Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[lookat]

It is good one does not have to take a I.Q. test to live it Thailand!

[bobbin]

stopvt7

Geez man, please have your posts translated into English before posting.

I bet there's a lot of things you are not so good at.

stopvt7 gets his message across and that's what communication is about.

But who IS Amnat?

Who are you? His big "sister"?

He does NOT communicate effectively. Hence my post.

[prospero]

It is good one does not have to take a I.Q. test to live it Thailand!

From many of the postings on ThaiVisa, that is obvious!

[Gary A]

I truly can understand condo owners being upset about loosing their sea view. What irritates me is that some have tried to turn it into a save the children, the beach and the environment story. Call a spade a spade and leave it at that.

ADDED - I decided to add that I think View Talay is a shady outfit with many deceptive marketing practices and after they have their money, you are on your own. I say this from experience and not from beer drinking second hand stories.

Edited April 11, 2008 by Gary A

[wca01]

.

ADDED - I decided to add that I think View Talay is a shady outfit with many deceptive marketing practices and after they have their money, you are on your own. I say this from experience and not from beer drinking second hand stories.

I am owner of a View Talay condo, but I have to say that I don't have any problems and that I am quite happy.

WCA

[Gary A]

I am owner of a View Talay condo, but I have to say that I don't have any problems and that I am quite happy.

WCA

Is the condo in your name or did they give you a free bogus company because they lied to you about being able to have it in your name?

Is the upkeep being taken care of and the maintenance fund healthy? Or is the fund broke and your monthly fees being raised?

[legit]

It is good one does not have to take a I.Q. test to live in Thailand!

From many of the postings on ThaiVisa, that is obvious!

Dido for the newbie legit

Did you just threatened the farangs health or lives?

Don't be so jumpy. The fool and his money separate soon. Than the Thai visa system take care of him.

Doesn't take much I.Q. to work this out.

Edited April 12, 2008 by legit

[Pattaya_Fox]

A number of posts referring to unsubstantiated allegations of corruption have been deleted.

[lookat]

It is good one does not have to take a I.Q. test to live in Thailand!

From many of the postings on ThaiVisa, that is obvious!

Dido for the newbie legit

Did you just threatened the farangs health or lives?

Don't be so jumpy. The fool and his money separate soon. Than the Thai visa system take care of him.

Doesn't take much I.Q. to work this out.

legit were you bad!?

Things were active before Pattaya_Fox deleted the postings.

Edited April 12, 2008 by lookat

[tropiccapricorn]

A number of posts referring to unsubstantiated allegations of corruption have been deleted.

unsubstantiated or just scary?

[lookat]

A number of posts referring to unsubstantiated allegations of corruption have been deleted.

unsubstantiated or just scary?

It had been report a while back that their anticorruption unit from Bangkok witch is investigating the issuance of vt7 building permit. Now I understand why from this morning information which were deleted. Their big sum of money talked about which would be investigated. But who know?

[tropiccapricorn]

I could imagine, (just a thought) that the admin got some rather unpleasant response on certain posts about this matter

with possible consequences (legal or so) on which it was decided to take the safer way out which would be

understandable. But unsubstantiated or not is a different matter, of course so would be proof of any allegation.

Anyway the unfortunate thing would be if it would end up talking about the weather.

[stopvt7]

legit

You sounded like a lawyer? Do you work for VT?

Did someone hit a sore point with you? Maybe some truth came out?

I agree that there is no proof of money being paid and we should wait on a government anticorruption investigation.

No one has explained why Asia LawWorks could agree with city hall and VT7 without any explanation to the group 10 which they were representing? Do you have any insight?

Does any one remember August 31 2007 filing in The Administrative Court by Amnat Thiengtham of Asia LawWorks? You can read parts of it below:

"The Administrative Court of Rayong Province

Filed on: 31st August 2007

Mr. Aloysius Joannes Maria Tenbuelt No.1 and 9 Associates Litigants

Between

Pattaya City Local Official First Prosecuted Person

View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. Second Prosecuted Person

The undersigned is the legal representative of Mr. Aloysius Joannes Maria Tenbuelt, the No. 1 Litigant and 9 Associates, by Mr. Amnat Thiengtham, LL.M, the authorized person from the litigants, has received the Testimony of the First prosecuted Person dated 19th July 2007 on 26th July 2007. I would clarify the following statements made by the First prosecuted Person based on the hereunder mentioned reasons.

