you have 8-10 condo owners there who are concerned about their views being lost, and so you come up with all this crap about defending the beaches, taking a moral position, that to me seems laughable considering the facts about how JCC owners are now being forced to pay for your legal costs. It was not VT7 investors that informed me about this, but rather your own post acknowledging the fact.

In summary, you have every right to form your own viewpoint upon the law, and then to fight that viewpoint in the appeal courts, but give back the JCC owner funds that you would use to launch your crusade, else you are little more than a common thief, abusing the power of a condo HOA board...well that is my opinion. VT7 is definitely NOT ILLEGAL until you hear that the courts agree with you about your assumptions that VT7 breaches Construction Control Acts, and this will be a long time coming if it comes...but do not worry about that, because you have found a new source of funds to continue this VERY PERSONALLY interested fight. Nothing you have written ever convinced me of your supposed altrusim, unless you can prove that you have been a long time beach-loving protestor.

VT7 may be found legal or illegal, but it is certainly a while yet before we can make these judgements. Anything done sooner is little more than spouting off peronal opinons to any who will hear you, but full credit to you, as you have struck a chord somewhere (ceratinly Lookat's chord is well struck (unless you are actually the same person, and then you are merely striking your own chord). But unfortunately, you are no closer to the TRUTH than you have ever been, and you are merely a foreigner (farang) who chose to exercise your rights to follow legal process. Now I hope that you, the beacon of "grey matter" and understanding, and the self-styled hope of our natural environment, can understand that. You only take quotes out of context, twist them to your purpose, and then ridicule those who try to understand the whole bigger picture ie the picture bigger than what you make it out to be, but it does not change the fact that this is far from over, and NO determinations can be made yet. SO give up on the 100% because nothing in this case is 100% - it is why there is DUE LEGAL PROCESS. Anyone who has followed your posts know that you have very little credibility left, and that we should be taking you with a pinch of salt. That being said, you do at least bring "facts" (small "f" out to us) and we are more in the know, even if we do not agree with your interpretations of what is actually said.

Above post from an emplyee of View Talay? Note the --" NOT THAT I EXPECT YOU TO COME TO ANY OTHER CONCLUSION OTHER THAN WE MUST BE CORRUPT.

And "I would posit the difficulty that VT7 had in getting all its planning approvals in the first place, they had to go to great lengths".

And "until you hear that the courts agree with you --------and this will be a long time coming"

The poster, jpm76, obviously knows View Talay business.

Perhaps jpm76 could finish the 5th paragraph for us?

I would caution jpm76 not to make allegations of corruption and abuse of power by "personally" accusing stopVT7 group of corruption and abuse of power and thievery. As he himself writes "I cannot understand". Since jpm76 has no understanding he cannot speak on that matter.

I am nothing else other than a VT7 investor who bought in several years ago to the VT7 project. I am a developer in Central America, and I have no links to VT7 other than as a buyer.

The "corruption" tie to "we" (the investors) is a play on a previous post from a StopVT7 supporter who alleged that we must all be corrupt to (as VT7 investors have taken the brunt from plenty who assume that we support illegal activity). When will you get the idea that we are only investors who either have bought to have the same things that the JCC buyers originally bought ie a place in Thailand to either live or invest - our morals should not be put in question, just because we buy into a development built by a developer who some seem to resent. As for the steroetype of "fat beer drinkers looking down on other condos", neither do I fit this bill, and i expect that plenty of other VT7 buyers do not either, so it is a clueless inference. As VT7 investors who have been readers of these posts would agree, we were all brought into this post when we had constant slander against us about being ruthless capitalists with no morals and supporters of Thai corruption, when in fact we are normal investors just looking for a normal investment in a beautiful country with good potential. We had nothing to do with the VT7 project other than we bought into it off-the-plan.

If you want to know where I read about the difficulty that VT7 had in getting the planning permits, I suggest that you go back over previous posts because I sourced that info from this Thaivisa forum. I have no inside knowledge of VT7 business, and no intimate connection with any there. I am a VT7 buyer-investor.

As you bring my understanding into question, the main thing I cannot understand Tammi, is how StopVT7 thinks that he is 100% correct and so right, despite all the reminders that this is not a clear cut case. Nearly everyone else who has an opinion on this matter recognises that the legal standpoints are not so clear, and yet he thinks that he has understood it perfectly. I just hope that his Thai is better than his English (because I have to question how good his understanding can be). I do not mean to berate him for not having great English, but I have to question just how his understanding can be 100% correct if he struggles to string together sentences that the average reader can understand.

The irony for me in this scenario is how StopVT7 (the altrusitic beach-loving environmental warrior who appears to insinuate and hence protest against corruption) finds himself in a scenario where the owners of JCC have no option but to be forced to pay his legal fees. Whatever went on there (and I do not know), it smacks of abuse of power to me because you cannot have private citizens pay for another's private court battles, no matter how he tries to construe this ie as a stand against corruption or a defense of Thailand's beaches etc. It is a usurpation of funds in a highly questionable matter, and the irony is how he so valiantly stands against these things when it is done against his interests. The term "hypocrite" comes to mind.

I would back my understanding against yours Tammi anyday, as I think that 3 university degrees (2 at post graduate level) mean that I must be able to string together bits of logic (logic that appears lost on some). It is not that I do not understand StopVT7's logic, but that I also understand the arguments against his, and also take a view that the UNWRITTEN aspects of this scenario will also come into play in the Thai court system so that they can better it and modify it for the future (if needs be). StopVt7 ONLY understands his own argument, but appears lost on those who have taken the time (such as ThaiBob) to try and explain to him many times that there is room for interpretation here that should go against StopVT7.

This case could go either way as both sides have reasonable arguments, but both cannot win. The Thai courts will have to decide which is the better interpretation of the law, and also which is the best way to move forward. The arguments about beach protection and how congested the beaches should be will necessarily involve subjective judgements about what can be supported by the environment, but also what helps boost the Thai economy. Personal views will differ based upon the economy-environment opposition and where one stands on "sustainable" development, but my main protest is against the way that StopVT7 continues in his self-righteousness (both in argument and personal manner) when Blind Freddy can see that this will be drawn out in legal wrangles for a while yet. He cannot be honest with us, and other independent posters do not believe his BS about his environmentalist credentials.

His early posts make no mention about the beaches, so if they were so important to him, why are they not in his early posts. They are nothing more than a means to secure support from the environmentalist wing, who his politics in this case just happen to coincide with. But to keep going on about how we is the great environmental warrior is an offence to the common sense of all who read here. He is in this fight for PERSONAL interests, yet he will not acknowledge it, and it just shoots his credibility to ribbons - he is deluded about his own intentions, or playing politics without knowing how to play politics properly (as you do not shoot accusations against everyone else involved in your issues ie judges, courts, city hall officials, expert witnesses, his own legal team). He borders on the paranoid, mores if he does not win his case in court - but then I expect that he will reframe it all back to some of his original contentions that they all conspired against him in a grand conspiracy of corruption.

