Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[jpm76]

Dear ThaiBob OldLover

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

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

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

ThaiBob OldLover you need to get back on subject!

Wow.. did Thaibob start the news about this collapse????? NO!!! YOU, Mr. StopVT7 must have too much cement in your brain.

As far as I can read, ThaiBob just corrected some speculation from another forummember, who changed the news and wrote that VT3 collapsed.

This is another example of your disability to read, interpret, and distinguish facts from whatever your brain/cement is coming up with.

<snip>

Yes, so what is new? Isn't the whole StopVT7 charade completely built upon these principles of distortion, and then blaming the other side for the things he started. I would think that enough people are awake to his efforts a tthis point in time because now even his sympathisers have realised what he has done throughout this whole farce. In the case of StopVT7, he truly believes what he wants t believe, but fortunately, most people are provided with enough intellect and reason to see through it all. When the posters here get a picture of the "true" facts, then they will understand as we have, OHDlover. StopVT7 is no real threat to anything other than hos attempt to misconstrue the picture to the general public. See you on the 27th floor!

[prospero]

It must be difficult to be an investor in VT7. You have to constantly reassure yourself that you're going to win the case. Luckily, I haven't sunk money into that pile, so I don't have to swagger with false confidence.

The hotel that collapsed was a View Talay project. The company is rushing to complete another project -- View Talay 7. It is not unreasonable to draw a conclusion that the same haste that may have led to the hotel collapse, may lead to corners cut in the construction of your twenty-seven story paradise.

The same lax regulation and, dare I say it? corruption that may have led to the issuance of building permits too close to the sea, may also lead to insufficient oversight of the construction industry itself.

On a peaceful day in 1997, when I was living in Kuala Lumpur, I heard a great noise -- then, the sound of dozens of sirens. It was Highland Towers. You might want to read about it. Incidents like this are quite common in this part of the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Towers_collapse

[Guderian]

It must be difficult to be an investor in VT7. You have to constantly reassure yourself that you're going to win the case. Luckily, I haven't sunk money into that pile, so I don't have to swagger with false confidence.

The hotel that collapsed was a View Talay project. The company is rushing to complete another project -- View Talay 7. It is not unreasonable to draw a conclusion that the same haste that may have led to the hotel collapse, may lead to corners cut in the construction of your twenty-seven story paradise.

The same lax regulation and, dare I say it? corruption that may have led to the issuance of building permits too close to the sea, may also lead to insufficient oversight of the construction industry itself.

On a peaceful day in 1997, when I was living in Kuala Lumpur, I heard a great noise -- then, the sound of dozens of sirens. It was Highland Towers. You might want to read about it. Incidents like this are quite common in this part of the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Towers_collapse

Sound must travel pretty slowly down there in KL, given that the collapse apparently happened in 1993!

Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen that. With the two towers left standing behind the pile of debris, I won't draw the obvious comparison:

They are working on the 20th floor in the front wing of VT7 at the moment, and I got to wondering what the alternatives really are now? If the courts eventually found against VT, would they really go to the enormous expense of demolishing VT7 if ordered to do so, or would they simply allow the VT7 subsidiary company to go broke and let the concrete skeleton languish? In the 1997 property crash here, how many uncompleted towers were ever demolished? Not many, I suspect.

So it might be that JCC faces two possible futures: they lose the case (or it drags on forever) and they will then have a (hopefully) nicely maintained new condo building stuck in front of them; or they win the case before the building is occupied and end up with a partially-completed 20-something floor monstrosity stuck outside their windows forever more. Which of these two scenarios is really the more attractive one for the owners?

It's brave of JCC to test the legal waters here regarding buildings that may be situated illegally close to the beach, but it starts to seem to me as if (from a personal viewpoint, rather than from one of upholding Thai law) you are looking at a no-win situation.

I don't own a condo in either JCC or any of the VT developments, by the way. This is an important case and I have followed it as best I can. I won't comment on the arguments presented on the preceding 80-odd pages, because what I think is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what the courts decide. But looking forward, whatever the outcome, I am not sure that the unfortunate residents of JCC will ever get their view back, will they?