1.) The provisional order before judgment released by The Administrative Court of Rayong and the modified provisional order before judgment by the Supreme Administrative Court of Bangkok granted to the litigants was very fair and justified. The 10 litigants shall support fully to the Courts decisions.

2.) The 10 litigants would like to respond to the testimony of the authorized person of the First Prosecuted Person, Mr. Chatri Srivises, as follows:

The ten litigants would respectfully advise to the Administrative Court that the prosecution of this case was filed rightfully as the First prosecuted Person did not follow the steps and procedures necessary in considering the application for construction as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 and Mr. Amnat Thiengtham would like to clarify as follows: ................................................................................

............

As a result of the above mentioned reasons, the 10 litigants would kindly ask the court to modify the order for the to be named expert witness not to measure 100 Meters, but to measure 200 Meters from mean sea level MSL which equals the Construction Control Line onto the land as this is as shown the only logical and legal point to measure and show that the planed construction of the Second Prosecuted Person is in the no-construction zone according to Ministerial Regulation Issue 9. Therefore, the 10 litigants request the court to revoke the construction permit No. 162/2007

Yours respectfully,

Mr. Amnat Thiengtham"

Compare the above court filing statement by Amnat with the below January 15, 2008 court order?

Amnat claims from January 16 court order: “The Litigant and 9 Associates filed a motion dated 15 January 2008 to clarify on matter of fact and matter of law which can be summarized that the ten Litigants accepted the MSL measurement process conducted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning that the method should be correct in theory, but the Litigants are of opinion that the building control area prescribed in the map annexed to the Royal Decree is at the 100 meter distance from the original shoreline toward the sea and not from the MSL point.”

How can this happen?

Also, is it true the VT owner became angry after reading our Supreme Admin Court appeal? The law is explained in our appeal. There no where in Issue 9 it says to "measure into the sea"!

Thailand is a country of laws! Wait for the appeal court answer.

[prospero]

legit

You sounded like a lawyer? Do you work for VT?

Did someone hit a sore point with you? Maybe some truth came out?

I agree that there is no proof of money being paid and we should wait on a government anticorruption investigation.

No one has explained why Asia LawWorks could agree with city hall and VT7 without any explanation to the group 10 which they were representing? Do you have any insight?

Does any one remember August 31 2007 filing in The Administrative Court by Amnat Thiengtham of Asia LawWorks? You can read parts of it below:

"The Administrative Court of Rayong Province

Filed on: 31st August 2007

Mr. Aloysius Joannes Maria Tenbuelt No.1 and 9 Associates Litigants

Between

Pattaya City Local Official First Prosecuted Person

View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. Second Prosecuted Person

The undersigned is the legal representative of Mr. Aloysius Joannes Maria Tenbuelt, the No. 1 Litigant and 9 Associates, by Mr. Amnat Thiengtham, LL.M, the authorized person from the litigants, has received the Testimony of the First prosecuted Person dated 19th July 2007 on 26th July 2007. I would clarify the following statements made by the First prosecuted Person based on the hereunder mentioned reasons.

1.) The provisional order before judgment released by The Administrative Court of Rayong and the modified provisional order before judgment by the Supreme Administrative Court of Bangkok granted to the litigants was very fair and justified. The 10 litigants shall support fully to the Courts decisions.

2.) The 10 litigants would like to respond to the testimony of the authorized person of the First Prosecuted Person, Mr. Chatri Srivises, as follows:

The ten litigants would respectfully advise to the Administrative Court that the prosecution of this case was filed rightfully as the First prosecuted Person did not follow the steps and procedures necessary in considering the application for construction as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 and Mr. Amnat Thiengtham would like to clarify as follows: ................................................................................

............