I thank the poster who sent the photo of the people clearly holding the sign up as to what the protest was about. Strip away all of StopVT7's BS about being a beach protecting environmentalist (ie he is acting for the greater interests of Thailand and the globe), and you will see that he is acting for something that he cannot acknowledge - his own interests.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using the legal court system to challenge matters of law, and I have always supported his fight on the legal platform. He took it to court, and he lost. And then he had to find something else, some other reason why it was wrong rather than his inability to see the TRUTH about this scenario. It had nothing to do with corruption, or paid off officials, or whatever else he maintained, but rather that there was ANOTHER SIDE OF INTERPRETATION to this whole matter ie that the meaning of Issue 9 was IN FACT trying to incorporate protection against building into the sea (hence why the change in regulation occured from Issue 8). Unfortunately, that made his interpretation and that of JCC's interpretation (the one that they made promises to their investors upon) WRONG, as the courts maintained through expert testimony. Of course, this was unacceptable to StopVT7, and so he takes his case to the appeals court, and he has every right to do this also. But now we learn that innocent bystanders (being the JCC condo owners) are being FORCED to pay for the mistakes of StopVT7 and JCC - that is where my allegations of the abuse of power creep in. It stems from unchallenged facts.

1. StopVT7's group is responsible for all these court costs that he does not want to pay for himself.

2. JCC's Board passed a resolution that all condo owners should pay for the court case.

How is this not an abuse of power, the very same abuse of power that StopVT7 believes if of the type that he is fighting against.

Why are JCC owners being forced to pay for this court battle? Isn't StopVT7's fight all about the protection of beaches? Should not beachgoers be forced to pay for his fight??? (No, because they cannot be compelled to pay HIS legal costs). And whether he is fully complicit or not with JCC's decision to levy this cost upon ALL JCC condo owners, he can choose not to accept this money on his all-so-high moral ground. I believe that they are acting more out of guilt because they interpreted a matter of law in their own way, and perhaps incorrectly (Note I use the word perhaps - because NO DETERMINATION CAN BE MADE YET when there are at least two interpretations to the argument). He is right when he makes this battle about the building regulations, as this is what it is all about, so why stir all the crap about this being all about the beaches. Is he afraid to stand up for himself and acknowledge that he is challenging this out of his own personal interest? (He keeps deferring this, and more recently, he attributes the personal concern to other JCC owners, but never himself - he is Mr Altruism, (and Mr BS).

Now if this is all lost upon you Tammi, then I suggest that you instead look at your own UNDERSTANDING, because I believe that mine functions well enough. I understand that VT7 may be correct or incorrect in their legal interpretation, but that they did well in obtaining a LEGAL building permit (that has yet to, and may never, be shown to be ILLEGAL). The difference perhaps between my understanding and yours Tammi is that you may have already deliberated on the matter whilst I am still sitting on the fence, but allowing the matter to be deffered to the proper authorites and proper professionals. I believe that we both respect the due process of law, but it is obvious that you are a StopVT7 supporter, whilst I initially supported his exercising his rights, but withdrew my support of the man himself when he changed his tones, and began discrediting all those involved (from judges to expert witnesses to his own losing legal team), and began giving people tainted opinions through his posts here which are always heavily one-sided. Now he has a small army of those who believe that he is a victim of Thai corruption, and unjustly tarnished when he is just protecting the beaches - these views are creations of his own imagination, and any who have been here long enough realise that this began as "Jomtien Condo Owners Suiing for Sea View". When this began a losing side however, it needed more force, like a campaign to save the beaches. He actually seems to thrives upon the friction anyhow (by constantly posting his emoticons, flags, "save the beaches" slogans because he knows that people have responded to these things), and so, I have no problem in giving him something to thrive upon.

Whether he wins this battle in the end or not, will remain to be seen, but I just hope that people will realise that his views are heavily tainted, and that he is not an environmental warrior, but rather a self-interested person defending his own value of his investment (beit personal enjoyment of views or condo value). Now the stakes are much higher since things have not gone the way he would have liked, but now that JCC Board is onside, well I guess that they have a much larger support of funds (from those people who initially rejected to join him in court to fight this thing...guess that they had no "No" vote in the end). Rather than him tainting the reputation of Thailand, I think that it should be more his character on trial, because what began as a courageous fight has become tarnished by the unveiling of those traits in himself that he has set his legal wheels in motion upon. It has become a farce, and yet the initial intent was a fair challenge. He knows only himself and his personal interests in this battle, but yet I am sure we will continue to read about his noble intentions of an environmental warrior that are unfortunately absent until quite recently when he decided to meddle the politics of this case with his own inability to face his shortcomings in logic - that he is not a victim of any Thai corruption at all, but that the due process has been followed throughout, but that it went against him.

But, as for your reality Tammi, I guess that I better get back to my VT7 job now (all the way from North America as well), and if I find the time (from my other jobs), I will finish writing paragraph 5 for you. As for your caution, thanks, but I thought that it was considered the "in" thing to do here ie accuse, slander, tarnish reputations - what good are facts and evidence when you have the internet in use. People are usually far too far away to even check your stories, but since the questions are now being asked (of Thailand's credibility), I thought that I should ask a few questions of my own regarding credibility. The parallels between the UNPROVEN alleged government abuses (actually no evidence whatsoever, only presumptions) and the JCC/StopVT7 abuses (facts not denied by StopVT7) were too coincidental for my own liking, and thought I would just point it out here.

jpm76 · July 1, 2008

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!!

Sorry to burst your bubble there StopVT7 but in order to understand, you must FIRST read the words and then INTERPRET their meaning, so if you can make your detailed and specific legal conclusions without INTERPRETING, then I am all ears.

If you want to keep harping on about the May 7 decision, then you should make some references to the later decisions that went against you ie after the professional expert were brought in to gain clarification upon the matters.Also, as a clear example of how you choose to pull words out of their context, may I suggest that you take the underlined section in your first quote and take it back to the start of the sentence ie to include that small but so big word "IF". It is all so important because, and you fail to understand this, the construction permit has not been declared ILLEGAL to date, and there are good arguments that suggest that it will not be declared as such. These arguments centre around the fact that the "building construction controlled area" was extended to include 100 m out to sea as well as 100m onto the land (ie 200m total). It is not about measuring out to sea and then measuring onto land, but rather taking an area of 200m from the point 100m out to sea so as to protect the beaches from those who may choose to build in the water as well as close to land. This is clearly done in other regions of the world. This is why the Issue 8 was amended to Issue 9 ie to include the 100m into the sea, and hence why the 200m is larger than 100m. Isn't this how the expert witness explained the measurement of it?