[ripley]

Prospero: "What impact will the accident at VT3 have on VT7????" (first mention on this thread of the accident) Stopvt7: "Also, today after work stared, at 8:55 AM a large tuck came to VT7 building sight carrying about 30 plus workers. I bet it came from their other construction sight which was close for 30 days?"

lookat: "The “POOR CONSTRUCTION BEHIND THE BUILDING COLLAPSES IN PATTAYA” is part of the VT group. Their original business is hotels and vt is building this hotel"

What is the source of your information about the accident being at a View Talay site? Certainly hasn't been anything in the media about it. Pretty meaningless to make claims (or dispute them) without some kind of proof or back up.

beginner: "Can anyone now use your name?" That was my question & it was answered with a flame - to a third party at that.

Edited September 8, 2008 by ripley

[lookat]

ripley "What is the source of your information about the accident being at a View Talay site?"

Get off your bottom and go look! You will enter the sight by passing throw vt's gate and on their private road. I was with Thai friends who are in the know.

The daughter mainly runs the hotels business. She is also a partner in vt8 but not vt7.

Edited September 8, 2008 by lookat

[stopvt7]

Dear Guderian

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Vorapoj Visarutpich

Judge of Supreme Administrative Court

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

Thailand is a country of laws!

[plasticpig]

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

Thailand is a country of laws!

you are wrong, big time.

Ha, Ha. Keep it up.

[stopvt7]

Dear plasticpig

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

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

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

[Guderian]

Dear plasticpig

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

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

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

What I was wondering was: who exactly will pay for the tearing down? There is no salvage value worth talking about, and I don't see VT paying for it, no matter what the court orders. I'd be very surprised if they didn't have their company structures set up to avoid this sort of possibility. So that leaves JCC to pay for it (not very likely), Pattaya City Hall (even less likely), or the Thai government (unlikeliest of all).

Believe me, I'm sympathetic to your position, but things are now so advanced (VT7 will be more or less topped-out by Christmas) that I wonder if you have thought through what the outcome might be in the end? There are worse things than having a brand new condo building stuck outside your window.

Was it Edgar Allen Poe who warned us to be careful what we wish for?

[SmartFarang]

Does anyone have any update on the plot of land between VT5 and VT7?

It was cleared a few months ago, and reports on this board - and the girls in the VT office - informed that an "Amusement Park" was going to appear there.

Now I have received reports that the Amusement Park project is cancelled, and VT Group is going to build some Villas there.

[stopvt7]

Dear SmartFarang

Their was never a plan for a Amusement Park!

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

[stopvt7]

Dear Guderian

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

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

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

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

[Sir Burr]

Yeah........right! Just like the 101 businesses on Walking Street.

I pointed out several metres of posts back that if StopVT7 win, they are going to be in a worse position than if they lose.

Very few people commented on it. Just the old self-deceiving crap that Thailand is a country of laws, when everything you see in this country points to the opposite.

StopVT7 is a master of the art of self delusion.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Sir Burr

[prospero]

Did the Supreme Administrative Court rule on Walking Street?

Maybe I missed something, but I thought the Jomtien Condotel lawsuit was the first challenge to construction under the Issue 9 ruling.

Perhaps, a court order might have an effect on City Hall and/or the VT7 developer.

I think it's wonderful that we have all these experts on Thai Law, including Stop VT7 -- but also you and Thai Bob. I wonder if you can get teaching positions at the Chulalongkorn University Faculty of Law. Of course, you might have to learn Thai to deliver your lectures.

[Naam]

Thailand is a country of laws!

it is?

[Guderian]

Dear Guderian

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

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

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

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

Your naivety apparently knows no bounds, stopvt7!

[ripley]

"Then the court orders the building to be torn down to 14 meters. don't weary the money setting at the building sight t0 do it. " "

What does that even MEAN? Suddenly we're back to needing a translator.

The "Amusement Park"/ "Mall"/ "Villas" rumours are what we were all hearing as VT7 was gearing up way back when. Probably a good idea to run for cover when you hear those words....

[stopvt7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited September 9, 2008 by Buckwheat
URL removed. Please see forum rules

[prospero]

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

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

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

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

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

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

This thread is what keeps Thaivisa/Pattaya in business. Shutting it down would be counterproductive not only to free speech but to the advertising income from Villa Market, etc. Over a hundred and twenty thousand hits, and all due to you, Stop VT7!

Bravo! Keep it up!

Edited September 9, 2008 by prospero

[Crow Boy]

This is a general notice

This thread is governed by rules of Thai Visa. If you are unsure of them - read them here

Aggressive posting aka flaming will not be tolerated any longer on this thread. If you cannot reply in a civil manner my advice is to not post at all.