As a result of the above mentioned reasons, the 10 litigants would kindly ask the court to modify the order for the to be named expert witness not to measure 100 Meters, but to measure 200 Meters from mean sea level MSL which equals the Construction Control Line onto the land as this is as shown the only logical and legal point to measure and show that the planed construction of the Second Prosecuted Person is in the no-construction zone according to Ministerial Regulation Issue 9. Therefore, the 10 litigants request the court to revoke the construction permit No. 162/2007

Yours respectfully,

Mr. Amnat Thiengtham"

Compare the above court filing statement by Amnat with the below January 15, 2008 court order?

Amnat claims from January 16 court order: “The Litigant and 9 Associates filed a motion dated 15 January 2008 to clarify on matter of fact and matter of law which can be summarized that the ten Litigants accepted the MSL measurement process conducted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning that the method should be correct in theory, but the Litigants are of opinion that the building control area prescribed in the map annexed to the Royal Decree is at the 100 meter distance from the original shoreline toward the sea and not from the MSL point.”

How can this happen?

Also, is it true the VT owner became angry after reading our Supreme Admin Court appeal? The law is explained in our appeal. There no where in Issue 9 it says to "measure into the sea"!

Thailand is a country of laws! Wait for the appeal court answer.

It would seem to me that, as you were AsiaLawWork's clients, they owed (and owe) you an explanation of their stand in court. Didn't you discuss tactics with them? Didn't you see a copy of their filing before they submitted it?

I don't get it. Please let us know what Amnat and Marcus told you. They must have told you something!

[ThaiBob]

legit

You sounded like a lawyer? Do you work for VT?

Did someone hit a sore point with you? Maybe some truth came out?

I agree that there is no proof of money being paid and we should wait on a government anticorruption investigation.

No one has explained why Asia LawWorks could agree with city hall and VT7 without any explanation to the group 10 which they were representing? Do you have any insight?

Does any one remember August 31 2007 filing in The Administrative Court by Amnat Thiengtham of Asia LawWorks? You can read parts of it below:

"The Administrative Court of Rayong Province

Filed on: 31st August 2007

Mr. Aloysius Joannes Maria Tenbuelt No.1 and 9 Associates Litigants

Between

Pattaya City Local Official First Prosecuted Person

View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. Second Prosecuted Person

The undersigned is the legal representative of Mr. Aloysius Joannes Maria Tenbuelt, the No. 1 Litigant and 9 Associates, by Mr. Amnat Thiengtham, LL.M, the authorized person from the litigants, has received the Testimony of the First prosecuted Person dated 19th July 2007 on 26th July 2007. I would clarify the following statements made by the First prosecuted Person based on the hereunder mentioned reasons.

1.) The provisional order before judgment released by The Administrative Court of Rayong and the modified provisional order before judgment by the Supreme Administrative Court of Bangkok granted to the litigants was very fair and justified. The 10 litigants shall support fully to the Courts decisions.

2.) The 10 litigants would like to respond to the testimony of the authorized person of the First Prosecuted Person, Mr. Chatri Srivises, as follows:

The ten litigants would respectfully advise to the Administrative Court that the prosecution of this case was filed rightfully as the First prosecuted Person did not follow the steps and procedures necessary in considering the application for construction as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 and Mr. Amnat Thiengtham would like to clarify as follows: ................................................................................

............

As a result of the above mentioned reasons, the 10 litigants would kindly ask the court to modify the order for the to be named expert witness not to measure 100 Meters, but to measure 200 Meters from mean sea level MSL which equals the Construction Control Line onto the land as this is as shown the only logical and legal point to measure and show that the planed construction of the Second Prosecuted Person is in the no-construction zone according to Ministerial Regulation Issue 9. Therefore, the 10 litigants request the court to revoke the construction permit No. 162/2007

Yours respectfully,

Mr. Amnat Thiengtham"

Compare the above court filing statement by Amnat with the below January 15, 2008 court order?

Amnat claims from January 16 court order: “The Litigant and 9 Associates filed a motion dated 15 January 2008 to clarify on matter of fact and matter of law which can be summarized that the ten Litigants accepted the MSL measurement process conducted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning that the method should be correct in theory, but the Litigants are of opinion that the building control area prescribed in the map annexed to the Royal Decree is at the 100 meter distance from the original shoreline toward the sea and not from the MSL point.”

How can this happen?

Also, is it true the VT owner became angry after reading our Supreme Admin Court appeal? The law is explained in our appeal. There no where in Issue 9 it says to "measure into the sea"!

Thailand is a country of laws! Wait for the appeal court answer.

"Compare the above court filing statement by Amnat with the below January 15, 2008 court order?

Amnat claims from January 16 court order: “The Litigant and 9 Associates filed a motion dated 15 January 2008 to clarify on matter of fact and matter of law which can be summarized that the ten Litigants accepted the MSL measurement process conducted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning that the method should be correct in theory, but the Litigants are of opinion that the building control area prescribed in the map annexed to the Royal Decree is at the 100 meter distance from the original shoreline toward the sea and not from the MSL point.”

I don't understand completely how the Thai judicial system works. I have been told their are no court reporters and the judge makes notes on only what he thinks is important and then writes a summary that all parties must sign as the legal representation of the court proceedings. Is the above Amnat's own words or those of the judge? Was Amnat allowed to cross-examine witnesses and introduce evidence, and if so what questions did he actually ask to help your case?

[stopvt7]

legit

As a result of the above mentioned reasons, the 10 litigants would kindly ask the court to modify the order for the to be named expert witness not to measure 100 Meters, but to measure 200 Meters from mean sea level MSL which equals the Construction Control Line onto the land as this is as shown the only logical and legal point to measure and show that the planed construction of the Second Prosecuted Person is in the no-construction zone according to Ministerial Regulation Issue 9. Therefore, the 10 litigants request the court to revoke the construction permit No. 162/2007

Yours respectfully,

Mr. Amnat Thiengtham"

Compare the above court filing statement by Amnat with the below January 15, 2008 court order?

Amnat claims from January 16 court order: "The Litigant and 9 Associates filed a motion dated 15 January 2008 to clarify on matter of fact and matter of law which can be summarized that the ten Litigants accepted the MSL measurement process conducted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning that the method should be correct in theory, but the Litigants are of opinion that the building control area prescribed in the map annexed to the Royal Decree is at the 100 meter distance from the original shoreline toward the sea and not from the MSL point."

How can this happen?

Also, is it true the VT owner became angry after reading our Supreme Admin Court appeal? The law is explained in our appeal. There no where in Issue 9 it says to "measure into the sea"!

Thailand is a country of laws! Wait for the appeal court answer.

It would seem to me that, as you were AsiaLawWork's clients, they owed (and owe) you an explanation of their stand in court. Didn't you discuss tactics with them? Didn't you see a copy of their filing before they submitted it?

I don't get it. Please let us know what Amnat and Marcus told you. They must have told you something!

Yes we discuss tactics with Markus and Amnat in Asia LawWorks offices. Amnat told me not to weary that would ask the witness tough question. Then not one question was asked in court!

We did not get a change to read Asia LawWorks court filing in English until after the court hearing was over. We wear not even given a copy in Thai before the court hearing! I don’t understand how the judge on the 15 January could make a statement that on the 16 he would fax and court order. Before, it would take almost two weeks before we get a answer. Maybe Amnat filing left the judge no chose? I was not given and answer from Markus Klemm as to how this could happen!

After I read what they filed, Asia LawWorks was fired or dismissed! Then we hired a new law firm from Bangkok for and appeal on the January 16 court order.

“jessica” posting yesterday had a interesting take on the case?

[lookat]

Did Amnat meet with the group after you received the court order lifting the injunction?

Edited April 13, 2008 by lookat

[stopvt7]

To ThaiBob

Yes there are court reporters and judge used a personal tap recorder. The word written in the January 16 court order were taken from Amnat filing to the court.

Why do you think we felt betray!

To lookat:

No, we meet with Markus Klemm and gave him the letter of dismissal of Asia LawWorks and picked up all our case documents for our new Bangkok lawyer. We have not receive one word of apology from Amnat or Klemm.

If Amnat thought he made an mistake, because we dismissed him for his action, in his court filing would not they apology and maker correction to the court records? Amnat and Klemm very clearly knows Issue 9 never claimed you "measure into the sea"!

“jessica” posting yesterday had a interesting take on the case and Asia LawWorks action? But I not sure? I do know Amnat is running for the 3rd district city console set. Why were we not informed because this would be a conflict of interest in representing the group of 10 and being a part of city hall how we are suing.

[ThaiBob]

To ThaiBob

Yes there are court reporters and judge used a personal tap recorder. The word written in the January 16 court order were taken from Amnat filing to the court.

Why do you think we felt betray!

To lookat:

No, we meet with Markus Klemm and gave him the letter of dismissal of Asia LawWorks and picked up all our case documents for our new Bangkok lawyer. We have not receive one word of apology from Amnat or Klemm.

If Amnat thought he made an mistake, because we dismissed him for his action, in his court filing would not they apology and maker correction to the court records? Amnat and Klemm very clearly knows Issue 9 never claimed you "measure into the sea"!

“jessica” posting yesterday had a interesting take on the case and Asia LawWorks action? But I not sure? I do know Amnat is running for the 3rd district city console set. Why were we not informed because this would be a conflict of interest in representing the group of 10 and being a part of city hall how we are suing.

Amnat stabbed you in the back. As soon as he filed his papers to run in the election he definitely had a conflict of interest. He should have told you and reclused himself from this case. You may have a legal action against him. In other countries he would probably be disbarred. For me, Jessica's theory or hypothesis had far too many holes to be believable and was potentially libelous and properly deleted by the mods.

[stopvt7]

To ThaiBob; Yes!

Amnat is number 11.

Does anyone know if he is currently a member of city council?

[prospero]

To ThaiBob; Yes!

Amnat is number 11.

Does anyone know if he is currently a member of city council?

When Jomtien Condotel was employing AsiaLawWorks, one of the young lawyers, Khun Ben, let the cat out of the bag to one of the JC committee members. He said that the Jomtien Complex case was lost, that the measurement was actually 100 meters out/200 meters in, and that View Talay 7 would definitely be built. This was before the court handed down its judgement.

Markus Klem vigorously defended Ben to the shocked committee member, saying that the member misheard or misremembered what Ben said.

Hardly.

Edited April 14, 2008 by prospero

[stopvt7]

To ThaiBob; Yes!

Amnat is number 11.

Does anyone know if he is currently a member of city council?

When Jomtien Condotel was employing AsiaLawWorks, one of the young lawyers, Khun Ben, let the cat out of the bag to one of the JC committee members. He said that the Jomtien Complex case was lost, that the measurement was actually 100 meters out/200 meters in, and that View Talay 7 would definitely be built. This was before the court handed down its judgement.

Markus Klem vigorously defended Ben to the shocked committee member, saying that the member misheard or misremembered what Ben said.

Hardly.

This is true because I was call about Ben’s statement. Did Ben (Thanasett Tumthong) know about Asia LawWorks and Amnat plane? It was denied by Klemm! He defined that Asia LawWorks clearly understood Issue 9 and you only measure from MSL onto the land! And Ben was the person how went to Bangkok and got the minute from Royal Decree office which were record during the debate and writing of Issue 8. Their was no minutes recorded during the debate of Issue 9. These minutes were very clear that you only measure in one direction and that direction is clearly onto the land. Issue 8 minutes are the standard also for Issue 9.

Today I know who was telling the truth. Now I whish we fired Asia LawWorks before their action at January 15 hearing. Hind sight is great but I now have to face reality and we have a very strong appeal!

Below is a quote from are appeal to the Admin Supreme Court:

“The way of drafting the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 8 (B.E. 2519), the drafter must analyze the reasons of law, this is counted to be the priority in enforcing the law, because it is the searching procedure to find the reason of the law, which stipulated to find the fact why the Ministerial Regulation of Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) was issued in such a way and what reason it was for, whether it was appropriate and how appropriate it was. For the law to be enforced, following the intention of law that empowered to be used, therefore, when there was the meeting to draft the Ministerial Regulation of Issue 8 (E. 2519), from the office of Royal Decree stated that “The area of 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map, from the sea onto the land shall not be permitted to construct the following types of buildings”

………(8) Buildings with the height of 14 meters

Later on, there was the further amendment to cut out the phrase “onto the land” since the wording was clearly understood, then the following phrase was used instead “to fix the 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted to be constructed”. The meeting approved the aforesaid draft of the Ministerial Regulation, because of the reason to protect the area by the shore, by controlling the constructions which may impact the seas and beaches: details as shown in the attachment of the appeal No:1 – The Meeting of Drafting of the Ministerial Regulation of Issue8 ( B.E. 2519 )”

Maybe this is why it was report that VT7 owner became very angry when he read the appeal?

[Wiresok]

What I find disturbing about this is that the words "from the sea toward the shore" were deleted from the text of the regulation.They were good enough for all the other areas so why not Pattaya?

With these words inserted everything is clear,without them there is doubt and confusion.

Who in Pattaya City Hall deleted them and what was the point of deleting them,...to allow developers to make hay within that confusion??

[stopvt7]

What I find disturbing about this is that the words "from the sea toward the shore" were deleted from the text of the regulation.They were good enough for all the other areas so why not Pattaya?

With these words inserted everything is clear,without them there is doubt and confusion.

Who in Pattaya City Hall deleted them and what was the point of deleting them,...to allow developers to make hay within that confusion??

Quotation from office of Royal Decree in Bangkok: "Later on, there was the further amendment to cut out the phrase "onto the land" since the wording was clearly understood, then the following phrase was used instead "to fix the 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted to be constructed"."

In all the different regulation around Thai the words "onto the land" was not used. It is noted by office of Royal Decree in the recorded minutes the word "onto the land" were removed because "the wording was clearly understood ".

You must keep in mind no where it says the Issue 8 or 9 to "measure into the sea". Where does the words "measure into to the sea" come from? It was a lawyer for Pattaya City Hall that made this claim in court without any support documents. What he did, at the first court hearing, was looked at the Issue 9 map and said the arrow pointing to the land meant you measure into the sea 100 meters before you measure onto the land 200 meters. Then he claimed "Issue 8 and 9 equals the same point on the land". The lawyers statement "the same point on the land" was proven FALSE! So why would anyone believe the other part on his claim you measure into the sea?

Both Issues 8 and 9 clearly said "measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore" It should be clear ought for a 4th grade educated person to understand where from to measure. Then Issue 9 tells you to measure 200 meters. It's only Pattaya City Hall that claims a arrows point to the land means you "measure into the sea" totally ignore the written words of the regulation Issue 9. Only a lawyer could twist a arrow to claim you measure the apposite direction it is pointing!

All over Thailand they measure one direction 200 meters "onto the land" from the construction control line at the sea shore. Why should not the same be done in Pattaya?

Edited April 16, 2008 by stopvt7

[lookat]

Remember who the law worksin a court. A attorney many say anything in court and his statements do not have to be proven right or truthful! When ever had you hear of a attorney being trial for perjury, a lie, he made defending his client?

Are not deception. untruth statements and lies the tools of a defense attorney?

[lookat]

Yesterday as I was walking I noticed a group surveying from the beach to vt7 building. Why?

[Tammi]

Yesterday as I was walking I noticed a group surveying from the beach to vt7 building. Why?

Maybe surveying to build another hi-rise?

[stopvt7]

Yesterday as I was walking I noticed a group surveying from the beach to vt7 building. Why?

Maybe surveying to build another hi-rise?

Yes, the group understand their a investigation going on which required a field inspection?

You don’t need a law degree to know that their a problem in the survey report which was filed in court on January 15.

[jpm76]

Yesterday as I was walking I noticed a group surveying from the beach to vt7 building. Why?

Maybe surveying to build another hi-rise?

Yes, the group understand their a investigation going on which required a field inspection?

You don't need a law degree to know that their a problem in the survey report which was filed in court on January 15.

Well, originally I supported StopVt7's right to challenge the VT7 building (view my earlier posts supporting this) because, although a VT7 owner, I felt that he had every legal right to do so and to ensure that the building was in accordance with the law. As time has passed, I am now of the opinion that he merely keeps regurgitating the same "facts" (not agreed with by the courts of Thailand), but no problems because if the legal community, courts, governments etc do not agree with StopVT7, then he can always resort to calling them corrupt and charge that they are nothing more than paid-off "lackeys" co-mingling the difference between the public and private spheres. What actually annoys me though is not StopVT7's efforts which I understand, but rather, is that his actions have also found plenty of "imitators", many who do not even an interest in this case, yet whom still seem intent of espousing their views upon Thailand and the Thai system. Throughout the whole case, the StopVT7 "team of support" continue to accuse everyone in your path, and now, even your own legal team is implicated (who, should I remind the general public "LOST" your original case in the courts of Thailand where the arguments of both sides were heard, and ergo, therefore must of course be "corrupt"). Alongside accusations of corruption charges continuously, "team" have brought into question the integrity of VT7 investors (we have oft been accused of being blood-thirsty capitalists rather that the fact that we probably invested for similar reasons to JCC investors - hey, perhaps we are all in on it right ie we must be corrupt too???) on many occasions (though I do not think that StopVT7 has done this himself), and I note that VT7 investors have long tired of even responding to the dribble that continues to be posted. I am responding to just remind anyone who may stumble across these posts that, many VT7 investors have more faith in the Thai legal system than do many of those who post here, and also to point out that, in our worlds, continuous accusations of corruption would result in charges of libel and slander under the legal systems we know. This does not seem to concern any of the "StopVT7 team", and despite constant warnings from the moderator (who in many cases have removed their posts), they merely disregard "the rules" and continue to spout off unsubstantiated charges - now, I do not want to call anyone hypocritical, but is it not the case that your disregard for the rules, is perhaps the exact same thing that you accuse VT7 and the Thai legal system of. I find it a constant in human nature that we often react emotionally against the very things we actually refuse to accept against ourselves, and that those who throw stones so freely need to examine their own selves. Not to get off my point though, if your team want to continuingly charge people with corruption, then go say it to their faces, acknowledge what you want to be made known "public", and then hopefully the Thai legal system you are so fond of would not fail as badly as what you claim it does when it truns around to sue your to try to get you to prove something (since you obviously must have some evidence that is more than "circumstantial" in how strongly you hold these "opinions") regarding your accusations. That would be fair play, not the constant "whinging" and "whining" that this post thread has become from those who are of the opinion that they are of the quality that must be smarter and above the professional opinions of engineers, lawyers and judges who have earned their position in the system. As I have written before, legal matters often, in first world environments as well, require the next step of interpretation, but if something does not agree with your interpretation, then you do not have the right to just call everyone else "corrupt", or in the case of our group, VT7 investors, 'immoral and uncompassionate soulless vampire-types', but it appears from these thread posts that your "StopVT7 team" seem to be exactly of this nature, and seem to think that they have this right. I have grown so tired of the constant slanders and libels, that I have not bothered to respond to the constant accusations (and I note that most VT7 investors that were writing here have also stopped), because many who still write here seem more concerned with name calling, rather than the processes of "law" and reason. For those that continue to stumble across this site, I would state that the legal courts have answered all these claims, and that what you read is little more than the reitterrance of sooky-dribble counter to the legal "facts" as determined by the Thai courts (whose laws are written in Thai, not for inept English translations by those with an "unsubstantiated" ability to "interpret" Thai language, nor Thai law). Respect to the country of Thailand (even where it does not meet our own "personal expectations"), and I hope that readers will not allow the bitterness and opinions of others to taint any of their experiences with what is an amazingly beautiful country with its own "interpretations" of law, business and culture and customs that have been formed in a history different to our own. If you cannot respect that, then please stay at home, where things may work more closely in accordance to your expectations. After all no-one likes "whingers". And "slander" and "libel" seems universally rejected, yet you will find countless examples of this throughout these posts. Misery likes company, I guess.

[stopvt7]

Dear jpm76

Subject: Your posting 2008-04-24 at 19:35:16 on Thaivisa.com

The Stopvt7 group does not think or call the Thailand Courts, the government or VT7 owns "corrupt"! We have much respect for the government, courts and the laws of Thailand and have received very high government advice to use the Administrative Court.

So DO NOT accuse US of calling anyone CORRUPT!

People with brains understand court are for people to settle their difference and all people living in country are given access to the country courts.

Thailand is a country of laws! We are thankful of thier court system and will let it work!

Your statements in your posting are "slanders" and we demand you apologize!