Why is it that you have such a hard time understanding this point? (I do not require you to agree with it, but just recognise that it would present a big cloud over your current 100% certainty level that you are so right in this).

At the time, the Supreme Court may have not had the benefit of expert witness, but as I read their statement, it is not a positive statement at all, but rather a "conditional" statement that states "IF", and therefore they have offered no opinion on it whatsoever, so if this is your big argument of Supreme Court support, particularly when they have not ordered the VT7 construction to stop (rather only admitting an appeal to be made by you (perhaps only to better clarify Thai law)), then I would not be using this as your "big win" in the Supreme court - they have merely followed court protocol in allowing an appeal, as you have more than one possible interpretation involved (as our side has often argued in our defence against your "necessary" corruption claims).

AGM's, are usually only attended to by a few, and usually those who control the company. I have no details of the minute of the meeting to determine who was present and absent, and therefore cannot comment, but why did you just not take a collection from those willing to give their contributions to the legal battle - like you originally did to form the group of ten - that way, there could be no allegations of stealing from those who did not want to contribute, nor should be forced to contribute. My aim is that you forced people not willing to participate to still fund your fight, and if history is any guide, then few others than the Board would have been present.

Am I also to understand that you have now also included the JCC committee as being controlled as well ie the VT7 corruption has extended to the Board of JCC as well? So, how many does that add to your corruption list now - seems you taint your own ie your legal team, your previous board. Is anyone not corrupt? VT7 appear to have the power of the Devil in their reach, from your accounts, and able to corrupt anyone, including those fighting for you. Next I will read that you think that the other 2 members who left your team were actually corrupt also, hence why they left. Are you aware that modern psychology holds that such paranoia states are usually internal reflections against your inner self? I hope you are OK...I would seek medical help if not.

prospero · July 2, 2008

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! <img src="style_emoticons/default/1zgarz5.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="1zgarz5.gif" /> It was a Annual General Meeting (AGM) of co-owners <img src="style_emoticons/default/smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> 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 <img src="style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="ohmy.gif" /> . 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 <img src="style_emoticons/default/hit-the-fan.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="hit-the-fan.gif" /> "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 <img src="style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" /> the whole VT7 petition at: <a href="http://openvt7.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://openvt7.blogspot.com/</a> From one so called "crazy and delusion farang" <img src="style_emoticons/default/cheesy.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="cheesy.gif" /> 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 <img src="style_emoticons/default/jap.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="jap.gif" /> 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 <img src="style_emoticons/default/crazy.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="crazy.gif" /> and delusion farang" <img src="style_emoticons/default/cheesy.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="cheesy.gif" /> with Thais) expect a favorable decision. <img src="style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" /> May the court save our beaches!!
 
 Sorry to burst your bubble there StopVT7 but in order to understand, you must FIRST read the words and then INTERPRET their meaning, so if you can make your detailed and specific legal conclusions without INTERPRETING, then I am all ears. If you want to keep harping on about the May 7 decision, then you should make some references to the later decisions that went against you ie after the professional expert were brought in to gain clarification upon the matters.Also, as a clear example of how you choose to pull words out of their context, may I suggest that you take the underlined section in your first quote and take it back to the start of the sentence ie to include that small but so big word "IF". It is all so important because, and you fail to understand this, the construction permit has not been declared ILLEGAL to date, and there are good arguments that suggest that it will not be declared as such. These arguments centre around the fact that the "building construction controlled area" was extended to include 100 m out to sea as well as 100m onto the land (ie 200m total). It is not about measuring out to sea and then measuring onto land, but rather taking an area of 200m from the point 100m out to sea so as to protect the beaches from those who may choose to build in the water as well as close to land. This is clearly done in other regions of the world. This is why the Issue 8 was amended to Issue 9 ie to include the 100m into the sea, and hence why the 200m is larger than 100m. Isn't this how the expert witness explained the measurement of it? Why is it that you have such a hard time understanding this point? (I do not require you to agree with it, but just recognise that it would present a big cloud over your current 100% certainty level that you are so right in this). At the time, the Supreme Court may have not had the benefit of expert witness, but as I read their statement, it is not a positive statement at all, but rather a "conditional" statement that states "IF", and therefore they have offered no opinion on it whatsoever, so if this is your big argument of Supreme Court support, particularly when they have not ordered the VT7 construction to stop (rather only admitting an appeal to be made by you (perhaps only to better clarify Thai law)), then I would not be using this as your "big win" in the Supreme court - they have merely followed court protocol in allowing an appeal, as you have more than one possible interpretation involved (as our side has often argued in our defence against your "necessary" corruption claims). AGM's, are usually only attended to by a few, and usually those who control the company. I have no details of the minute of the meeting to determine who was present and absent, and therefore cannot comment, but why did you just not take a collection from those willing to give their contributions to the legal battle - like you originally did to form the group of ten - that way, there could be no allegations of stealing from those who did not want to contribute, nor should be forced to contribute. My aim is that you forced people not willing to participate to still fund your fight, and if history is any guide, then few others than the Board would have been present. Am I also to understand that you have now also included the JCC committee as being controlled as well ie the VT7 corruption has extended to the Board of JCC as well? So, how many does that add to your corruption list now - seems you taint your own ie your legal team, your previous board. Is anyone not corrupt? VT7 appear to have the power of the Devil in their reach, from your accounts, and able to corrupt anyone, including those fighting for you. Next I will read that you think that the other 2 members who left your team were actually corrupt also, hence why they left. Are you aware that modern psychology holds that such paranoia states are usually internal reflections against your inner self? I hope you are OK...I would seek medical help if not.

I think most people agree with you that the matter is open to debate and that it will be settled by the Supreme Administrative court. Most also agree that the investors in VT7 are not ruthless, corrupt, capitalists.

It is also true (as a developer you should know this) that it is not a good idea to invest in any property that has any sort of legal ambiguity associated with its title or construction permit. If you want proof of that, you can look no further than the unfortunate co-owners of Jomtien Complex. It seems to me that the investors in VT7 did not do their homework. They took the word of the developer as true, and, as a result, are paying a high price in delay and anxiety. I mean, doesn't it look FUNNY to have a 27 story building erected in front of two other tall buildings? Doesn't it look closer to the beach than any other condo in the area? Couldn't you make an informed, intelligent guess that the building might be subject to legal action? In Spain, occupied buildings that have been up for over five years are being torn down because they were built with illegal construction permits. Caveat emptor. You know that maxim?

