Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

surfer · June 5, 2008

As stopVT7 likes these little fellas so much, I thought I'd use them to put my thoughts on your comment across.

Its a good job you can laugh,because ,when you have no answers,the truth hurts.

Take it you have no answers on the expert witness testimony not stacking up,or have you?

Interested to here them if you have and we will scrutinise them,just as the judge will !

1)Why would the new legislation want to allow building closer to the sea than the previous legislation??

2)Why would the new legislation want to prohibit buildings 100m out into the sea,how many buildings can you see out there now,how many applications have city hall had to build out there in the last 20 years.

When your'e ready.

1) Why would the old legislation want to build so far away from the sea than the current legislation??

2) Ever been down Walking Street? Much of that is built out into the sea.

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

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

i see things as .........

- the 200m ruling of 100m out to sea and 100m back is a big crock of BS. I have personally dealt with these "setback" laws in south Thailand and it never went out to sea. If it was out to sea from the land then it that came under a different regulative authority....the marine dept etc.

- Definitely seems like the lawyer for stopvt7's group was wavering from client to another influence.

- If i was an owner of a condo in the same block as stop vt7 id happily pay more then 10,000 baht in regards to the 100m out BS and the suss lawyer. Most aspects of VT projects are ugly and have no environmental design consideration... i don't just mean blocking sea views.

Wiresok · June 5, 2008

As stopVT7 likes these little fellas so much, I thought I'd use them to put my thoughts on your comment across.

Its a good job you can laugh,because ,when you have no answers,the truth hurts.

Take it you have no answers on the expert witness testimony not stacking up,or have you?

Interested to here them if you have and we will scrutinise them,just as the judge will !

1)Why would the new legislation want to allow building closer to the sea than the previous legislation??

2)Why would the new legislation want to prohibit buildings 100m out into the sea,how many buildings can you see out there now,how many applications have city hall had to build out there in the last 20 years.

When your'e ready.

No one has responded I suspect because you (like stopVT7) recite old arguments that have been discredited. The Judge has "scrutinised" these arguments and had found the evidence so compelling to remove the temporary construction injunction. The Issue 9 map supports the witness testimony which was an affirmation of the City's long standing planning policy of the last 20 or 30 years. Nobody here was around 30 years ago and knew of or was party to the politics, trade-offs, compromises regarding Issue 9. Some people here are trying to interpet "intent" from a questionable English translation of a technical Thai legal document. I'm sure many foreigners that have studied Thai would wish you luck.

As I see it, the plaintiffs should have proven their case with a preponderance of the evidence. Did they offer testimony from their own "expert" witnesses (technical people, engineers, etc)? No. (Only their lawyer). IF the plaintiffs interpretation of Issue 9 was as far reaching as they claim then why didn't they submit evidence to support their case? IF the measurement, in fact, had been changed from 100 meters to 200 meters don't you think there would be a paper trail (advisories, letters of explanation, letters of instruction, etc.) from Bangkok or Chonburi explaining this? I submit such evidence doesn't exist or it would have been used. Many here at TV clearly understand the true intentions of the stopVT7 litigants and it has nothing to do with protecting Thai beaches.

I dont think the judge has heard these arguments,sounds to me like the judge heard nothing from the stopvt lawyer.

Interesting point about who was around 20/30 years ago,was the expert witness?

I see it as people returning the law to its conceived intent,probably as you indicate after years of abuse.

I cannot speak for what the plaintiffs offerred in court,you will have to ask them that.

If the lawmakers didnt want to change it from 100m to 200m then why produce issue 9,why not keep issue 8 which was 100 m landward already?

I see many references to 200m in issue 9,and 200m landward is the only plausible intention,the map bears this out as well.

I return to my points,

For the expert witness testimony to be correct then you can now build closer to the sea under issue 9 than before under issue 8.

I dont believe this would have been the intent,what realistic,reasonable purpose would that serve.

What benefit or progress would that offer? in my view none.

Also,where are all the buildings over 14m high built 100m out into the sea .I dont see.

The judge wont see either.

If there are none there to start with why suddenly introduce blanket legislation to prohibit?

Why pick on an arbitary 100m,why not 150m out ,or 200m out?,doesnt stack up.

Planning legislation does not progress like that.

Because these examples are not plausible then the expert witness testimony is not plausible.

I think its worth a 10K bet on the outcome,if you can get it on.

ZZZ · June 6, 2008

Also,where are all the buildings over 14m high built 100m out into the sea .I dont see.
The judge wont see either.

If there are none there to start with why suddenly introduce blanket legislation to prohibit?

Why pick on an arbitary 100m,why not 150m out ,or 200m out?,doesnt stack up.

Planning legislation does not progress like that.

Because these examples are not plausible then the expert witness testimony is not plausible.

I think its worth a 10K bet on the outcome,if you can get it on.

I think construction into the water is covered by a different legislation/jurisdiction anyway so this law could not have had anything to do with construction at sea.

And stop referring to the "expert witness", it should be the "defense appointed expert witness"

JaiDeeFarang · June 6, 2008

The construction control 'zone' covers construction into and out of the sea from the MSL. Do not "Think" if you don't know or understand.

The expert witness should be referred to as "The court appointed expert witness". Thailand is a country of laws, but it seems many don't have a grasp on reality and wish the law would suit their understanding, manipulation and distortion of it.

surfer · June 6, 2008

The construction control 'zone' covers construction into and out of the sea from the MSL. Do not "Think" if you don't know or understand.
The expert witness should be referred to as "The court appointed expert witness". Thailand is a country of laws, but it seems many don't have a grasp on reality and wish the law would suit their understanding, manipulation and distortion of it.

Ok then...you are one of the elite few percent able to grasp the Thai legal system on property/ construction related matters then. Is it by profession or do you religously read thai legal docs in Thai and english? Do you work for the thai government, panning authority? international advisory consultant?? Speak fluent thai as wlell i guess.

the expert witness (or what ever) is just a human in a professional field with either a clue, opinion or maybe some friends around thailand...

each to their own.

ZZZ · June 6, 2008

The construction control 'zone' covers construction into and out of the sea from the MSL. Do not "Think" if you don't know or understand.
The expert witness should be referred to as "The court appointed expert witness". Thailand is a country of laws, but it seems many don't have a grasp on reality and wish the law would suit their understanding, manipulation and distortion of it.

If you had read some of the previous posts and court documents you would have known that the "expert witness" was "Mr. Pornsak Piyakamolrat, the Civil Engineer 7, who is the proxy of the defendant no. 1". This means that he was brought in to the court by the defendant and, maybe, even paid by the defendant, to say what they wanted him to say. He was definitely not an unbiased expert selected by the court.

In most countries the sea is under the jurisdiction of the state not the local government. These regulations are local regulations. It is possible that it is different in Thailand but I don't think so.