Do not make comments on government organisation or on court rulings.

Do not use nested quotes and then add a simple - "yes agree" It adds nothing to he conversation and the quoted block is superfluous. Similarly do not write INSIDE the quoted passage - it is confusing and misleading.

The use of colour, italics, and bolding is used to emphasise a particular passage eg a word or sentence, It is NOT to be used for the entire post. It is messy and makes it look like a children's school report not a post by an adult.

Putting flags, blocks of emoticons etc is similarly superfluous and will be deleted. If I deem the effort of editing too much I will simply kill the post.

This thread is interesting and important to a lot of us especially those who live in Pattaya - if you wish to see it remain open and to participate in the thread follow the rules.

If you wish to discuss this further send me a PM - DO NOT make comments on moderation or moderators in the Open Forum.

Crow Boy

Moderating Team

Thai Visa

[jpm76]

Dear Guderian

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Vorapoj Visarutpich

Judge of Supreme Administrative Court

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

Thailand is a country of laws!

StopVT7, you have never had any SC support, and Rayong certainly did not disrespect the SC. WHY???

Firstly, because when Rayong examined all the evidence, and decided that it was in the favour of VT, that was the condition met for the court ordering otherwise. It was only a TEMPORARY condition until Rayong had the chance to examine the evidence, and when they did, it was good night to you.

Now, to rebutt some of yoru points. SC had never made any ruling or even bias either way. You keep missing the point made by far too many now, that the SC stated the law, and then stated "Therefore IF". This is not a definite statement of support for your arguments, but rather a suspensive conditional statement. All of your posting, highlighting and taking out of context cannot change the way that everyone else will read what is written (unless you start rewording the rulings etc, which I do not put beyond you)

You obviously do not understand the law either if you think that the courts are bound by only one scenario. The same SC statement that you refer to for your support, although ot quoted here, from them also states "SHOULD HAVE ruled". Now should have is a past tense statement, and any practical person (and there are plenty of them trying to explain the realities to you) understands that where there has been a great degree of uncertainty in this landmark case, the courts will certainly examine far more than the scenario you see as inevitable. BUT, this statement was also in light of the paragraph with the big IF, ie it was only examing the hypothesis as a scenario, yet you take it as a decision. It was mere extrapolation of a point as to guide any future ruling. Since, the Rayong court ruled against the permit being unlawful, it all became irrelevant at that point.

As for your claims of support for the SC in accepting this case, that was simply a matter of the rule of law being applied. As it was against the law for Rayong to quickly and expediently throw your case out without appeal (to save the Kingdom plenty of time, as they thought the best course of action was), the SC merely ruled that you have a right to appeal the decision made against you by Rayong. Rayong are certainly 100% against you, and despite all your claims for SC support, no-one else sees it but you - though you would have everyone believe that you are winning here, I think you are one step from being removed from this game, and all your case being thrown out.

This has all been explained to you, but you continue to post a propaganda war based upon false facts, and I feel that it is only fair that we should have the opporutnity to amend these "facts" in order to present a truer picture to the general public.

I only wish that you were paying for this court case out of your own pocket, rather than taking it from JCC owners, because then I think it may have the effect of actually forcing you to consider all the evidence pointed out to you instead of continuing in your blindness and hope. You were right to present an initial challenge to this, but now, you are failing to read the writing on the wall, and you do not care for anyone but yourself. Consider the alternatives as presented to you by others...even if you are successful (and I cannot see how that could happen at all now), you will lose anyhow. You are actually acting against the interests therefore of all the people actually paying for your case ie JCC owners. If I was one of them, I would be launching my lawsuit against you for all the costs your ignorance is producing here, and do you not think that, after all the trouble you have caused here (initially in a positive light), that there would be some in the justice system that would want to drive home to you the fact of yoru foreigner arrogance by making you pay to the full extent. Tread carefully StopVT7, because I do not htink that you deserve all the things that may come your way for want of a bit of clarity, and putting your own self back into the bigger picture ie greater interest, vs own self-interest (and no-one buys the beach protection motive, not even your own supporters).

Minimize the damage in this case. Lay it down and admit you are wrong, before you wear the consequences of it. This is friendly advice to you. I hope that you heed it because the stakes may be higher than you think. As most see it, you have nothing real to win, and everything here to lose. Think about it, and examine all the evidence from a unfettered point of view - you will see that VT7 has a good case in that they merely followed the law, and therefore, how can they be punished to the extent that you wish. You are dreaming there. Still time to minimize the damage to yourself however.