As for your accusation that VT7 is forcing coowners to pay for a private lawsuit, this is nonsense. First of all, it is not a private lawsuit. It is subscribed to by a group of co-owners. According to the rules of the Administrative court, such a group is necessary to file. The court does not ask for or require a larger group. Ten is what the court asks for. The AGM agreed to the extra charge. It has the clear power to invoke a special charge. Condo AGM's often do this for a number of valid reasons, for emergency repairs, for legal emergencies, etc. Perhaps you have never owned a condo in Thailand, so you don't understand this. If and when you own in VT7, I'm sure you will.

Finally, it is not far fetched that the developer of VT7 might have had undue influence on certain members of the JCC board. A lot of money is at stake. Developers in this country have been known to bribe, offer choice units, or even threaten members of condo boards in order to get their way. Probably this never happens in in Central America, but it does in Thailand.

One day in the not too distant future, they may raise the Police Box at the corner of Dong Tarn beach, fill in a bit of sand, and put up a 27 story building (call it View Talay 29) in front of VT7. Imagine what you would do.

Bel Mondo · July 3, 2008

Assuming the plaintiffs are successful and VT7 is ordered to demolish the building --

Question: Will the same demolition team that was supposed to demolish the 101 illegal structures on Walking Street several years ago be in charge of the VT7 demolition?

We all know how "successful" this demolition was.

Point: The actual enforcement of a court order is many times a lot more difficult than obtaining that order.

Good Luck!

prospero · July 3, 2008

Assuming the plaintiffs are successful and VT7 is ordered to demolish the building -- Question: Will the same demolition team that was supposed to demolish the 101 illegal structures on Walking Street several years ago be in charge of the VT7 demolition? We all know how "successful" this demolition was. Point: The actual enforcement of a court order is many times a lot more difficult than obtaining that order. Good Luck!

I doubt if the View Talay developer would want to leave an abandoned derelict eyesore in one of the most prominent locations in Jomtien. It wouldn't be good for his marketing.

But you never know!

Wiresok · July 3, 2008

Assuming the plaintiffs are successful and VT7 is ordered to demolish the building -- Question: Will the same demolition team that was supposed to demolish the 101 illegal structures on Walking Street several years ago be in charge of the VT7 demolition? We all know how "successful" this demolition was. Point: The actual enforcement of a court order is many times a lot more difficult than obtaining that order. Good Luck! 
 
I doubt if the View Talay developer would want to leave an abandoned derelict eyesore in one of the most prominent locations in Jomtien. It wouldn't be good for his marketing.

But you never know!

It would only have to come down to 14m then it would comply with the issue 9.

If it did go that way and vt refused to take it down then I am sure the court would appoint another contractor who would be only to pleased to do so and back charge vt big money.

jpm76 · July 6, 2008

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! <img src="style_emoticons/default/1zgarz5.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="1zgarz5.gif" /> It was a Annual General Meeting (AGM) of co-owners <img src="style_emoticons/default/smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> 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 <img src="style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="ohmy.gif" /> . 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 <img src="style_emoticons/default/hit-the-fan.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="hit-the-fan.gif" /> "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 <img src="style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" /> the whole VT7 petition at: <a href="http://openvt7.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://openvt7.blogspot.com/</a> From one so called "crazy and delusion farang" <img src="style_emoticons/default/cheesy.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="cheesy.gif" /> 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 <img src="style_emoticons/default/jap.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="jap.gif" /> 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 <img src="style_emoticons/default/crazy.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="crazy.gif" /> and delusion farang" <img src="style_emoticons/default/cheesy.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="cheesy.gif" /> with Thais) expect a favorable decision. <img src="style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" /> May the court save our beaches!!
 
 Sorry to burst your bubble there StopVT7 but in order to understand, you must FIRST read the words and then INTERPRET their meaning, so if you can make your detailed and specific legal conclusions without INTERPRETING, then I am all ears. If you want to keep harping on about the May 7 decision, then you should make some references to the later decisions that went against you ie after the professional expert were brought in to gain clarification upon the matters.Also, as a clear example of how you choose to pull words out of their context, may I suggest that you take the underlined section in your first quote and take it back to the start of the sentence ie to include that small but so big word "IF". It is all so important because, and you fail to understand this, the construction permit has not been declared ILLEGAL to date, and there are good arguments that suggest that it will not be declared as such. These arguments centre around the fact that the "building construction controlled area" was extended to include 100 m out to sea as well as 100m onto the land (ie 200m total). It is not about measuring out to sea and then measuring onto land, but rather taking an area of 200m from the point 100m out to sea so as to protect the beaches from those who may choose to build in the water as well as close to land. This is clearly done in other regions of the world. This is why the Issue 8 was amended to Issue 9 ie to include the 100m into the sea, and hence why the 200m is larger than 100m. Isn't this how the expert witness explained the measurement of it? Why is it that you have such a hard time understanding this point? (I do not require you to agree with it, but just recognise that it would present a big cloud over your current 100% certainty level that you are so right in this). At the time, the Supreme Court may have not had the benefit of expert witness, but as I read their statement, it is not a positive statement at all, but rather a "conditional" statement that states "IF", and therefore they have offered no opinion on it whatsoever, so if this is your big argument of Supreme Court support, particularly when they have not ordered the VT7 construction to stop (rather only admitting an appeal to be made by you (perhaps only to better clarify Thai law)), then I would not be using this as your "big win" in the Supreme court - they have merely followed court protocol in allowing an appeal, as you have more than one possible interpretation involved (as our side has often argued in our defence against your "necessary" corruption claims). AGM's, are usually only attended to by a few, and usually those who control the company. I have no details of the minute of the meeting to determine who was present and absent, and therefore cannot comment, but why did you just not take a collection from those willing to give their contributions to the legal battle - like you originally did to form the group of ten - that way, there could be no allegations of stealing from those who did not want to contribute, nor should be forced to contribute. My aim is that you forced people not willing to participate to still fund your fight, and if history is any guide, then few others than the Board would have been present. Am I also to understand that you have now also included the JCC committee as being controlled as well ie the VT7 corruption has extended to the Board of JCC as well? So, how many does that add to your corruption list now - seems you taint your own ie your legal team, your previous board. Is anyone not corrupt? VT7 appear to have the power of the Devil in their reach, from your accounts, and able to corrupt anyone, including those fighting for you. Next I will read that you think that the other 2 members who left your team were actually corrupt also, hence why they left. Are you aware that modern psychology holds that such paranoia states are usually internal reflections against your inner self? I hope you are OK...I would seek medical help if not. 
 
I think most people agree with you that the matter is open to debate and that it will be settled by the Supreme Administrative court. Most also agree that the investors in VT7 are not ruthless, corrupt, capitalists.