Regarding manipulation and distortion of the law there is no question what so ever who is doing this

JaiDeeFarang · June 6, 2008

Dear ThaiBob
You Said "Should the appeal be denied"? The sopvt7 appeal was accepted by the Admin Supreme Court that why City/VT7 has filed their reply to the appeal. You can read VT7 court reply to the Stopvt7 group at: http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

Quote from VT7 reply: "Mr. Pornsak Piyakamolrat, the Civil Engineer 7, who is the proxy of the defendant no. 1 testified that the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E 2519) and Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued under the Construction Control Act B.E. 2547 are both enforced and in effect. Ministerial Regulation No. 8, Clause 3, the 100 meter starts from the construction restriction area appeared in the map annexed to the Royal Decree B.E. 2499. Ministerial Regulation No. 9, later on, issued to extend the measuring distance to 200 meter from the construction restriction area appeared in the map annexed to the Royal Decree B.E. 2521 which outward into the seashore. The 100 meter distance according to the Ministerial Regulation No. 8, and the 200 meter prescribed under Ministerial Regulation No. 9 are, therefore, the same point.

According to the Royal Decree B.E. 2521 the construction restriction area shall be extended by 100 meter from the shoreline at MSL. The MSL is the natural highest sea tide. The building of defendant no. 2 is about 205 meter far from the construction restriction area according to the Ministerial Regulation No. 9."

The Expert Witness is not a expert but a "proxy" for Pattaya City Hall! Why would the court ask and accept a proxy as a expert witness? This is crazy! Your Lawyer Amnat of Asia LawWorks accepted a proxy as a expert?? Did you understand this? Do you think the stopvt7 group was had by Asia Lawworks?

proxy: 1) the authority to represent someone else, especially in voting. 2) a person authorized to act on behalf of another. 3) a figure used to represent the value of something in a calculation.

Someone who is a "proxy" can still be a specialist in his/her field and can be called in to represent someone. Lookat, if you had said 'poxy' you comments above may have made more sense. Your grasp of the English language leaves something to be desired.

What I would like to see is stopVT7 produce their own 'expert witness' and go head to head with the judge on the subject, that just wouldn't happen as the judge has already taken evidence on the matter from an appointed expert witness, there is no new evidence and the appeal is held behind closed doors.

JaiDeeFarang · June 6, 2008

Here's a question, how many levels of Civil Engineer are there in Thailand?

Either stopvt7's translation is terrible or he can't count properly?

According to Mahidol University's faculty of civil engineering there are only 3 levels, so where the Civil Engineer 7 came from is anyone's guess?

JaiDeeFarang · June 6, 2008

The construction control 'zone' covers construction into and out of the sea from the MSL. Do not "Think" if you don't know or understand.
The expert witness should be referred to as "The court appointed expert witness". Thailand is a country of laws, but it seems many don't have a grasp on reality and wish the law would suit their understanding, manipulation and distortion of it.

If you had read some of the previous posts and court documents you would have known that the "expert witness" was "Mr. Pornsak Piyakamolrat, the Civil Engineer 7, who is the proxy of the defendant no. 1". This means that he was brought in to the court by the defendant and, maybe, even paid by the defendant, to say what they wanted him to say. He was definitely not an unbiased expert selected by the court.

In most countries the sea is under the jurisdiction of the state not the local government. These regulations are local regulations. It is possible that it is different in Thailand but I don't think so.

Regarding manipulation and distortion of the law there is no question what so ever who is doing this

You can't leave the accusations and insinuations of corruption alone can you?

ThaiBob · June 6, 2008

It appears some people are getting the Rayong Court appointed expert witness confused with the proxy expert witness for the City in VT7's reply to the litigants appeal to the Supreme Court.

Also, do not overlook that on Dec 17, 2007, the Bangkok Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning reported back to Court as ordered. Based on it's findings, it requested that the Court immediately revoke the temporary injunction before making its final ruling. The Court in fact did just that and revoked the original Court order, but only after reviewing the evidence and it's own ordered report, and then listening to the testimony of the expert witness. The expert witness's testimony was not some fabrication (as some people seem to think) but simply reaffirmed the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning report to the Court.

ZZZ · June 6, 2008

It appears some people are getting the Rayong Court appointed expert witness confused with the proxy expert witness for the City in VT7's reply to the litigants appeal to the Supreme Court.
Also, do not overlook that on Dec 17, 2007, the Bangkok Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning reported back to Court as ordered. Based on it's findings, it requested that the Court immediately revoke the temporary injunction before making its final ruling. The Court in fact did just that and revoked the original Court order, but only after reviewing the evidence and it's own ordered report, and then listening to the testimony of the expert witness. The expert witness's testimony was not some fabrication (as some people seem to think) but simply reaffirmed the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning report to the Court.

Thanks for clarifying, my mistake

stopvt7 · June 8, 2008

It appears some people are getting the Rayong Court appointed expert witness confused with the proxy expert witness for the City in VT7's reply to the litigants appeal to the Supreme Court.
Also, do not overlook that on Dec 17, 2007, the Bangkok Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning reported back to Court as ordered. Based on it's findings, it requested that the Court immediately revoke the temporary injunction before making its final ruling. The Court in fact did just that and revoked the original Court order, but only after reviewing the evidence and it's own ordered report, and then listening to the testimony of the expert witness. The expert witness's testimony was not some fabrication (as some people seem to think) but simply reaffirmed the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning report to the Court.

Thanks for clarifying, my mistake

ThaiBob is full of it! He never been at a court hearing and he has misrepresent the facts in the civil legal case against Pattaya City Hall. Their in only one expert witness ( The Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning of Bangkok) in court.

Also it was VT7 lawyers in his brief to the Admin Supreme Court who refer to this expert witness as a proxy for Pattaya City Hall.

The Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning in Bangkok had a man appear at Rayong Court to testify at the different court hearings. These court hearings were held in June, August and January. Remember the expert witness is Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning in Bangkok was represent by “Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul, 7th Class Lawyer”. At the first court hearing Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul could not answer the judges questions when asked about the arrows on the map and what did they mean. The question was does a arrow on Issue9 map point from the sea toward the land which has a 100 meters written next to it means you measure into the sea from MSL? Do you measure into the sea 100 meter before you measure onto the land 100 meter as claimed by the city hall attorney? Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul testified that he did not know of the technique used by the city hall attorney.

Then after court order Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning in Bangkok to do a survey to establish from MSL the location of VT7 building. The expert witness report to the court failed to answer the judge’s original question the location of VT7 building. So then Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul had to testify in court the location location of VT7 building a 102 and 103 from MSL.

The judge asked the only questions of Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul in court on January 15 hearing. Asia lawWorks failed to represent their cline at this hearing by file a false report to the court and Mr. Amnat never ask any question of Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul. I let you decide how Mr. Amnat and Mr Klemm were representing?

But in expert witness court report Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul made a statement about measuring into the sea before they measured onto the land from MSL. This witness moved the construction control line at MSL out into the sea to the borderline area on the map. That is not what Issue 9 said. These experts never supply a Issue 9 map in the report to the court or gave any reference to the arrows on the map.

Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul the so call the expert witness is a barrel of laughs!

ZZZ you have nothing to be sorry about!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

English Translation of January 16, 2008 Court lifts the Injunction what allows construction to start! This is not the final order! Starting from page 4:

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 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. (Note this is not what we think or said!)