[jpm76]

Dear Guderian

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Vorapoj Visarutpich

Judge of Supreme Administrative Court

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

Thailand is a country of laws!

StopVT7, you have never had any SC support, and Rayong certainly did not disrespect the SC. WHY???

Firstly, because when Rayong examined all the evidence, and decided that it was in the favour of VT, that was the condition met for the court ordering otherwise. It was only a TEMPORARY condition until Rayong had the chance to examine the evidence, and when they did, it was good night to you.

Now, to rebutt some of yoru points. SC had never made any ruling or even bias either way. You keep missing the point made by far too many now, that the SC stated the law, and then stated "Therefore IF". This is not a definite statement of support for your arguments, but rather a suspensive conditional statement. All of your posting, highlighting and taking out of context cannot change the way that everyone else will read what is written (unless you start rewording the rulings etc, which I do not put beyond you)

You obviously do not understand the law either if you think that the courts are bound by only one scenario. The same SC statement that you refer to for your support, although ot quoted here, from them also states "SHOULD HAVE ruled". Now should have is a past tense statement, and any practical person (and there are plenty of them trying to explain the realities to you) understands that where there has been a great degree of uncertainty in this landmark case, the courts will certainly examine far more than the scenario you see as inevitable. BUT, this statement was also in light of the paragraph with the big IF, ie it was only examing the hypothesis as a scenario, yet you take it as a decision. It was mere extrapolation of a point as to guide any future ruling. Since, the Rayong court ruled against the permit being unlawful, it all became irrelevant at that point.

As for your claims of support for the SC in accepting this case, that was simply a matter of the rule of law being applied. As it was against the law for Rayong to quickly and expediently throw your case out without appeal (to save the Kingdom plenty of time, as they thought the best course of action was), the SC merely ruled that you have a right to appeal the decision made against you by Rayong. Rayong are certainly 100% against you, and despite all your claims for SC support, no-one else sees it but you - though you would have everyone believe that you are winning here, I think you are one step from being removed from this game, and all your case being thrown out.

This has all been explained to you, but you continue to post a propaganda war based upon false facts, and I feel that it is only fair that we should have the opporutnity to amend these "facts" in order to present a truer picture to the general public.

I only wish that you were paying for this court case out of your own pocket, rather than taking it from JCC owners, because then I think it may have the effect of actually forcing you to consider all the evidence pointed out to you instead of continuing in your blindness and hope. You were right to present an initial challenge to this, but now, you are failing to read the writing on the wall, and you do not care for anyone but yourself. Consider the alternatives as presented to you by others...even if you are successful (and I cannot see how that could happen at all now), you will lose anyhow. You are actually acting against the interests therefore of all the people actually paying for your case ie JCC owners. If I was one of them, I would be launching my lawsuit against you for all the costs your ignorance is producing here, and do you not think that, after all the trouble you have caused here (initially in a positive light), that there would be some in the justice system that would want to drive home to you the fact of yoru foreigner arrogance by making you pay to the full extent. Tread carefully StopVT7, because I do not htink that you deserve all the things that may come your way for want of a bit of clarity, and putting your own self back into the bigger picture ie greater interest, vs own self-interest (and no-one buys the beach protection motive, not even your own supporters).

Minimize the damage in this case. Lay it down and admit you are wrong, before you wear the consequences of it. This is friendly advice to you. I hope that you heed it because the stakes may be higher than you think. As most see it, you have nothing real to win, and everything here to lose. Think about it, and examine all the evidence from a unfettered point of view - you will see that VT7 has a good case in that they merely followed the law, and therefore, how can they be punished to the extent that you wish. You are dreaming there. Still time to minimize the damage to yourself however.

Just want to make the point that I am not writing upon court rulings, but rather the claims by StopVT7 for support, and where I have made reference to rulings, I have actually been more in the light of examining the English language of the statements by the SC that StopVT7 uses for support from the SC. My personal viewpoint is clear - StopVT7 is not giving a proper understanding to the general public on exactly how the statements were presented.