It is also true (as a developer you should know this) that it is not a good idea to invest in any property that has any sort of legal ambiguity associated with its title or construction permit. If you want proof of that, you can look no further than the unfortunate co-owners of Jomtien Complex. It seems to me that the investors in VT7 did not do their homework. They took the word of the developer as true, and, as a result, are paying a high price in delay and anxiety. I mean, doesn't it look FUNNY to have a 27 story building erected in front of two other tall buildings? Doesn't it look closer to the beach than any other condo in the area? Couldn't you make an informed, intelligent guess that the building might be subject to legal action? In Spain, occupied buildings that have been up for over five years are being torn down because they were built with illegal construction permits. Caveat emptor. You know that maxim?

As for your accusation that VT7 is forcing coowners to pay for a private lawsuit, this is nonsense. First of all, it is not a private lawsuit. It is subscribed to by a group of co-owners. According to the rules of the Administrative court, such a group is necessary to file. The court does not ask for or require a larger group. Ten is what the court asks for. The AGM agreed to the extra charge. It has the clear power to invoke a special charge. Condo AGM's often do this for a number of valid reasons, for emergency repairs, for legal emergencies, etc. Perhaps you have never owned a condo in Thailand, so you don't understand this. If and when you own in VT7, I'm sure you will.

Finally, it is not far fetched that the developer of VT7 might have had undue influence on certain members of the JCC board. A lot of money is at stake. Developers in this country have been known to bribe, offer choice units, or even threaten members of condo boards in order to get their way. Probably this never happens in in Central America, but it does in Thailand.

One day in the not too distant future, they may raise the Police Box at the corner of Dong Tarn beach, fill in a bit of sand, and put up a 27 story building (call it View Talay 29) in front of VT7. Imagine what you would do.

Hi Prospero,

I acknowledge your points, and admittedly, I relied upon the fact the VT7 had a building permit, and so assumed that all was legal - there are plenty of buildings in the area that were above the 14m height and so I did not question the building permit or its legality. Hindsight suggests that I should have made further inquiries, but I relied upon the reputation and experience of VT Group in building projects ie they had done several projects before and I assumed that they knew their legal side. Knowing what I know now, I realise that it comes down to the legal process that will follow. Our contracts do state that we would be entitled to our money back plus interest, but I am still waiting to hear what VT Group have to say about my recent email as to whether they have a back up plan ie another option for us (as I doubt that they will be cashed up if they are forced to tear the building down).

I have made no accusation that VT7 is forcing co-owners to pay for the lawsuit of provate individuals - I was questioning JCC's decision to do such. I draw a definite distinction between drawing upon legal emergencies when defending oneself, and when one is actually the plaintiff in the courts. My opinion is that it is certainly a private expense to be borne by those co-owners who decide to pursue the action to get the desired result (or not). It should not be FORCED upon other co-owners, and no board shoul dhave the authority to compel others in filing a lawsuit.

I am well aware that condo boards often do try to impose levies at certain points in time - I also own a portfolio of timeshare, and you see widespread abuses by these bodies - just this year a timeshare group tried to levy an illegal charge (in that it was too large a cost and needed special permission), and the owners fought it and won. I cannot assume corruption without any evidence, and my research suggests evidence to the contrary ie that VT7 did have trouble getting the permit due to the environmental issues involved.

Central America is no model for "rule of law" - it is who you know and what you know. I choose not to pay off officials and I note that I get placed in the long queue - this point of view is based upon personal experience and second hand experiences. I realise that Thailand may have its issues also, but without any evidence to prove it, I think that StopVT7 should be more careful about the way that he goes about things - calling corruption every time someone does not think like him is not the way of getting respect.

Many posters here seem to respect his decision to fight his case, and despite being on the opposite side, I have held that he has the right to take this to the courts (in case he is right in his interpretation), but there needs to be admitted the fact that perhaps the law can be interpreted a different way, and that the real intention of Issue 9 was to prevent from buildings in the ocean, not to push the construction line back further than the 100m it previously was, and still is (unless they win the court case). There are good arguments both ways, but assuming that the other side is always corrupt is ridiculous... VT7 investors have been accused in these posts of supporting corruption, and I am glad that you are of the opinion that most people of reasonable mind would not think that VT7 investors are acting immorally by investing in a VT7 condo. This is most likely a landmark case that the courts will use to determine a future direction for Pattaya, and perhaps Thailand. Either JCC condo owners or StopVT7 investors will lose out here because both sides cannot win. It is unfortunate, but a consequence that in inevitable.

I note that you are a StopVT7 sympathiser in part, and I can respect that. I think that you are also able to respect that VT7 investors have at times the need to defend their viewpoints also to ensure that the general public do not draw their conclusions based upon points form just one side. Differences of opinion will occur, but that is what the liberal arguments for reason and debate are all about. It is a shame that things have become personal at times, but there is a lot at stake here. In my opinion, the beaches and the environment protection are secondary issues, and were never the main issue in this debate, but they are now used as political tools for near political reasons. The law around construction near the beaches is the main issue and a clear interpretation of Issue 8 and moreso perhaps Issue 9 are the centre of the debate, and hopefully we will have some clarity in the meantime.

As for gravity of the situation, JCC will lose seaviews (and part value of their investment), but VT7 investors will perhaps lose much more. VT7 investors should not be the losing party through this as they are not to blame for the possible contraventions of the law, but undoubtedly, I foresee difficulties if the courts order VT7 to remove its construction back down to 14m height and no more. I hope that it does not come to this, but if the law wants 200m from the beach, then I would think that legislation that is not retrospective would be the best means to not punish a developer (and their investors) who have obtained legal building permits. If the allegations of corruption could be proven, then it becomes an entirely different situation. Those that believe that Issue 9 is clear on the matter will disagree, but they should read some of the opposing side arguments to see that ambiguity is evident within the law. They should not be convinced of their rightness, else they will necessarily have to believe that only corruption could lead to this state of affairs, and I do not believe that bribery has taken place in this scenario (regardless what many may hold is commonplace in Thailand). I could be completely wrong, but I have seen no evidence to make me think otherwise other than this being an example of when clear laws are not written. The important thing is that a solution may soon be at hand.

Tammi · July 6, 2008

Hi Prospero,
Many posters here seem to respect his decision to fight his case, and despite being on the opposite side, I have held that he has the right to take this to the courts (in case he is right in his interpretation), but there needs to be admitted the fact that perhaps the law can be interpreted a different way, and that the real intention of Issue 9 was to prevent from buildings in the ocean, not to push the construction line back further than the 100m it previously was, and still is (unless they win the court case). There are good arguments both ways, but assuming that the other side is always corrupt is ridiculous... VT7 investors have been accused in these posts of supporting corruption, and I am glad that you are of the opinion that most people of reasonable mind would not think that VT7 investors are acting immorally by investing in a VT7 condo. This is most likely a landmark case that the courts will use to determine a future direction for Pattaya, and perhaps Thailand. Either JCC condo owners or StopVT7 investors will lose out here because both sides cannot win. It is unfortunate, but a consequence that in inevitable.