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. (What??)

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

To many if in this court decision! On to the Admin Supreme Court for answers.

stopvt7 · June 8, 2008

Something else we like to share. Where from came the claim “measure into the sea”? It was fist used verbal at the first court hearing by Pattaya City Hall Lawyer. The judge real quested where it said to measure into the sea on the Issue 9 map. The lawyer explained that he know the arrow pointing to the land means you measure into the sea 100 meters. At the time the judge did not believe the Pattaya City Hall Lawyer. The court issued a injunction to stop work!

Where was the claim to measure into the sea first writing? It was from Pattaya City Hall filed “Explanations” to the court. Fine a English translation below!

Asia LawWorks Co., Ltd.

A t t o r n e y s – a t – L a w

R e c h t s a n w ä l t e

TRANSLATION OF BLACK CASE NO. 54/2550

EXPLANATION OF CITY HALL DATED 4TH APRIL 2007

Garuda

Royal Insignia

Explanations Case Black Number 54/2550

Administrative Court, Rayong

4th April 2007

Mr. T….. A, Jo, Maria 1 and Group, 10 in all plaint makers

Between

Competent officer of locale of Pattaya City 1

And group altogether 2 plaint receivers

I, the competent officer of locale of Pattaya City, Mr. Niran Wattanasartsathorn, plaint receiver, address Pattaya City Hall, North Pattaya, Nongprue, Banglamung, Chonburi 20260 Tel. 038-253242-3 have understood the plaint throughout and would like to give explanations and facts as follows:

1. Mean sea level means the average of sea water at high tide and low tide calculated by the Department of Hydrography of the Navy with a point of reference at Koh Lak, Prachuab Kiri Khan province and used this level as the reference point in Thailand, for instance at the Land Office there shall have a mean sea level as point of reference to be referred to (as per document 1).

2. According to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) issued pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479, point 3 stipulating an area within 100 m. measuring from the building construction control line as per map attached to the Act, effective as the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479 in the locale of Banglamung sub-district, Naklua sub-district and Nongprue sub-district, Banglamung district, Chonburi province B.E.2479 on the seafront side a building having the height above 14 m. from road level may not be erected. The alignment of the buildings construction control pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 was the same alignment with the alignment of the coastline at the median sea level as per map attached to the Act above.

3. According to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479, point 3 stipulating an area within 200 m. measuring from the building construction control line as per map attached to the Act effective as the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479 in the locale of Banglamung sub-district, Naklua sub-district and Nongprue sub-district, Banglamung district, Chonburi province B.E.2521 on the seafront side a building having the height above 14 m. may not be erected. The alignment of the buildings construction control pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9, there had been an alteration to the plan attached to the Act stipulating the alignment of the building construction control line measuring seaward from the shoreline at the median sea level MSL a further 100 m. as the starting point of the alignment of the building construction control area. When there had been an extension of the alignment of the building construction control area stipulating the area within 200 m., measuring from the building construction control line was an area where a building having the height above 14 m. from road level may not be erected, according to the map attached to the Act the seashore where the median level of the sea was thus the same alignment with the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8. Therefore the alignment of the building construction control line then was extended seaward for 100 m. from the seashore at the mean sea level and on land the stipulated alignment was the original 100 m. as per the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8. If stipulated within 200 m. from the building control line as the end of the improvement to building zone the alignment forbidding construction, land side, as per Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 and Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 are then the same alignment.

4. The case of Rim View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. had submitted a letter dated 27th August 2005 for Pattaya City Hall to inspect the 100 m distance from the median sea level for Title Deed 104646, Nongprue sub-district, Banglamung district, Chonburi province. Pattaya City Hall had entrusted Mr. Chavalit Jariyabanjong in the position of Traffic Researcher 6 (Vor) to determine the distance of 100 m. from the alignment of the sea shore at median sea level holding the base marker in the area of the Meteorological Station, Khao Thappraya which the Navy had transferred the level value from Koh Lak in Prachuab Kiri Khan province. Pattaya City had therefore used the said basic level to find the mean level of the sea for Title Deed No. 104646, Nongprue sub-district, Banglamung district, Chonburi province of View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. (as per document attached No. 2).

5. The legal section has found the definition of mean sea level from the forestry technical survey, forestry engineering branch, forestry faculty, Kasetsart University who stated that the mean sea level was the average of the highest and the lowest tide levels of the sea. This mean level is considered international but it did not mean that the mean sea level was the same all over the world. The difference on mean sea level in America between Pacific ocean and Atlantic ocean differed about 1 m. (as per attached document No. 3)

Signed ………………………. Statement maker

(Mr. Niran Wattanasartsathorn)

Mayor Pattaya City

This explanation I, Miss Benjawan Chinnapat, lawyer 4 , Pattaya City was the arranger and typist.

Signed…………………………. arranger/ typist

(Miss Benjawan Chinnapat)

Lawyer 4

Garuda

Royal Insignia

Ref: Chor. Bor 52303/5548 Pattaya City Hall

North Pattaya Road

Banglamung,

Chonburi 20260

9th September 2005

Re: Please advise the 100 m distance from the median sea level

To: Mr. Kriengkrai Panichphakdi

In reference to: Letter from View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd dated 27th August 2005

Enclosure: Copy of Title Deed 104646, 1 copy

In response to the request from View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd., represented by Mr. Kriengkrai Phanichphakdi, Director, owner of Title Deed No. 104646, Nongprue sub-district, Banglamung district, Chonburi province to investigate the distance of 100 m. from the median sea level, Pattaya City has investigated and stipulated the distance of 100 m. from the median sea level as per detail attached.

Please be advised accordingly.

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Niran Wattanasartsathorn

Mayor, Pattaya City

Buildings Control Section and City Planning Signed

Civil Office, Pattaya City Mr. Pornsakdi Piyakamolrat

Are translation of case or court documents come from our lawyers office, the Thai Government, or a University in Bangkok!

************

Also, do you remember the quote from Mr. Surapol from the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning Bangkok letter to the judge dated 19 of June 2007: The letter said “The distance of 100 m as per point 3 of the Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) issued pursuant to the Building Control Act B. E. 2479 and the distance of 200 m. as per point 3 of the Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Building Control Act B. E. 2479 are not the same alignment. In that the alignment of the coat line in accordance with the Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (b. E. 2519) had not specified the measurement be taken at MSL. But in accordance with the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B. E. 2521) it specified the measurement of the alignment of the coast line be taken only at MSL.

Mr. Surapol Pongthaipattana

Chief Engineer Acting on Behalf of the Director General

Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning” (Bangkok)

These two statements one from Pattaya City Hall and the other from Department of Civil Engineering and City Bangkok about Issue 9 do not agree!

Also, Issue 8 and 9 puts the building control line is at the seashore (Issue 9 seashore is at MSL) not move into the sea a 100 meters from the seashore as claimed by Mr. Niran Wattanasartsathorn the ex-mayor of Pattaya City.