I think that the VT7 investors, certainly including myself have made positions upon court rulings in the past, but we certainly do not claim to be experts upon it. In fact, our earlier posts all contended that we were not in the position to judge matter so f Thai law, Thai engineering..all of this required specialist knowledge, and that specialist knowledge has been applied throughout this case. It is why Vt7 continues to be built beyond the 14 m mark to date without court opposition - the only drawback has been how quickly Rayong tried to throw the case out...proper legal process needs to be followed, even if that means that this case will be dragged out for years. Hopefully not!

[OhdLover]

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

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

It's all so easy, isn't it? No doubt about it. That's why this case is already lasting for almost 2 years.

The law is so clear, you need to be out of your mind not to be able to understand the facts.

What exactly is the judge waiting for??? There's no left, no right, just 1 straight answer.

Why does only stopvt7 understand these facts ??? Why do they keep us waiting???

And why is VT7 growing higher every day? Maybe because... no... how can I even think of that.... silly me.

[prospero]

<br />This is a general notice<br /><br />This thread is governed by rules of Thai Visa. If you are unsure of them - read them <a href="http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/boardrules.html" target="_blank">here</a><br /><br />Aggressive posting aka flaming will not be tolerated any longer on this thread. If you cannot reply in a civil manner my advice is to not post at all.<br /><br />Do not make comments on government organisation or on court rulings.<br /><br />Do not use nested quotes and then add a simple - &quot;yes agree&quot; It adds nothing to he conversation and the quoted block is superfluous. Similarly do not write INSIDE the quoted passage - it is confusing and misleading.<br /><br />The use of colour, italics, and bolding is used to emphasise a particular passage eg a word or sentence, It is NOT to be used for the entire post. It is messy and makes it look like a children's school report not a post by an adult.<br /><br />Putting flags, blocks of emoticons etc is similarly superfluous and will be deleted. If I deem the effort of editing too much I will simply kill the post.<br /><br />This thread is interesting and important to a lot of us especially those who live in Pattaya - if you wish to see it remain open and to participate in the thread follow the rules.<br /><br />If you wish to discuss this further send me a PM - DO NOT make comments on moderation or moderators in the Open Forum.<br /><br />Crow Boy<br />Moderating Team<br />Thai Visa<br />

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

I, for one, would be very happy if this thread migrated to another website where freedom of expression was practiced. Thaivisa reminds me of Singapore. The site is more concerned with making money from advertising than being a place for open comment. The tone of the above posting says it all. I hear echoes of my junior high school Assistant Principal.

Anyone for finding a new home? Reply quickly before my comment is removed.

Edited September 10, 2008 by prospero

[ripley]

Prospero - I didn't expect such an absurd answer from you, who - with the rest of us - have managed to speak your opinion while retaining dignity and decent manners. Which is all the forum requires. No slander. No flaming. Watch yourself when speaking of your guest govt. AND show a little maturity in the set-up of your post.

If you want to reject these simple rules and scroll thru big bold lettered, often insulting and agressive statements peppered with emoticons and spouting cant, you really should go elsewhere. (Maybe the "Jerry Springer Show"?)

[fredKroket]

Prospero - I didn't expect such an absurd answer from you, who - with the rest of us - have managed to speak your opinion while retaining dignity and decent manners. Which is all the forum requires. No slander. No flaming. Watch yourself when speaking of your guest govt. AND show a little maturity in the set-up of your post.

If you want to reject these simple rules and scroll thru big bold lettered, often insulting and agressive statements peppered with emoticons and spouting cant, you really should go elsewhere. (Maybe the "Jerry Springer Show"?)

Haha (No emoticons) Well said that man! If Prospero had some manners and dignity he may get some support, but there are ways and means which should be taken into account, sadly he is not.

[Dudefromkent]

What a shame! This was a active blog about “condo owners sue” but they can not inform about c_ _ rt action? Why??

[Guderian]

Looks like this thread is finished without its primary source of entertainment:

Stop VT7

[ripley]

Well, word is that VT7 has given its answer to the courts as required - on August 13. The reply is what you might expect, and they're saying the measurements have already been done 3 times so enough already. Let's see - this news comes to us Sept. 13, they actually replied Aug.13. Bit of a time gap? Information lapse? Why no big blue & red post regarding this?? Or did I miss that? Certainly the info site wasn't informed.

TICK-TOCK.

Edited September 13, 2008 by ripley

[Crow Boy]

What a shame! This was a active blog about “condo owners sue” but they can not inform about c_ _ rt action? Why??

The ruling can be reported but criticism of the ruling, the court, or the court system can not

Crow Boy

Moderating Team

Thai Visa