The real intention of Issue 9 was to keep hi-rises at least 200 meters from the beach. The very first hi-rises to be built were Jomthien Condotel (1986) and Grand Condotel (1988) and both are at least 200 metres back.

prospero · July 7, 2008

Hi Prospero,
Many posters here seem to respect his decision to fight his case, and despite being on the opposite side, I have held that he has the right to take this to the courts (in case he is right in his interpretation), but there needs to be admitted the fact that perhaps the law can be interpreted a different way, and that the real intention of Issue 9 was to prevent from buildings in the ocean, not to push the construction line back further than the 100m it previously was, and still is (unless they win the court case). There are good arguments both ways, but assuming that the other side is always corrupt is ridiculous... VT7 investors have been accused in these posts of supporting corruption, and I am glad that you are of the opinion that most people of reasonable mind would not think that VT7 investors are acting immorally by investing in a VT7 condo. This is most likely a landmark case that the courts will use to determine a future direction for Pattaya, and perhaps Thailand. Either JCC condo owners or StopVT7 investors will lose out here because both sides cannot win. It is unfortunate, but a consequence that in inevitable.

The real intention of Issue 9 was to keep hi-rises at least 200 meters from the beach. The very first hi-rises to be built were Jomthien Condotel (1986) and Grand Condotel (1988) and both are at least 200 metres back.

Yes. And Pattaya Park Hotel as well. One has to ask why the developers of these projects would have build as far back from the sea as they did. Makes little sense unless there was a law against it.

I seriously doubt that that, if the Supreme Administrative Court rules for 200 meters, it will grandfather View Talay 7. The deveoper made a choice to continue building despite the risk. Besides, what sense would that make if the specific reason the plaintiffs brought the case to court was to stop its construction?

The more interesting problem will be be action on buidings also under construction -- like Northpoint -- that also violate Issue 9.

Time will tell.

lalana · July 7, 2008

Before I'm shot down in flames for asking this question??............I "do" concede that this thread has run to

68 pages and has some incredible detail to it..BUT.......not

lalana · July 7, 2008

Sorry folks,itchy fingers...What I'm saying is (not wanting to sound insensitively rude)...I can't get up the

motivation to read through it all,so I'm just wondering what the Bottom line is with the whole situation ???...

is the Condo going to be built to View Talays' desired spec/height at the end of the day or what's the deal???

I live in Jomtien myself and always drive past....I'm not after the Legal/moral answer on this topic........just

wondering if I'll be seeing a Condo as tall all the other VT's that have gone before it or not???.........whether or

not it's right,well....good luck to all of you and I hope that some people get some closure/peace-of-mind

sooner rather than later.........

Tammi · July 8, 2008

Sorry folks,itchy fingers...What I'm saying is (not wanting to sound insensitively rude)...I can't get up the
motivation to read through it all,so I'm just wondering what the Bottom line is with the whole situation ???...

is the Condo going to be built to View Talays' desired spec/height at the end of the day or what's the deal???

I live in Jomtien myself and always drive past....I'm not after the Legal/moral answer on this topic........just

wondering if I'll be seeing a Condo as tall all the other VT's that have gone before it or not???.........whether or

not it's right,well....good luck to all of you and I hope that some people get some closure/peace-of-mind

sooner rather than later.........

This is Thailand so who knows what the outcome will be. But I for one will give up on Thailand if View Talay is allowed to build VT7.

ThaiBob · July 8, 2008

Hi Prospero,
Many posters here seem to respect his decision to fight his case, and despite being on the opposite side, I have held that he has the right to take this to the courts (in case he is right in his interpretation), but there needs to be admitted the fact that perhaps the law can be interpreted a different way, and that the real intention of Issue 9 was to prevent from buildings in the ocean, not to push the construction line back further than the 100m it previously was, and still is (unless they win the court case). There are good arguments both ways, but assuming that the other side is always corrupt is ridiculous... VT7 investors have been accused in these posts of supporting corruption, and I am glad that you are of the opinion that most people of reasonable mind would not think that VT7 investors are acting immorally by investing in a VT7 condo. This is most likely a landmark case that the courts will use to determine a future direction for Pattaya, and perhaps Thailand. Either JCC condo owners or StopVT7 investors will lose out here because both sides cannot win. It is unfortunate, but a consequence that in inevitable.

The real intention of Issue 9 was to keep hi-rises at least 200 meters from the beach. The very first hi-rises to be built were Jomthien Condotel (1986) and Grand Condotel (1988) and both are at least 200 metres back.

You don't know the intention and this is your opinion. VT7 opponents always cite these buildings but conveniently forget all the buildings built closer to the seashore (JomTien Plaza, JomTien Palm Beach, Adriatic, etc., etc). The VT7 investors did their due diligence since the VT7 passed envrionmental review and was granted a construction permit. But did a JCC owner do theirs? Years ago I got a tour of JCC re-sales from the realtor at JCC. There were many things I liked about the building but when I looked out and saw the big vacant plot of land (VT7) and then the JomTien Plaza across the street my conclusion was that someday a high-rise could be built there and consequently did not believe the realtor's story (lie?) and walked away. JCC is not even beach-front property (like Grand Condotel). I do sympathize with JCC owners but I feel they have an unrealistic expectation of a protected seaview.

ripley · July 8, 2008

At last! Someone picked up on stopvt's shadey origins. The owners were NOT polled for a majority of support or anything else. It was announced to them at their 2007 AGM that legal fees had been paid to fund the group of 8? 9? 10? from their maintenance fund. The last AGM's second call meeting - a meeting which considers "the majority" to be the majority of people in the room or proxied - approved a "Legal Fund". No specifics as to how it's run or by whom. Until that time everyone was given to believe that the plaintiffs were a courageous band striking out independently.

I think someone should stop View Talay 7 and other VT projects on the beachfront. I'd throw my support wholeheartedly to a responsible group of litigants. I even understand the need to cut corners when dealing with contorted condominium law. I'll go further - now that they are a fact, I'll give cautious support to stopvt7. But - even bending over backwards to accomodate facts - I'm repelled by the outright dishonesty they've displayed on too many occasions. If they lie to you today, they'll lie to you tomorrow about something else and so it goes. Each successive leader receives license to lead us down the fabled garden path.

The fact that they are currently closely associated with at least one person who actively worked against the rights and property of owners is more than alarming.