Sorry, ThaiBob, JaiDeeFarang and Pattaya F_ _ to be pointing out facts!

We know your group do not like facts!!

We are waiting the Admin Supreme Court's decision.

ThaiBob · June 8, 2008

It appears some people are getting the Rayong Court appointed expert witness confused with the proxy expert witness for the City in VT7's reply to the litigants appeal to the Supreme Court.
Also, do not overlook that on Dec 17, 2007, the Bangkok Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning reported back to Court as ordered. Based on it's findings, it requested that the Court immediately revoke the temporary injunction before making its final ruling. The Court in fact did just that and revoked the original Court order, but only after reviewing the evidence and it's own ordered report, and then listening to the testimony of the expert witness. The expert witness's testimony was not some fabrication (as some people seem to think) but simply reaffirmed the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning report to the Court.

Thanks for clarifying, my mistake

ThaiBob is full of it! He never been at a court hearing and he has misrepresent the facts in the civil legal case against Pattaya City Hall. Their in only one expert witness ( The Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning of Bangkok) in court.

Also it was VT7 lawyers in his brief to the Admin Supreme Court who refer to this expert witness as a proxy for Pattaya City Hall.

The Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning in Bangkok had a man appear at Rayong Court to testify at the different court hearings. These court hearings were held in June, August and January. Remember the expert witness is Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning in Bangkok was represent by “Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul, 7th Class Lawyer”. At the first court hearing Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul could not answer the judges questions when asked about the arrows on the map and what did they mean. The question was does a arrow on Issue9 map point from the sea toward the land which has a 100 meters written next to it means you measure into the sea from MSL? Do you measure into the sea 100 meter before you measure onto the land 100 meter as claimed by the city hall attorney? Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul testified that he did not know of the technique used by the city hall attorney.

Then after court order Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning in Bangkok to do a survey to establish from MSL the location of VT7 building. The expert witness report to the court failed to answer the judge’s original question the location of VT7 building. So then Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul had to testify in court the location location of VT7 building a 102 and 103 from MSL.

The judge asked the only questions of Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul in court on January 15 hearing. Asia lawWorks failed to represent their cline at this hearing by file a false report to the court and Mr. Amnat never ask any question of Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul. I let you decide how Mr. Amnat and Mr Klemm were representing?

But in expert witness court report Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul made a statement about measuring into the sea before they measured onto the land from MSL. This witness moved the construction control line at MSL out into the sea to the borderline area on the map. That is not what Issue 9 said. These experts never supply a Issue 9 map in the report to the court or gave any reference to the arrows on the map.

Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul the so call the expert witness is a barrel of laughs!

ZZZ you have nothing to be sorry about!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

English Translation of January 16, 2008 Court lifts the Injunction what allows construction to start! This is not the final order! Starting from page 4:

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 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. (Note this is not what we think or said!)

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. (What??)

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

To many if in this court decision! On to the Admin Supreme Court for answers.

Well, well well. Welcome back!. I thought you might have enjoyed your holiday, relaxed a little and developed more of a positive attitude but I see that was not the case judging from your orgasmic reply.

I was merely trying to point out that Khun Veera is not the same person as the proxy witness which you did with your usual eloquence. "Their in only one expert witness ( The Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning of Bangkok) in court."...Thank you, I think most of us know that people are witnesses and not inanimate governmental agencies. Yes, Khun Veera, is the expert witness who testified and happens to represent his department. I see your lack respect of the judicial process continues just because someone holds a different opinion that your own.

Edited June 8, 2008 by ThaiBob

ThaiBob · June 8, 2008

Something else we like to share. Where from came the claim “measure into the sea”? It was fist used verbal at the first court hearing by Pattaya City Hall Lawyer. The judge real quested where it said to measure into the sea on the Issue 9 map. The lawyer explained that he know the arrow pointing to the land means you measure into the sea 100 meters. At the time the judge did not believe the Pattaya City Hall Lawyer. The court issued a injunction to stop work!
Where was the claim to measure into the sea first writing? It was from Pattaya City Hall filed “Explanations” to the court. Fine a English translation below!

Asia LawWorks Co., Ltd.

A t t o r n e y s – a t – L a w

R e c h t s a n w ä l t e

TRANSLATION OF BLACK CASE NO. 54/2550

EXPLANATION OF CITY HALL DATED 4TH APRIL 2007

Garuda

Royal Insignia

Explanations Case Black Number 54/2550

Administrative Court, Rayong

4th April 2007

Mr. T….. A, Jo, Maria 1 and Group, 10 in all plaint makers

Between

Competent officer of locale of Pattaya City 1

And group altogether 2 plaint receivers

I, the competent officer of locale of Pattaya City, Mr. Niran Wattanasartsathorn, plaint receiver, address Pattaya City Hall, North Pattaya, Nongprue, Banglamung, Chonburi 20260 Tel. 038-253242-3 have understood the plaint throughout and would like to give explanations and facts as follows:

1. Mean sea level means the average of sea water at high tide and low tide calculated by the Department of Hydrography of the Navy with a point of reference at Koh Lak, Prachuab Kiri Khan province and used this level as the reference point in Thailand, for instance at the Land Office there shall have a mean sea level as point of reference to be referred to (as per document 1).

2. According to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) issued pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479, point 3 stipulating an area within 100 m. measuring from the building construction control line as per map attached to the Act, effective as the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479 in the locale of Banglamung sub-district, Naklua sub-district and Nongprue sub-district, Banglamung district, Chonburi province B.E.2479 on the seafront side a building having the height above 14 m. from road level may not be erected. The alignment of the buildings construction control pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 was the same alignment with the alignment of the coastline at the median sea level as per map attached to the Act above.

3. According to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479, point 3 stipulating an area within 200 m. measuring from the building construction control line as per map attached to the Act effective as the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479 in the locale of Banglamung sub-district, Naklua sub-district and Nongprue sub-district, Banglamung district, Chonburi province B.E.2521 on the seafront side a building having the height above 14 m. may not be erected. The alignment of the buildings construction control pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9, there had been an alteration to the plan attached to the Act stipulating the alignment of the building construction control line measuring seaward from the shoreline at the median sea level MSL a further 100 m. as the starting point of the alignment of the building construction control area. When there had been an extension of the alignment of the building construction control area stipulating the area within 200 m., measuring from the building construction control line was an area where a building having the height above 14 m. from road level may not be erected, according to the map attached to the Act the seashore where the median level of the sea was thus the same alignment with the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8. Therefore the alignment of the building construction control line then was extended seaward for 100 m. from the seashore at the mean sea level and on land the stipulated alignment was the original 100 m. as per the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8. If stipulated within 200 m. from the building control line as the end of the improvement to building zone the alignment forbidding construction, land side, as per Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 and Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 are then the same alignment.

4. The case of Rim View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. had submitted a letter dated 27th August 2005 for Pattaya City Hall to inspect the 100 m distance from the median sea level for Title Deed 104646, Nongprue sub-district, Banglamung district, Chonburi province. Pattaya City Hall had entrusted Mr. Chavalit Jariyabanjong in the position of Traffic Researcher 6 (Vor) to determine the distance of 100 m. from the alignment of the sea shore at median sea level holding the base marker in the area of the Meteorological Station, Khao Thappraya which the Navy had transferred the level value from Koh Lak in Prachuab Kiri Khan province. Pattaya City had therefore used the said basic level to find the mean level of the sea for Title Deed No. 104646, Nongprue sub-district, Banglamung district, Chonburi province of View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. (as per document attached No. 2).

5. The legal section has found the definition of mean sea level from the forestry technical survey, forestry engineering branch, forestry faculty, Kasetsart University who stated that the mean sea level was the average of the highest and the lowest tide levels of the sea. This mean level is considered international but it did not mean that the mean sea level was the same all over the world. The difference on mean sea level in America between Pacific ocean and Atlantic ocean differed about 1 m. (as per attached document No. 3)

Signed ………………………. Statement maker

(Mr. Niran Wattanasartsathorn)

Mayor Pattaya City

This explanation I, Miss Benjawan Chinnapat, lawyer 4 , Pattaya City was the arranger and typist.

Signed…………………………. arranger/ typist

(Miss Benjawan Chinnapat)

Lawyer 4

Garuda

Royal Insignia

Ref: Chor. Bor 52303/5548 Pattaya City Hall

North Pattaya Road

Banglamung,

Chonburi 20260

9th September 2005

Re: Please advise the 100 m distance from the median sea level

To: Mr. Kriengkrai Panichphakdi

In reference to: Letter from View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd dated 27th August 2005

Enclosure: Copy of Title Deed 104646, 1 copy

In response to the request from View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd., represented by Mr. Kriengkrai Phanichphakdi, Director, owner of Title Deed No. 104646, Nongprue sub-district, Banglamung district, Chonburi province to investigate the distance of 100 m. from the median sea level, Pattaya City has investigated and stipulated the distance of 100 m. from the median sea level as per detail attached.

Please be advised accordingly.

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Niran Wattanasartsathorn

Mayor, Pattaya City

Buildings Control Section and City Planning Signed

Civil Office, Pattaya City Mr. Pornsakdi Piyakamolrat

Are translation of case or court documents come from our lawyers office, the Thai Government, or a University in Bangkok!

************

Also, do you remember the quote from Mr. Surapol from the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning Bangkok letter to the judge dated 19 of June 2007: The letter said “The distance of 100 m as per point 3 of the Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) issued pursuant to the Building Control Act B. E. 2479 and the distance of 200 m. as per point 3 of the Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Building Control Act B. E. 2479 are not the same alignment. In that the alignment of the coat line in accordance with the Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (b. E. 2519) had not specified the measurement be taken at MSL. But in accordance with the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B. E. 2521) it specified the measurement of the alignment of the coast line be taken only at MSL.

Mr. Surapol Pongthaipattana

Chief Engineer Acting on Behalf of the Director General

Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning” (Bangkok)

These two statements one from Pattaya City Hall and the other from Department of Civil Engineering and City Bangkok about Issue 9 do not agree!

Also, Issue 8 and 9 puts the building control line is at the seashore (Issue 9 seashore is at MSL) not move into the sea a 100 meters from the seashore as claimed by Mr. Niran Wattanasartsathorn the ex-mayor of Pattaya City.

Sorry, ThaiBob, JaiDeeFarang and Pattaya F_ _ to be pointing out facts!

We know your group do not like facts!!

We are waiting the Admin Supreme Court's decision.

You are reading chapter 1 again and the rest of the class is on the last chapter of this seemingly never ending story. The year is 2008 not 2007 so let's deal with the current facts please. The fact is all comments and discussions about previous hearings, testimony or conclusions of the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning can be summarized in the December 2007 court ordered report. Based on that survey and facts it requested the Court to revoke the provisional order before final judgment. This was not Khun Veera's request but his departments. You had an opportunity to present your own evidence and witnesses to support your case which you did not do. Your continued whining and sniffling gets little sympathy.

stopvt7 · June 9, 2008

ThaiBob we know you do not like facts! Know one is "whining and sniffling" to get sympathy! I understand that your group (investors in VT7) should be looking and searching for the facts. And maybe you should be asking for a refund?

We wish harm to no one. Even VT7 for the city misrepresenting of Issue 9. Remember at the first court hearing city hall lawyer claimed that Issue 9 did not apply. City hall lawyer said only issue 8 counts.

The judge shut that argument down when he had a copy of Issue 9 handed to him. Latter after the judge gave him time to read Issue 9 and map he start claiming he knew that the arrows point to the land from the sea on the map means you measure into the sea 100 meters from MSL before you measure onto the land and Issue 8 and 9 were the same alignment at MSL.

Now do you understand the importance of the letter (evidence) date 19 of June 2007? Where Mr. Surapol from the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning Bangkok wrote to the judge and stated, "The distance of 100 m as per point 3 of the Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) issued pursuant to the Building Control Act B. E. 2479 and the distance of 200 m. as per point 3 of the Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Building Control Act B. E. 2479 are not the same alignment. In that the alignment of the coat line in accordance with the Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (b. E. 2519) had not specified the measurement be taken at MSL. But in accordance with the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B. E. 2521) it specified the measurement of the alignment of the coast line be taken only at MSL.

Mr. Surapol Pongthaipattana

Chief Engineer Acting on Behalf of the Director General

Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning" (Bangkok)

This letter shows you the city hall lawyer did not know what he was talking about.

You also can not fine anywhere written in Issue 9 or on the map to measure into the sea 100 metres. Or to divide the 200 metres measurement in half and apply at MSL 100 metres into the sea. Which this act would take you, on Issue 9 map, to the "borderline"of the area the regulation covers.

We think Issue 8 and 9 are well written regulation with very clear maps showing the borderlines and area which are covered. We are waiting the Admin Supreme Court's decision.

Were sorry that you do not have enough grey matter between your eyes to understand.

Edited June 9, 2008 by stopvt7

ThaiBob · June 9, 2008

ThaiBob we know you do not like facts! Know one is "whining and sniffling" to get sympathy! I understand that your group (investors in VT7) should be looking and searching for the facts. And maybe you should be asking for a refund?
We wish harm to no one. Even VT7 for the city misrepresenting of Issue 9. Remember at the first court hearing city hall lawyer claimed that Issue 9 did not apply. City hall lawyer said only issue 8 counts.

The judge shut that argument down when he had a copy of Issue 9 handed to him. Latter after the judge gave him time to read Issue 9 and map he start claiming he knew that the arrows point to the land from the sea on the map means you measure into the sea 100 meters from MSL before you measure onto the land and Issue 8 and 9 were the same alignment at MSL.

Now do you understand the importance of the letter (evidence) date 19 of June 2007? Where Mr. Surapol from the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning Bangkok wrote to the judge and stated, "The distance of 100 m as per point 3 of the Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) issued pursuant to the Building Control Act B. E. 2479 and the distance of 200 m. as per point 3 of the Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Building Control Act B. E. 2479 are not the same alignment. In that the alignment of the coat line in accordance with the Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (b. E. 2519) had not specified the measurement be taken at MSL. But in accordance with the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B. E. 2521) it specified the measurement of the alignment of the coast line be taken only at MSL.

Mr. Surapol Pongthaipattana

Chief Engineer Acting on Behalf of the Director General

Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning" (Bangkok)

This letter shows you the city hall lawyer did not know what he was talking about.

You also can not fine anywhere written in Issue 9 or on the map to measure into the sea 100 metres. Or to divide the 200 metres measurement in half and apply at MSL 100 metres into the sea. Which this act would take you, on Issue 9 map, to the "borderline"of the area the regulation covers.

We think Issue 8 and 9 are well written regulation with very clear maps showing the borderlines and area which are covered. We are waiting the Admin Supreme Court's decision.

Were sorry that you do not have enough grey matter between your eyes to understand.

Congratulations!....you are progressing and gradually catching up with the rest of the class. Now all you have to do is understand the lastest December 19, 2007 (not June 19) report from the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning which I suspect is also signed by Chief Engineer Surapol. Why don't you post the English version of this report in its' unedited entirety (not starting from page 4) so everyone can get the true picture? Now that would be most interesting.

Additionally, please respond to the questions regarding the special JCC assessment raised by other posters. Thank you.

JaiDeeFarang · June 9, 2008

Forget it Bob, it's like pulling teeth or getting blood out of a stone.

stopVT7 can't give full and correct translations, because he'll no longer be able to pull the wool over the eyes of other co-owners and request their financial assistance. He is relying solely on propaganda to fight the case, no legal issues just his beliefs and understanding of Thai law which is manipulated to suit.

All I can see is more co-owners cash being squandered on the promise that they will win. Everyone knows what lawyers are like, they are in it for themselves and would tell you black was white if it made them money.

Welcome back stopVT7, we've missed you

Edited June 9, 2008 by JaiDeeFarang

stopvt7 · June 9, 2008

ThaiBob said: “Why don't you post the English version of this report in its' unedited entirety (not starting from page 4) so everyone can get the true picture?” Our group was advice by several different Thais about what the report said. We discussed part of the report in our appeal. If you need to know about it? Read our appeal which will explain what was wrong with Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning report. A written translation was not required.

So if you need one ask VT7 for a translation or paid for it your self. Then final you would be adding some positive information to this blog. Not your usual PS !!

Why do we sometimes start at page 4 in a translation? Because our lawyer said the first 4 pages was a recap of the filing to the court. That is normal for a court to explain each side before start their decision.

For a true picture of the case go to : http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

Were you can read translation of most court documents.

I know, ThaiBob their to many facts on the blog http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/ for the grey matter between your eyes to understand!

I like this little guy he make me laugh!

lookat · June 9, 2008

Forget it Bob, it's like pulling teeth or getting blood out of a stone.
stopVT7 can't give full and correct translations, because he'll no longer be able to pull the wool over the eyes of other co-owners and request their financial assistance. He is relying solely on propaganda to fight the case, no legal issues just his beliefs and understanding of Thai law which is manipulated to suit.

All I can see is more co-owners cash being squandered on the promise that they will win. Everyone knows what lawyers are like, they are in it for themselves and would tell you black was white if it made them money.

Welcome back stopVT7, we've missed you

Dear JaiDeeFarang your funny!

Edited June 9, 2008 by lookat

stopvt7 · June 9, 2008

Dear JaiDeeFarang

Thanks! I was in Bangkok looking at some of the spots where buildings have been torn down by Thailand courts!

At the 2007 Annual General Meeting a resolution was passed for the co-owners to pay for the group of ten legal case. The co-owner were very happy that someone stared to take legal action to protect the Thailand beaches. Sense most all the co-owner were told by JCC sales office before buying about Issue 9 and their would be nothing built over 14 meters high in front of the beautiful JCC building.

Did VT7 salesperson explain Issue 9 to you that they would not built over 14 meters high in front of the VT building?

I like this little guy he make me laugh!

Edited June 9, 2008 by stopvt7

Taijitu · June 9, 2008

Well, it appears that StopVT7 has answered the query about the imposition of the general levy. Perhaps StopVT7would now like to give a belated answer to my question (Post #1411)..

Why do you think the skyward construction of VT7 is continuing apace and with no defensive reaction, or comment, from anyone in the View Talay Group? (Maybe they know that no defence is necessary).

I will also repeat my comment that if VT7 is in danger of having some floors removed, or if the View Talay company is about to be punished for breaking one of "Thailand's laws", then it seems to me that the company is making some extremely bad business decisions or that the company management is simply naive........which I doubt very much. I do not see the View Talay Company making any foolish and rash presumptions that things can only go their way.

Please StopVT7/Lookat/Tammi..........an answer and an opinion regarding the upward construction (if you have one). Thank you.

(Edit: Spelling)

Edited June 9, 2008 by Taijitu

JaiDeeFarang · June 9, 2008

Forget it Bob, it's like pulling teeth or getting blood out of a stone.
stopVT7 can't give full and correct translations, because he'll no longer be able to pull the wool over the eyes of other co-owners and request their financial assistance. He is relying solely on propaganda to fight the case, no legal issues just his beliefs and understanding of Thai law which is manipulated to suit.

All I can see is more co-owners cash being squandered on the promise that they will win. Everyone knows what lawyers are like, they are in it for themselves and would tell you black was white if it made them money.

Welcome back stopVT7, we've missed you

Dear JaiDeeFarang your funny!

Thank you lookat, but surely the jesters title must go to you?

JaiDeeFarang · June 9, 2008

Dear JaiDeeFarang
Thanks! I was in Bangkok looking at some of the spots where buildings have been torn down by Thailand courts!

At the 2007 Annual General Meeting a resolution was passed for the co-owners to pay for the group of ten legal case. The co-owner were very happy that someone stared to take legal action to protect the Thailand beaches. Sense most all the co-owner were told by JCC sales office before buying about Issue 9 and their would be nothing built over 14 meters high in front of the beautiful JCC building.

Did VT7 salesperson explain Issue 9 to you that they would not built over 14 meters high in front of the VT building?

I like this little guy he make me laugh!

Dear stopvt7, it's true I have missed you and your anecdotes for the last week, even your smiley, laughing faces.

The buildings in Bangkok are totally unrelated to this, if you read the newspapers you'd understand the story behind it. The developer proceeded without buildings permits, something VT7 possesses. If VT7 had started construction without a building permit I would've expected them to face the same fate, but they didn't. They've done everything by the book.

Can you confirm that 100% of the co-owners support you? I understand this is not the case. Who passed the resolution for everyone to pay? It's superb that you pluck at their heart strings and use the beach as the excuse for your fight, when you, I and everyone else knows it's to protect your seaviews and property value - just be a man and admit it!

If Jomtien Condo Complex stated nothing will be built in front, why not take a law suit out against them? Do any of you have this in writing, that nothing would be built in front? Let's face it unless you buy absolute beachfront, your view is not protected.

The beautiful JCC building? Don't make me laugh! Why are bits of it falling into Flannagans beer garden, so much so that a safety net has been installed to protect people from falling debris!?

The law states that nothing over 14m can be built within 100m to the MSL 'presently', however being a realist I understand that in years down the line this law may be amended. I also realise that in terms of safety a highrise will never be built on what is essentially the beach in front of the VT7 land, also the beaches belong to the king and lately there has been a major shake up regarding vendors and 'squatters' on this subject.

All I can say on your last comment is "simple things, please simple minds"

Gary A · June 9, 2008

I think the VT 7 project is wrong and has broken the law, however I get irritated by this "Protect the Beach" crap. It is simply protecting the view. How would a height of 14 meters be any better than 50 stories. The beach has been violated if the construction was 3 meters high. I also hope the people who approved the plans are prosecuted if it is decided that VT 7 is wrong.

Wiresok · June 9, 2008

Nothing I have seeen or heard convinces me the "expert witness" testimony is plausible.

Why would issue 9 be written to allow you to build closer to the sea than issue 8??

Why would issue 9 be written to specifically prohibit buildings 100m out to sea,how many do you see there now.

Pants!!

If anybody can provide a sensible,logical,co-herent answer to these questions I would be obliged.

Taijitu · June 9, 2008

...If anybody can provide a sensible, logical, co-herent answer to these questions I would be obliged.

Sorry Wiresok, this is not a feature of this topic. Answers are as rare as hen's teeth.

jpm76 · June 9, 2008

The construction control 'zone' covers construction into and out of the sea from the MSL. Do not "Think" if you don't know or understand.
The expert witness should be referred to as "The court appointed expert witness". Thailand is a country of laws, but it seems many don't have a grasp on reality and wish the law would suit their understanding, manipulation and distortion of it.

Ok then...you are one of the elite few percent able to grasp the Thai legal system on property/ construction related matters then. Is it by profession or do you religously read thai legal docs in Thai and english? Do you work for the thai government, panning authority? international advisory consultant?? Speak fluent thai as wlell i guess.

the expert witness (or what ever) is just a human in a professional field with either a clue, opinion or maybe some friends around thailand...

each to their own.

Funnily enough Surfer, if you read some of the previous posts, you will see that we have already acknowledged that the "elite and superhuman race" awards must go to Stop VT7 and his crew because they are the ones who have denounced Thai judges for their interpretation of the law, rebuked expert witnesses for their engineering knowledge, slagged off their own lawyers and accused them of vying for political positions, attacked VT7 investors and labelled them as heartless capitalists who care naught for nothing other than themselves, and basically assumed that they know fa rmore than any expert working in the Thai legal system.

Of course, then we hear the rubbish about how much he respects Thailand and its law, and if you were to read the whole of this posting, you would discover that it was only when VT7 investors got sick and tired of StopVt7, Lookat and others posting propaganda BS that we decided to begin posting ourselves here and bringing into question some of his arguments that only he could be right. We, if I can speak for VT7 investors, mostly believe that the expert Thai system has it right to date, and that their knowledge is far superior than ours in matters of Thai law, Thai language (as these are all arguments that I and others have used in the past). And so, the elitist tags certainly belong to the StopVt7 group, and not VT7 investors, who have had to respond to the constant reposting of the same old arguments from StopVt7 in order so that the facts should be assumed to be completely those written by StopVt7 and crew.

As a couple of fellow VT7 investors have stated, repeating the same arguments all the time do not make it truer. i personally think that StopVT7 is on a VERY PERSONAL crusade to protect his own sea views (as his original posts suggests), but later decided to take a moral high ground and bring in environmental protection, (and later his supporters decided to bring in issues of children on site, worker safety etc - all off topic posts), and other arguments to rally support of his case. But the facts have not changed, and since law is very subject to interpretation (hence why courts exist), we may never know. What I would like to see is responsible resolutions, and tearing down buildings that have complied with the law and received successful building permits and approvals would not be correct in this case. I doubt that it would or should happen.

No, many of the recent postings you are reading about are partly reaction against the Soviet style manipulation of "reality" and facts designed to push propaganda for a personal interest. I think that you have been reading for a while though, but if you were to read back through all these posts, you would see what I am referring to. VT7 investors have only been more vocal as of late, and given the circumstances of HAVING to defend ourselves. Else StopVT7's portrayals of us as blood sucking thirsty capitalists with no morals, no anything other than pure profit (ironically, a personal interest that StopVT7 denies to have any concerns over when he shifts his crusade over the environment and other social costs), would stick undeservingly. We are not the elitist omniscient ones, but rather those that think that the Thais deserve a bit more credit when they have professionally and expertly come to their decisions. It is elitist when one attacks every professional opinion and judgement contrary as wrong because it does not concur with their own personal interest. Rather than calling it elitist, I preferred the tag "superhuman" because their skills were so obviously far in advance of us ordinary humanity who felt that the professionals were most likely the nest to make these decisions.

I still hold that StopVT7 has the right to use his legal appeal, and I came out in support of it earlier on in my posts, but what many have tired of is the way that StopVT7 has gone about it, and yet he still maintains that he has been the perfect gentleman about it. Others see in his writings, contrary to other things written, a tone of complete arrogance, disrespect, and condemnation of all against him. He does not acknowledge his personal interest in this case, and instead holds out that he is fighting for the environment or whatever cause will gain public support. I do not know why, as with ThaiBob, how the JCC committee could charge 10,000 Baht to every condo owner for a court case initiated by only 10 plaintiffs. That would be unmistakenly, corruption, or the use of power towards personal ends. I hope, for the sakes of JCC owners, that this is not true, else I would be refusing to pay it also, and would be taking the Board to court - it would be a desperate measure to obtain more funds for this fight, and one I am sure such a distinguished altruist as Mr Haines could certainly not be involved in.

Hopefully there is a decision soon, and that it rules correctly and upholds the fact that the building permission was correctly obtained - I even remember reading somewhere that the approval process was not easy for VT7 and that they had to go to great lengths with obtaining things such as EIA's due to the project's size and proximity. Such points would be further arguments that responsible decisions have been made here, and that the alleged corruption charges are way off the mark. Someone with more time that me may like to go back through all these postings and get the details of this...but good luck.

To responsible and ecological development that is also reasonable in its balance of furthering economic and environmental ends ("reasonable and balanced" - something that surely produces debate in any situation similar to this one). But this topic was never really about that - it was always as the topic title suggests "Jomtien Condo Owners Sue for Sea View", a personal crusade begun by ten plaintiffs.

jpm76 · June 9, 2008

Dear JaiDeeFarang
Thanks! I was in Bangkok looking at some of the spots where buildings have been torn down by Thailand courts!

At the 2007 Annual General Meeting a resolution was passed for the co-owners to pay for the group of ten legal case. The co-owner were very happy that someone stared to take legal action to protect the Thailand beaches. Sense most all the co-owner were told by JCC sales office before buying about Issue 9 and their would be nothing built over 14 meters high in front of the beautiful JCC building.

Did VT7 salesperson explain Issue 9 to you that they would not built over 14 meters high in front of the VT building?

I like this little guy he make me laugh!

I stand completely corrected... the 10 plaintiffs ARE spending other people's money for their own personal interest, sorry, to protect Thai beaches (my mistake). Given Mr Haines' recent position on the board, does this not sound a little (how can I put it nicely without making any accusations) QUESTIONABLE??? I'm glad though that it is the Thailand beaches that are what this is all about, else I may be inclined to think that Mr Haines and his friends of the Board had decided that they could force others to pay his legal bills. StopVT7, if you are willing to go to courts to protect your profits, at least use your own money - you get more pathetic the longer this goes on!

Did you ever consider asking all of the JCC owners if they were as concerned about the Thai beaches (haha) as you. Perhaps they may only be as concerned as their pockets go and did not want to reimburse you for your own personal expenses? Mate, do not even think of posing your moral arguments here any longer after forcing others to incur your own legal expenses... it is all BS, and we all know it. You and your Group of 10 are just plain lowlifes and pathetic.

And no, a VT7 salesperson did not explain Issue 9 to me (that would be for a lawyer to do), nor that they would not build over 14m high in front of me - their plans had that area showing common areas, and I am not stupid enough to think that my ocean views would be completely risk free anyhow even if they did tell me that. If JCC are feeling a bit guilty about that point, then I guess that they can always rob someone else's pockets to pay for their mistake (like not getting written confirmations from VT7 if it was ever actually promised). Someone should sue the JCC committee for clearly advertently stealing from its members...sorry, someone should award JCC committee humanitarians of the year awards for their extraordinary committment to protecting the environment. What a farce this has become....

Get a life and pay for your own legal expenses like any decent person should. Hopefully, people are realising just how pathetic you really are behind all the altrusim you hold out. Why would any "impartial" condo owners body corporation choose to pay for someone else's legal expenses??? Isn't it ironic that you are so against the "abuse of power", and yet, your Group of Ten has abused power so blatantly and virtually robbed your fellow condo owners for your own irresponsible expenses (never should have taken up an appeal if you could not afford it)... all I can see... BS BS BS!!!!

I am still in disbelief that it is actually true that the Group of Ten actually raised a levy against its own owners (who obviously chose not to be part of the plaintiff's action, else it would have been a greater group ie Group of 50 or 100). For all the talk of what fine humans this group is to be so committed to the social interests, and they turn out to be a bunch of lowlifes who are trying to nring others down financially. Hope this turns back in your face in a big way. Thanks JaiDee for exposing what type of characters these people really are!!!!!!!

jpm76 · June 9, 2008

Dear JaiDeeFarang
Thanks! I was in Bangkok looking at some of the spots where buildings have been torn down by Thailand courts!

At the 2007 Annual General Meeting a resolution was passed for the co-owners to pay for the group of ten legal case. The co-owner were very happy that someone stared to take legal action to protect the Thailand beaches. Sense most all the co-owner were told by JCC sales office before buying about Issue 9 and their would be nothing built over 14 meters high in front of the beautiful JCC building.

Did VT7 salesperson explain Issue 9 to you that they would not built over 14 meters high in front of the VT building?

I like this little guy he make me laugh!

I stand completely corrected... the 10 plaintiffs ARE spending other people's money for their own personal interest, sorry, to protect Thai beaches (my mistake). Given Mr Haines' recent position on the board, does this not sound a little (how can I put it nicely without making any accusations) QUESTIONABLE??? I'm glad though that it is the Thailand beaches that are what this is all about, else I may be inclined to think that Mr Haines and his friends of the Board had decided that they could force others to pay his legal bills. StopVT7, if you are willing to go to courts to protect your profits, at least use your own money - you get more pathetic the longer this goes on!

Did you ever consider asking all of the JCC owners if they were as concerned about the Thai beaches (haha) as you. Perhaps they may only be as concerned as their pockets go and did not want to reimburse you for your own personal expenses? Mate, do not even think of posing your moral arguments here any longer after forcing others to incur your own legal expenses... it is all BS, and we all know it. You and your Group of 10 are just plain lowlifes and pathetic.

And no, a VT7 salesperson did not explain Issue 9 to me (that would be for a lawyer to do), nor that they would not build over 14m high in front of me - their plans had that area showing common areas, and I am not stupid enough to think that my ocean views would be completely risk free anyhow even if they did tell me that. If JCC are feeling a bit guilty about that point, then I guess that they can always rob someone else's pockets to pay for their mistake (like not getting written confirmations from VT7 if it was ever actually promised). Someone should sue the JCC committee for clearly advertently stealing from its members...sorry, someone should award JCC committee humanitarians of the year awards for their extraordinary committment to protecting the environment. What a farce this has become....

Get a life and pay for your own legal expenses like any decent person should. Hopefully, people are realising just how pathetic you really are behind all the altrusim you hold out. Why would any "impartial" condo owners body corporation choose to pay for someone else's legal expenses??? Isn't it ironic that you are so against the "abuse of power", and yet, your Group of Ten has abused power so blatantly and virtually robbed your fellow condo owners for your own irresponsible expenses (never should have taken up an appeal if you could not afford it)... all I can see... BS BS BS!!!!

I am still in disbelief that it is actually true that the Group of Ten actually raised a levy against its own owners (who obviously chose not to be part of the plaintiff's action, else it would have been a greater group ie Group of 50 or 100). For all the talk of what fine humans this group is to be so committed to the social interests, and they turn out to be a bunch of lowlifes who are trying to nring others down financially. Hope this turns back in your face in a big way. Thanks JaiDee for exposing what type of characters these people really are!!!!!!!

Furthermore, your own post shows your BS. You underline "protect the Thai beaches", and then use a linking phrase ("Sense" is supposed to read "Since") that addresses a real concern that the owners were misadvised and told that no building would be built over 14m in front of them.

To all JCC owners out there, I hope that you do not buy into all these things of doing this for the Thai beaches (and if you still do, know now that they want you paying for it), and that you take the JCC committee for what it is...ie truly self-interested, and then sue them twice - one for causing property losses as a result of false negligent statements (from not having done their legal homework properly), and secondly, for trying to rob you with their talk of wanting to protect the Thailand beaches, rather than the true intent here ie to have you pay for their forgone legal expenses since they are now losing lots of money. I guess that Richard's and his friends on the Board's investments became all the worse when they spent all this money on these court cases and appeals, and now they need you to pay for them. It would be pure speculation on my behalf to think that perhaps after losing the first court case (and losing lots of money) that they decided to go ahead with the appeal, knowing that they could not afford it, but had an agenda to force the JCC owners to pay for the court costs of the appeal and the costs already assumed). The mind boggles as the "truth" comes out.

Hey StopVT7 (and the JCC thiefs), I care about the Thai beaches too, but I thank God that I am not forcibly required to donate 10,000 Baht to your "true" cause. What a scandal! Anyone else see a new court case coming up - the Thai Visa forum topic could be "JCC Condo Owners Sue those who Sued for their Personal Sea View (at their own expense)"???

Sign In

Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

raro

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics