Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[ThaiBob]

I've also read somewhere that if the plus/minus 100m definition is to be believed,then issue 9 allows building closer to the sea than issue 8 did.

Can this be possible?

My answer would be it is not possible or highly unlikely. There is a long history of the City of Pattaya using the MSL marker even under Issue 8. Issue 9 defines "seashore" to be the MSL.

[lookat]

I've also read somewhere that if the plus/minus 100m definition is to be believed,then issue 9 allows building closer to the sea than issue 8 did.

Can this be possible?

My answer would be it is not possible or highly unlikely. There is a long history of the City of Pattaya using the MSL marker even under Issue 8. Issue 9 defines "seashore" to be the MSL.

Issue 8 defines "seashore" at high tide and Issue 9 moves it to MSL. This fact of moving from high tide to MSL was explained in a letter to the court from the so called expert witness in June 0f 2007.

ThaiBob don’t change the facts!

[stopvt7]

Issue 9 said:

"No 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map (on map at MSL).

Can the VT7 supporter understand this picture?

That is just wrong adding your own words when quoting laws. Looks like you are just trying to manipulate the general public. "(on map at MSL)" is not a part of issue 9. The map describes the Construction Control Line as 100m from the shoreline towards the sea. 100m of CCL in the sea and 100m onto land.

If you measure the distance from all the high rises in Pattaya, Pratamnak and Jomtien on the seaside to your definition of CCL you will see that approximately a third of the buildings are within the "no building limit". This is because this is a building zone and your definition is wrong!

No! You are wrong bout the construction control line location! You said “The map describes the Construction Control Line as 100m from the shoreline towards the sea. 100m of CCL in the sea and 100m onto land.”and this is not true.

The construction control line is found at MSL on the map. The line 100 meters into the sea is a “borderline of the construction restriction area” and is not where you make measurements. But City Hall wants to measure to a borderline with half of the 200 meter before measuring from the Construction Control Line at MSL onto the land. Where in issue 9 does it say to divide the 200 meters?

The expert witness , Pattaya City Hall, VT7 lawyer and us all agree you measure from MSL. It is how you measure from Construction Control Line at MSL which we argue. Somehow they said a “arrow” pointing toward the land from “borderline of the construction restriction area” means you measure into the sea a 100 meters before you measure 100 meters onto the land which equal 200 meters. So get the facts straight about the construction control line and MSL on the map.

You can also fine, on the Issue 9 map, the “borderline of the construction restriction area” at Sukhumvit Road but you do not measure from Sukhumvit Road. You measure 200 meters from MSL at the sea shore onto the land! We think it a very clear for the Admin Supreme Court to understand even if the VT7 supporter are not able to get the picture.

Now compare the wording of Issue 8 and 9!

"Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (B.E. 2519)

3. To specify the area within the 100 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map. Annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2479 at the seaside in which the following constructions shall not be built:

8. Building of 14 meters higher than road level.

Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521)

“No 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map. Annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 at the seaside in which the following constructions shall not be built:

8. Building of 14 meters higher than road level."

The facts are their no where in Issue 8 or 9 or on the map it said to “measure into the sea”! The only difference between Issue 8 and 9 is the changes of 100 meters to 200 meters.

As of May 8 Pattaya City Hall and VT7 have responding to our appeal at the Admin Supreme Court. Now we are expecting a decision in the near future.

[ZZZ]

Where are the people who put this legislation into place in the first time??

They should be able to explain exactly what the intent was with this legislation, 100m or 200m inland from the water.

[ThaiBob]

Issue 9 said:

"No 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map (on map at MSL).

Can the VT7 supporter understand this picture?

That is just wrong adding your own words when quoting laws. Looks like you are just trying to manipulate the general public. "(on map at MSL)" is not a part of issue 9. The map describes the Construction Control Line as 100m from the shoreline towards the sea. 100m of CCL in the sea and 100m onto land.

If you measure the distance from all the high rises in Pattaya, Pratamnak and Jomtien on the seaside to your definition of CCL you will see that approximately a third of the buildings are within the "no building limit". This is because this is a building zone and your definition is wrong!

No! You are wrong bout the construction control line location! You said “The map describes the Construction Control Line as 100m from the shoreline towards the sea. 100m of CCL in the sea and 100m onto land.”and this is not true.

The construction control line is found at MSL on the map. The line 100 meters into the sea is a “borderline of the construction restriction area” and is not where you make measurements. But City Hall wants to measure to a borderline with half of the 200 meter before measuring from the Construction Control Line at MSL onto the land. Where in issue 9 does it say to divide the 200 meters?

The expert witness , Pattaya City Hall, VT7 lawyer and us all agree you measure from MSL. It is how you measure from Construction Control Line at MSL which we argue. Somehow they said a “arrow” pointing toward the land from “borderline of the construction restriction area” means you measure into the sea a 100 meters before you measure 100 meters onto the land which equal 200 meters. So get the facts straight about the construction control line and MSL on the map.

You can also fine, on the Issue 9 map, the “borderline of the construction restriction area” at Sukhumvit Road but you do not measure from Sukhumvit Road. You measure 200 meters from MSL at the sea shore onto the land! We think it a very clear for the Admin Supreme Court to understand even if the VT7 supporter are not able to get the picture.

Now compare the wording of Issue 8 and 9!

"Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (B.E. 2519)

3. To specify the area within the 100 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map. Annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2479 at the seaside in which the following constructions shall not be built:

8. Building of 14 meters higher than road level.

Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521)

“No 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map. Annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 at the seaside in which the following constructions shall not be built:

8. Building of 14 meters higher than road level."

The facts are their no where in Issue 8 or 9 or on the map it said to “measure into the sea”! The only difference between Issue 8 and 9 is the changes of 100 meters to 200 meters.

As of May 8 Pattaya City Hall and VT7 have responding to our appeal at the Admin Supreme Court. Now we are expecting a decision in the near future.

You repeat these same arguments ad nauseam. Typing them in bold and mocking the expert witness does not lend any more credibility to your arguments or help your case. "Now compare the wording of Issue 8 and 9!"...you're very condescending, we all understand the difference between 100 and 200 meters but most importantly are the differences between the two maps. The Issue 9 map has the bold restricted construction borderline and Issue 8 map does not. Why is it there we ask? Why was added, in light of the 100 to 200 meter change? The expert witness's answer and testimony seems reasonable, logical and is supported by the map. The only plausible choice to create a 200 meter restricted construction zone is to measure 200 meters landward from the restricted construction borderline thus creating the 200 meter wide restricted construction zone. Measuring from the MSL makes no sense in light of the map (it would create a 300 meter wide zone) and Issue 9 does not say to measure from the MSL! Pretty convincing argument to me but most importantly it convinced the Judge.

[OhdLover]

You repeat these same arguments ad nauseam. Typing them in bold and mocking the expert witness does not lend any more credibility to your arguments or help your case. "Now compare the wording of Issue 8 and 9!"...you're very condescending, we all understand the difference between 100 and 200 meters but most importantly are the differences between the two maps. The Issue 9 map has the bold restricted construction borderline and Issue 8 map does not. Why is it there we ask? Why was added, in light of the 100 to 200 meter change? The expert witness's answer and testimony seems reasonable, logical and is supported by the map. The only plausible choice to create a 200 meter restricted construction zone is to measure 200 meters landward from the restricted construction borderline thus creating the 200 meter wide restricted construction zone. Measuring from the MSL makes no sense in light of the map (it would create a 300 meter wide zone) and Issue 9 does not say to measure from the MSL! Pretty convincing argument to me but most importantly it convinced the Judge.

That's exactly how it is, Thaibob. I suggest you copy and paste it a few times, put some parts in bold red, add some smilies,

ask yourself why everybody is so stupid, paste it again and change the red highlights to blue, but most important, give peope the

suggestion you just found new evidence!

That should balance this thread. By the way, don't adjust your English into some hard-to-understand-english-looking-language,

because people will wonder how you can interprete thai to english translated documents, if very obviously your english is ok enough for day-to-day life in Thailand, but far from sufficient when having to comprehend stuff that's already difficult when reading in your native language.

[Gary A]

The project could very well be 500 meters in from their measurement. Simply measure 400 meters out then 500 meters back in. It could easily be a kilometer doing the same exercise. Perhaps these laws are written so that they can be interpreted any way that benefits the people with the money. Any way a person looks at it, there is no way that VT-7 is 200 meters in from mean sea level.

[lookat]

Have you thought about the only judges which count are the judges on Admin Supreme Court. I would rather have stopvt7 argument then city halls with these judges. But who knows who going to win?

The only thing known is this decision will have an effect on foreign investments in Thailand. Because if they go with the expert witness adding words to the Issue 9 and the map how would anyone feel save investing in Thailand it the future? This case is being watched by many foreign embassy.

[tropiccapricorn]

The only thing known is this decision will have an effect on foreign investments in Thailand. Because if they go with the expert witness adding words to the Issue 9 and the map how would anyone feel save investing in Thailand it the future? This case is being watched by many foreign embassy.

Now that is exactly the point. You might do anything feeling protected by a law only to find out some time later,

that due to substantially changed circumstances that actually that law is not worth the paper it is written on.

How about the military suddenly questioning companies in connection with real estate? Seems to be quiet now.

If you then think to have a case, it might turn out to be an expensive try to fight windmills.

So, to be on the save side, try to avoid high pressure areas, just if they could be recognized in advance, move into a

village enjoy it and get completely frustrated by neighboring dogs and loud music. (If unlucky)

[Wiresok]

I've also read somewhere that if the plus/minus 100m definition is to be believed,then issue 9 allows building closer to the sea than issue 8 did.

Can this be possible?

My answer would be it is not possible or highly unlikely. There is a long history of the City of Pattaya using the MSL marker even under Issue 8. Issue 9 defines "seashore" to be the MSL.

Issue 8 defines "seashore" at high tide and Issue 9 moves it to MSL. This fact of moving from high tide to MSL was explained in a letter to the court from the so called expert witness in June 0f 2007.

ThaiBob don't change the facts!

I dont think its plausible that when the lawmakers wrote issue 9 they intended to allow building closer to the sea than under issue 8.Whats the good of that?

On this basis the expert witness cannot be correct.

His explanation of one thing makes to many other things implausible.

[prospero]

Does anyone know the identity of this "expert" witness? What is his background? What are his qualifications? Is he a government official? Is he an expert in law or surveying or both? Was he testifying as a neutral party appointed by the court or was it given on behalf of VT7? What was the legal grounding of the testimony?

Edited May 22, 2008 by prospero

[ThaiBob]

Does anyone know the identity of this "expert" witness? What is his background? What are his qualifications? Is he a government official? Is he an expert in law or surveying or both? Was he testifying as a neutral party appointed by the court or was it given on behalf of VT7? What was the legal grounding of the testimony?

You ask some good questions. Courts place great weight on the testimony of expert witnesses. From Wikipedia:

"An expert witness is a witness, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of their expertise, referred to as the expert opinion, as an assistance to the fact-finder.[1] Expert witnesses may also deliver expert evidence about facts from the domain of their expertise.[2] At times, their testimony may be rebutted with a learned treatise, sometimes to the detriment of their reputations."

The Court ordered survey and the expert witness was from the Department of Civil Planning and City Planning in Bangkok I've been told. After the survey and prior to the hearing on January 15, 2008 this same department requested that the Court revoke the provisional court order to temporarily stop construction issued in April(?) of 2007. The expert witness represented neither the plaintiff or the defendants but was an instrument of the Court. I am not clear if this same expert witness also testified at the original hearing in 2007. I believe the City of Pattaya's case was argued by lawyers representing the City and VT only and that was probably part of the problem.

[stopvt7]

Wikipedia: "An expert witness is a witness, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of their expertise, referred to as the expert opinion”

The so called expert witness Khun Surapol is a “lawyer grade 7" from “Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning” part of Minister of Interior in Bangkok.

Who was picked by the judge after the first court hearing. Then at the second court hearing the expert witness had no opinion about Pattaya City Hall lawyer testimony what “you measure into the sea 100 meters before you measure onto the land 100 meters”.

Also, the expert witness corrected the Pattaya City Hall lawyer court statement in a letter to the judge befor the scond court hearing. This court statement was ”issue 8 and 9 were the same place on land”. The letter stated Issue 9 “specified the measurement be taken only from MSL” and Issue 8 does not specified measurement from MSL but at high tide.

[OhdLover]

The so called expert witness Khun Surapol is a "lawyer grade 7" from "Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning" part of Minister of Interior in Bangkok. Who was picked by the judge after the first court hearing.

And again you are insulting a Thai judge...

Have you already picked a new country to settle, once your show is over in Thailand?

[JaiDeeFarang]

Wikipedia: "An expert witness is a witness, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of their expertise, referred to as the expert opinion"

The so called expert witness Khun Surapol is a "lawyer grade 7" from "Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning" part of Minister of Interior in Bangkok.

Who was picked by the judge after the first court hearing. Then at the second court hearing the expert witness had no opinion about Pattaya City Hall lawyer testimony what "you measure into the sea 100 meters before you measure onto the land 100 meters".

Also, the expert witness corrected the Pattaya City Hall lawyer court statement in a letter to the judge befor the scond court hearing. This court statement was "issue 8 and 9 were the same place on land". The letter stated Issue 9 "specified the measurement be taken only from MSL" and Issue 8 does not specified measurement from MSL but at high tide.

So what's the story so far? According to the stopVT7 posse, everyone is corrupt, yet no evidence to substantiate these claims. The judges at the Rayong court haven't got a clue what they're talking about and don't understand the law. The expert witness is a <deleted> WIT and a 7th grade lawyer! Where does it stop? are you intent on offending everyone who doesn't go along with your claims, just because you believe you are right? There's a saying "100,000 Lemmings can't be wrong" - Go figure...

Thailand is a country of laws, but I'm afraid Mr. stopVT7 they're enforced however they see fit and will always look after their own kind before considering the sea view of a handful of wingeing farangs. GET OVER IT!

How can all of these people be wrong, in their own country? If I was involved with the stopVT7 gang I'd be planning my exit strategy right now and perhaps have an emergency bag already packed to leave at a moments notice.

Edited May 23, 2008 by JaiDeeFarang

[ZZZ]

There's a saying "100,000 Lemmings can't be wrong" - Go figure...

Thailand is a country of laws, but I'm afraid Mr. stopVT7 they're enforced however they see fit and will always look after their own kind before considering the sea view of a handful of wingeing farangs. GET OVER IT!

How can all of these people be wrong, in their own country? If I was involved with the stopVT7 gang I'd be planning my exit strategy right now and perhaps have an emergency bag already packed to leave at a moments notice.

The only people who are against stopVT7 is City Hall, the View Talay company and investors in View Talay 7 and similar developments. The vast majority of others are against the constructions of new condos blocking the view and access of the beach more than it is. The 100,000 lemmings are with stopVT7 but some of the most vocal are against.

I'm sure that all other owners in stopVT7's condo is with him and around 50% of them are Thai so this is not Thai against foreigners but Money and Power against the citizen.

May common sense prevail and keep a big buffer between the beach and big developments.

[Tammi]

Thailand is a country of laws, but I'm afraid Mr. stopVT7 they're enforced however they see fit and will always look after their own kind before considering the sea view of a handful of wingeing farangs. GET OVER IT!

So, K. JaiDee, you are saying that thousands of expat retirement visa holders don't have any hope of justice in Thailand?

[Pattayaseven]

The general public will not have access to the fenced of VT7 area anyway, so it does not mather to them if the building is 13 stories or 27 stories. So it is not a quest to save the beaches, but to save JCC seaview. Nothing more, nothing less

[lookat]

Dear JaiDeeFarang

You said “The expert witness is a <deleted> WIT and a 7th grade lawyer!” Are you saying that all 7th grade lawyer are <deleted> WIT ?

The stopvt7 group have a large Thai backing and it a few Chinese with tea who are wrong in their country! This is what many Thais understand.

What country are you planing to move to in the very near future?

[plasticpig]

Thailand is a country of laws, but I'm afraid Mr. stopVT7 they're enforced however they see fit and will always look after their own kind before considering the sea view of a handful of wingeing farangs. GET OVER IT!

So, K. JaiDee, you are saying that thousands of expat retirement visa holders don't have any hope of justice in Thailand?

Tammi you wont find much real Justice for Falangs in Thailand.

[ZZZ]

The general public will not have access to the fenced of VT7 area anyway, so it does not mather to them if the building is 13 stories or 27 stories. So it is not a quest to save the beaches, but to save JCC seaview. Nothing more, nothing less

If you build 27 stories buildings 100m from the beach all along jomtien beach that beach will have no sun at all until late morning. I know that a lot of people don't wake up until midday in Pattaya but it they want to promote Jomtien as a family area it would be nice with sun on the beach before lunch.

[Pattayaseven]

Wonder what will take most of the sun, View talay 7 with 27 stories (105m from the beach), or 91 stories of Ocean Tower 1?

Anyway right out from VT7 you only have a parking lot (and 6m of sand), so the motorbikes will lose their morning sun . The palms trees already takes more of the morning sun than VT 7 will do.The Y-shape of View talay 7 makes the impact on the morning sun as little as possible, for the general public. It will probably not be affected at all. Remember that future projects are not guaranteed, if the impact on the enviroment will be too severe.

City hall used 1 year to evalute the enviroment impact of VT 7 before they granted VT7 a legal building permit.

Edited May 23, 2008 by Pattayaseven

[stopvt7]

Has anyone paid attention to the 16 January Rayong court order? The so called expert witness changes where from the measurement is made. He did not follow Issues 9 which states that “200 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map........ at the seashore” and the map stated at the sea shore is at MSL. This MSL is where from you make your measurement. Also the map show the area covered by Issue 9 and you don’t measure from borderline of building control area on the map.

Now read what the court order said and compare it with Issue 9. “The measurement conducted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning as ordered by the Court, and the testimony of the witness, it appeared that the dispute building is more than 100 meter away from the MSL. The Court is of the opinion that if the measurement was made from the building control area shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 controlling over the region of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhog Prue Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 by another 100 meter further far away in the sea from the MSL as shown in the map annexed to the aforesaid Royal Decree and as testified by the witness, the dispute building would be over 200 meter from the control area as referred by the aforesaid Ministerial Regulation as well.”

Dear JaiDeeFarang

Is this why you said “The expert witness is a <deleted> WIT and a 7th grade lawyer” ?

[ThaiBob]

Has anyone paid attention to the 16 January Rayong court order? The so called expert witness changes where from the measurement is made. He did not follow Issues 9 which states that “200 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map........ at the seashore” and the map stated at the sea shore is at MSL. This MSL is where from you make your measurement. Also the map show the area covered by Issue 9 and you don’t measure from borderline of building control area on the map.

Now read what the court order said and compare it with Issue 9. “The measurement conducted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning as ordered by the Court, and the testimony of the witness, it appeared that the dispute building is more than 100 meter away from the MSL. The Court is of the opinion that if the measurement was made from the building control area shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 controlling over the region of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhog Prue Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 by another 100 meter further far away in the sea from the MSL as shown in the map annexed to the aforesaid Royal Decree and as testified by the witness, the dispute building would be over 200 meter from the control area as referred by the aforesaid Ministerial Regulation as well.”

Dear JaiDeeFarang

Is this why you said “The expert witness is a <deleted> WIT and a 7th grade lawyer” ?

Again you pull things out of context just like FoxNews ("fair and balnced"). From your blog here is the full unedited version so people can make up their own minds:

"The Court ordered the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning to measure the distance from the shoreline at MSL as prescribed by the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 controlling over the region of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhog Prue Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 to the building in dispute to obtain the distance and to submit the Court a map briefly prepared after measuring. The Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning followed the Court’s order and submitted its report which can be summarized that: Measurement must be started from the point of MSL having 0.00 meter. While measured from this point outward to sea at the distance of 100 meter, it shall be the construction control area as shown in the map annexed to aforesaid Royal Decree. And while measured from this point toward the land to reach the building by another 100 meter, it shall be the distance from construction control area of 200 meter referred in Article 3 under the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) which restricts the construction of building over 14 meter from road surface. Measurement showed that the building of the Second Prosecuted Person is over 200 meter construction control line. ( My Note: Regulation Issue 9 says: “No 3 to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map to the Royal Decree …….at the sea shore in which the following constructions shall not be built: Building of 14 meters higher than road level. How could a witness rewrite Isse9? )

The Second Prosecuted Person filed a motion to the Court to revoke the provisional order or judgment before judgment.

The Court enquired both Parties and Witness.

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.

Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul, 7th Class Lawyer of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning, testified as the Witness, that the area controlling the construction as referred in The Royal Decree B.E. 2521 is 100 meter distance from MSL towards the sea. While measuring the Witness did not measure from the MSL point to the dispute building, but he measured from the MSL point until he reached 100 meter from the aforesaid point, and if measurement continued to reach the dispute building, the building would be about 102 or 103 meter far from MSL depending on which side to the building.

If the measurement was from the construction control area prescribed by the Royal Decree B.E. 2521, the building distance obtained would be similar to the measurement from the MSL inward the land at the distance of 200 meter.

The Court examined and considered the “Most Urgent” Report Ref. Mor Tor 0710/9634 dated 19 December 2007 submitted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning requesting the Court to revoke the provisional order before judgment to the Second Prosecuted Person, and the procedures of the General Meeting of the Judges in the Supreme Administrative Court regarding Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2543. The point to be considered is whether the Court should revoke the provisional order or judgment before judgment to the Second Prosecuted Person.

The consideration referred to Article 77 of the Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2543 stated that the Court shall apply Title 1, Division 4 under the Civil Procedure Code to the consideration on motion filed against any provisional orders or measures before judgment as far as the Civil Procedure Code can apply mutatis mutandis, however, without contradiction to the Procedure. Reference was also made to Section 262 Paragraph 1 under the Civil Procedure Code saying that “Where in the course of trial there is any change or modification in the facts or circumstances on which the Court’s order granting an application for any provisional measures has been grounded, the Court before which the case is pending may, when it thinks fit or upon the application of the defendant or third person as provided in Section 261, issue an order altering or repealing such measure.”

This case the Court granted its order in response to the motion filed by the 10 Litigants on the materialized reason that the Court need time and consideration procedures to determine the correct starting point for measurement the distance as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521), and if the dispute building is properly far from the point of measurement as intended by law.

The measurement conducted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning as ordered by the Court, and the testimony of the witness, it appeared that the dispute building is more than 100 meter away from the MSL. The Court is of the opinion that if the measurement was made from the building control area shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 controlling over the region of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhog Prue Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 by another 100 meter further far away in the sea from the MSL as shown in the map annexed to the aforesaid Royal Decree and as testified by the witness, the dispute building would be over 200 meter from the control area as referred by the aforesaid Ministerial Regulation as well. Therefore, the facts that were used as reasons for granting the provisional order or measure before judgment in this case have now changed. There is not enough ground for which the Court shall maintain its provisional order before judgment further.

The Court, therefore, revokes its provisional order or measure before judgment to the Second Prosecuted Person to suspend the construction of its building over 14 meter above road surface with effective immediately.

Members of the Judge carrying the trial.

Mr. Kittinai Kromtach

Vice Director General – Administrative Court

Ms. Saisuda Sethabut

Director General – Administrative Court

Mr. Phongsak Kampusiri

Date : 16 January 2008"

Why not let the viewers see all the relevant facts and post the unedited "Most Urgent” Report Ref. Mor Tor 0710/9634 dated 19 December 2007 submitted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning requesting the Court to revoke the provisional order before judgment, which is referenced above?

[marekm1]

So now you are saying that JaiDeeFarang disrespects the law and making fun of the expert witness.

How easy is to take the few words of the contexts and change the whole meaning. That’s what JaiDeeFarang said,

So what's the story so far? According to the stopVT7 posse, everyone is corrupt, yet no evidence to substantiate these claims. The judges at the Rayong court haven't got a clue what they're talking about and don't understand the law. The expert witness is a <deleted> WIT and a 7th grade lawyer! Where does it stop? are you intent on offending everyone who doesn't go along with your claims, just because you believe you are right? There's a saying "100,000 Lemmings can't be wrong" - Go figure...

I let the people decide what JaiDeeFarang mean. And the only people, who disrespect the law are stopVT7 people. Nobody want to listen to bunch of farangs, who want to protect their seaview.

If their law was approved, one of the 3 buildings would be destroyed. Yes this case is watched, but only by the people who invested in VT7 and stop VT7. Hilton people don’t care, they are building towers according to the Thai law and not to stopVT7 low. Just look around, go for a walk along Jomtien beach and all the high rises buildings are within 200m. But I know the issue 9 doesn’t say so. Can you give me a copy of that issue. I cannot find it anywhere. And don’t forget to put funny faces in it.

[lookat]

Dear ThaiBob

Like CNN the stopvt7 group did not want to confuse you with to many facts!

They do not have a translation file of the "Report Ref. Mor Tor 0710/9634 dated 19 December 2007 submitted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning." This report by the so called expert witness did not direct answer the court order request.

"The Court ordered the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning to measure the distance from the shoreline at MSL as prescribed by the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 controlling over the region of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhog Prue Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 to the building in dispute to obtain the distance and to submit the Court a map briefly prepared after measuring. The Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning followed the Court's order and submitted its report which can be summarized that: Measurement must be started from the point of MSL having 0.00 meter. While measured from this point outward to sea at the distance of 100 meter, it shall be the construction control area as shown in the map annexed to aforesaid Royal Decree. And while measured from this point toward the land to reach the building by another 100 meter, it shall be the distance from construction control area of 200 meter referred in Article 3 under the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) which restricts the construction of building over 14 meter from road surface. Measurement showed that the building of the Second Prosecuted Person is over 200 meter construction control line."

The so called expert witness had to divide the 200 meters in half and apply 100 meters on each side of the construction control line at the sea shore which is found on the map at MSL. Where do you get this instruction from Issue 9 to divide the 200 meters in half?

Is this why JaiDeeFarang said "The expert witness is a <deleted> WIT and a 7th grade lawyer"?

Edited May 24, 2008 by lookat

[ThaiBob]

Dear ThaiBob

Like CNN the stopvt7 group did not want to confuse you with to many facts!

They do not have a translation file of the "Report Ref. Mor Tor 0710/9634 dated 19 December 2007 submitted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning." This report by the so called expert witness did not direct answer the court order request.

"The Court ordered the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning to measure the distance from the shoreline at MSL as prescribed by the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 controlling over the region of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhog Prue Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 to the building in dispute to obtain the distance and to submit the Court a map briefly prepared after measuring. The Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning followed the Court's order and submitted its report which can be summarized that: Measurement must be started from the point of MSL having 0.00 meter. While measured from this point outward to sea at the distance of 100 meter, it shall be the construction control area as shown in the map annexed to aforesaid Royal Decree. And while measured from this point toward the land to reach the building by another 100 meter, it shall be the distance from construction control area of 200 meter referred in Article 3 under the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) which restricts the construction of building over 14 meter from road surface. Measurement showed that the building of the Second Prosecuted Person is over 200 meter construction control line."

The so called expert witness had to divide the 200 meters in half and apply 100 meters on each side of the construction control line at the sea shore which is found on the map at MSL. Where do you get this instruction from Issue 9 to divide the 200 meters in half?

Is this why JaiDeeFarang said "The expert witness is a <deleted> WIT and a 7th grade lawyer"?

Ok, there is no translation of this "Most Urgent" report available (and not an edited stopVT7 version either). The Judge apparently gives it great weight.

"The so called expert witness"...your disrespect of the court system shows but typical of the stopVT7 choir.

"Where do you get this instruction from Issue 9 to divide the 200 meters in half?"....this is not an instruction but the expert witness's explanation on how to interpret the map. There are important differences between the Issue 8 and Issue 9 maps which some people conveniently like to overlook.

"Is this why JaiDeeFarang said "The expert witness is a <deleted> WIT and a 7th grade lawyer"?"....out of context again. It was obvious what was meant as marekm1 noted in an earlier post.

[stopvt7]

Dear ThaiBob

As JaiDeeFarang would said "the expert witness a <deleted> WIT and a 7th grade lawyer" did divide the 200 meters in half.

There is no where on the map it change the written instruction of Issue 9. The map defines the sea side the construction control line to be found at MSL. The map shows "<deleted> WIT and a 7th grade lawyer" the borderline area cover by the regulation. You measure from MSL one direction onto the land! Read Isse 9and chedk the map:

The "Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) "No 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map..........at the seaside in which the following constructions shall not be built:

Building of 14 meters higher than road level."

Or are you like the 7th grade lawyer a expert witness who not able to read a map?

Edited May 24, 2008 by stopvt7

[fisherd3]

Thailand is a country of laws, but I'm afraid Mr. stopVT7 they're enforced however they see fit and will always look after their own kind before considering the sea view of a handful of wingeing farangs. GET OVER IT!

So, K. JaiDee, you are saying that thousands of expat retirement visa holders don't have any hope of justice in Thailand?

Not unless they pay the money

[OhdLover]

Or are you like the 7th grade lawyer a expert witness who not able to read a map?

At the very moment you are able to write proper English, people may be willing to read what you try to state.

Apart from your easy copy/paste-job there's really nothing new in your postings of about the last few pages (maybe more,

I don't want to check). The only new thing may be a new smiley, another bold marked text, and another set of typo's or

clear "me-not-know-how-write-english-to-do"-mistakes.

Now.... since you cannot read Thai, are bad at English, who are you to doubt an expert's point of view,

somebody who has some great advantages over you, like being able to comprehend ภาษาไทย (Thai language).

If somebody here is a "so-called"... it must be you.

You twist the facts, pick some parts of some issues, scramble them, and jump to your "so-called"-conclusions.

Apart from some of your admirors, nobody will take you very seriously, I'm afraid.

You must be a fan of Hillary... she also doesn't know when to give up

Edited May 24, 2008 by OhdLover