Another thing: For those who throw down on the 2006 Board - keep in mind that the latter part of 2005 and the 2006 initiated the organized fight against VT7. They were hog-tied by condominium law regarding support from majority owners, by ignorance of Thai law, dishonest lawyers they trusted to interpret the system, by unresponsive government agencies. But at least they got things moving and people thinking for themselves. It's to be hoped that their groundwork which engendered what is now stopvt7 is not something they'll have to be ashamed of. If so, it will be the only thing.

Tammi · July 8, 2008

Hi Prospero,
Many posters here seem to respect his decision to fight his case, and despite being on the opposite side, I have held that he has the right to take this to the courts (in case he is right in his interpretation), but there needs to be admitted the fact that perhaps the law can be interpreted a different way, and that the real intention of Issue 9 was to prevent from buildings in the ocean, not to push the construction line back further than the 100m it previously was, and still is (unless they win the court case). There are good arguments both ways, but assuming that the other side is always corrupt is ridiculous... VT7 investors have been accused in these posts of supporting corruption, and I am glad that you are of the opinion that most people of reasonable mind would not think that VT7 investors are acting immorally by investing in a VT7 condo. This is most likely a landmark case that the courts will use to determine a future direction for Pattaya, and perhaps Thailand. Either JCC condo owners or StopVT7 investors will lose out here because both sides cannot win. It is unfortunate, but a consequence that in inevitable.

The real intention of Issue 9 was to keep hi-rises at least 200 meters from the beach. The very first hi-rises to be built were Jomthien Condotel (1986) and Grand Condotel (1988) and both are at least 200 metres back.

You don't know the intention and this is your opinion. VT7 opponents always cite these buildings but conveniently forget all the buildings built closer to the seashore (JomTien Plaza, JomTien Palm Beach, Adriatic, etc., etc). The VT7 investors did their due diligence since the VT7 passed envrionmental review and was granted a construction permit. But did a JCC owner do theirs? Years ago I got a tour of JCC re-sales from the realtor at JCC. There were many things I liked about the building but when I looked out and saw the big vacant plot of land (VT7) and then the JomTien Plaza across the street my conclusion was that someday a high-rise could be built there and consequently did not believe the realtor's story (lie?) and walked away. JCC is not even beach-front property (like Grand Condotel). I do sympathize with JCC owners but I feel they have an unrealistic expectation of a protected seaview.

Issue 9 states 200 metres from the beach - only thing that is in question is where measurement is from and it is my opinion and that of lawyers that it is definately not from 100 metres out to sea and then back again 200 meters.

We do not forget all the hi-rise buildings erected closer to the beach. Nobody complained about those buildings and it is the case that if nobody complains about a building within 5 years then the building is allowed to stay.

I have heard that JCC did own the land where VT7 is now being built and that JCC sold the land a long time ago in the firm belief that only buildings to 14 metres could be built on it.

VT5 was built because the co-owners at Grand were told BS by the Juristic Person Manager that the Law could be changed every 5 years and that VT5 was being legally built closer to the sea. Now we all know that there was no such 5 year changes in the Law. But the 5 years are not yet up and VT5 could be removed.

Jomthien Condotel co-owners were told by the developer that all the land right down to the beach was owned by Jomthien Condotel. Unfortunately nobody did due diligence and now, 22 years later, a developer is intending to build an 8 storey between Jomthien Condo A and the beach.

Grand Condotel has same problem. It too was told by same developer that all land between hi-rise and beach belonged to Grand and all the advertising implies this. The beachside land has been in dispute for probably 20 years.

I have heard that the new Condominium Act (which is in force since 4 July 2008?) has addressed this loophole and developers must now be very clear about what land, etc, belongs to a Condominium

Edited July 8, 2008 by Tammi

ThaiBob · July 8, 2008

Hi Prospero,
Many posters here seem to respect his decision to fight his case, and despite being on the opposite side, I have held that he has the right to take this to the courts (in case he is right in his interpretation), but there needs to be admitted the fact that perhaps the law can be interpreted a different way, and that the real intention of Issue 9 was to prevent from buildings in the ocean, not to push the construction line back further than the 100m it previously was, and still is (unless they win the court case). There are good arguments both ways, but assuming that the other side is always corrupt is ridiculous... VT7 investors have been accused in these posts of supporting corruption, and I am glad that you are of the opinion that most people of reasonable mind would not think that VT7 investors are acting immorally by investing in a VT7 condo. This is most likely a landmark case that the courts will use to determine a future direction for Pattaya, and perhaps Thailand. Either JCC condo owners or StopVT7 investors will lose out here because both sides cannot win. It is unfortunate, but a consequence that in inevitable.

The real intention of Issue 9 was to keep hi-rises at least 200 meters from the beach. The very first hi-rises to be built were Jomthien Condotel (1986) and Grand Condotel (1988) and both are at least 200 metres back.

You don't know the intention and this is your opinion. VT7 opponents always cite these buildings but conveniently forget all the buildings built closer to the seashore (JomTien Plaza, JomTien Palm Beach, Adriatic, etc., etc). The VT7 investors did their due diligence since the VT7 passed envrionmental review and was granted a construction permit. But did a JCC owner do theirs? Years ago I got a tour of JCC re-sales from the realtor at JCC. There were many things I liked about the building but when I looked out and saw the big vacant plot of land (VT7) and then the JomTien Plaza across the street my conclusion was that someday a high-rise could be built there and consequently did not believe the realtor's story (lie?) and walked away. JCC is not even beach-front property (like Grand Condotel). I do sympathize with JCC owners but I feel they have an unrealistic expectation of a protected seaview.

Issue 9 states 200 metres from the beach - only thing that is in question is where measurement is from and it is my opinion and that of lawyers that it is definately not from 100 metres out to sea and then back again 200 meters.

We do not forget all the hi-rise buildings erected closer to the beach. Nobody complained about those buildings and it is the case that if nobody complains about a building within 5 years then the building is allowed to stay.

I have heard that JCC did own the land where VT7 is now being built and that JCC sold the land a long time ago in the firm belief that only buildings to 14 metres could be built on it.

VT5 was built because the co-owners at Grand were told BS by the Juristic Person Manager that the Law could be changed every 5 years and that VT5 was being legally built closer to the sea. Now we all know that there was no such 5 year changes in the Law. But the 5 years are not yet up and VT5 could be removed.

Jomthien Condotel co-owners were told by the developer that all the land right down to the beach was owned by Jomthien Condotel. Unfortunately nobody did due diligence and now, 22 years later, a developer is intending to build an 8 storey between Jomthien Condo A and the beach.

Grand Condotel has same problem. It too was told by same developer that all land between hi-rise and beach belonged to Grand and all the advertising implies this. The beachside land has been in dispute for probably 20 years.

I have heard that the new Condominium Act (which is in force since 4 July 2008?) has addressed this loophole and developers must now be very clear about what land, etc, belongs to a Condominium

"and it is my opinion and that of lawyers that it is definately not from 100 metres out to sea and then back again 200 meters. " Yes, that is your opinion but not the opinion of the Court.

"I have heard that the new Condominium Act (which is in force since 4 July 2008?) has addressed this loophole and developers must now be very clear about what land, etc, belongs to a Condominium". This is an important new protection for condo buyers. It is my understanding that sales brochures and written promises become part of the sales contract and the developer can be held accountable if the terms of the contract are not honered.

Tammi · July 8, 2008

Quoting Tammi "and it is my opinion and that of lawyers that it is definately not from 100 metres out to sea and then back again 200 meters. "
Yes, that is your opinion but not the opinion of the Court.

Is the verdict in then?

prospero · July 8, 2008

You don't know the intention and this is your opinion. VT7 opponents always cite these buildings but conveniently forget all the buildings built closer to the seashore (JomTien Plaza, JomTien Palm Beach, Adriatic, etc., etc). The VT7 investors did their due diligence since the VT7 passed envrionmental review and was granted a construction permit. But did a JCC owner do theirs? Years ago I got a tour of JCC re-sales from the realtor at JCC. There were many things I liked about the building but when I looked out and saw the big vacant plot of land (VT7) and then the JomTien Plaza across the street my conclusion was that someday a high-rise could be built there and consequently did not believe the realtor's story (lie?) and walked away. JCC is not even beach-front property (like Grand Condotel). I do sympathize with JCC owners but I feel they have an unrealistic expectation of a protected seaview.

The investors in VT7 obviously did not do their due diligence or they wouldn't be hanging around this thread biting their nails and wondering if they will get their money back if the building is cut down to 14 meters. They took the word of their developer, which is exactly what the co-owners of JCC did. Due diligence is now being effected by the Supreme Admministrative Court in Bangkok, and the devil will have his due, one way or the other.

stopvt7 · July 8, 2008

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?

jpm76 · July 9, 2008

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?

Glad to see you are back StopVT7 and harping on about corruption again. I wonder if you noticed Ripley's post who seemed to be present at the AGM's when the whole funding of your legal action was ANNOUNCED, not voted on at an AGM... would love to hear your answer to that one because I always heavily doubted that the owners had VOTED for your personal crusade. Seems JCC has its own corruption issues, and some seem to be reaping benefits from it...try "paid legal costs for some". That will be the whole irony of this situation whether you win this case or not. You failed to see the sty in your own eye, yet went all over Thailand and the internet shouting about the wrongs of others. Corruption should be fought, but evidence needs to be presented. Welcome back however.

prospero · July 9, 2008

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?

Glad to see you are back StopVT7 and harping on about corruption again. I wonder if you noticed Ripley's post who seemed to be present at the AGM's when the whole funding of your legal action was ANNOUNCED, not voted on at an AGM... would love to hear your answer to that one because I always heavily doubted that the owners had VOTED for your personal crusade. Seems JCC has its own corruption issues, and some seem to be reaping benefits from it...try "paid legal costs for some". That will be the whole irony of this situation whether you win this case or not. You failed to see the sty in your own eye, yet went all over Thailand and the internet shouting about the wrongs of others. Corruption should be fought, but evidence needs to be presented. Welcome back however.

It's amazing to me that you accept Ripley's statement, which is full of heresay and innuendo, as the absolute truth, when you require ironclad evidence of corruption in Thailand from Stop VT7. You don't ask "Who is Ripley (a novice poster after all) and what is his agenda?" Instead, you leap to the conclusion that the co-owners of Jomtien Complex were cheated by Stop VT7.

Your agenda is obvious, JPM76, and your postings are so full of motes and beams as to be ludicrous. If I had handed over my hard earned cash to the View Talay Company, I would have the same agenda. But don't make the pretense of standing up for right and truth. And don't be so gullible as to believe every posting on this thread!

ThaiBob · July 9, 2008

Quoting Tammi "and it is my opinion and that of lawyers that it is definately not from 100 metres out to sea and then back again 200 meters. "
Yes, that is your opinion but not the opinion of the Court.

Is the verdict in then?

I think you knew the answer to your own question. The final verdict is not in but the Court's position on the measurement is documented in the January 16 order removing the temporary construction ban and repeated again in the SC decision of June 19.

Tammi · July 9, 2008

Quoting Tammi "and it is my opinion and that of lawyers that it is definately not from 100 metres out to sea and then back again 200 meters. "
Yes, that is your opinion but not the opinion of the Court.

Is the verdict in then?

I think you knew the answer to your own question. The final verdict is not in but the Court's position on the measurement is documented in the January 16 order removing the temporary construction ban and repeated again in the SC decision of June 19.

Thank you for setting me straight. So what's hapening now? Have JCC appealed and if so when can we expect the final (?) decision?

ripley · July 9, 2008

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?

Glad to see you are back StopVT7 and harping on about corruption again. I wonder if you noticed Ripley's post who seemed to be present at the AGM's when the whole funding of your legal action was ANNOUNCED, not voted on at an AGM... would love to hear your answer to that one because I always heavily doubted that the owners had VOTED for your personal crusade. Seems JCC has its own corruption issues, and some seem to be reaping benefits from it...try "paid legal costs for some". That will be the whole irony of this situation whether you win this case or not. You failed to see the sty in your own eye, yet went all over Thailand and the internet shouting about the wrongs of others. Corruption should be fought, but evidence needs to be presented. Welcome back however.

It's amazing to me that you accept Ripley's statement, which is full of heresay and innuendo, as the absolute truth, when you require ironclad evidence of corruption in Thailand from Stop VT7. You don't ask "Who is Ripley (a novice poster after all) and what is his agenda?" Instead, you leap to the conclusion that the co-owners of Jomtien Complex were cheated by Stop VT7.

Your agenda is obvious, JPM76, and your postings are so full of motes and beams as to be ludicrous. If I had handed over my hard earned cash to the View Talay Company, I would have the same agenda. But don't make the pretense of standing up for right and truth. And don't be so gullible as to believe every posting on this thread!

minutes of JCC AGMs & EGMs are printed and available to all co-owners. So much for "heresay".

ripley · July 9, 2008

Minutes of JCC AGMs and EGMs are a matter of record and easily available. So much for "heresay".

stopvt7 · July 9, 2008

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!

Tammi · July 9, 2008

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!

Thank you StopVT7 for setting us straight on what went on at JCC right at the beginning.

Your statement highlited above is interesting given that co-owners at Grand Condotel were told by Juristic Person Manager that VT5 was legal because "law could be changed every 5 years". That, of course, was also BS.

stopvt7 · July 10, 2008

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!

Sign In

Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

raro

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics