Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[Tammi]

Jomthien Complex did not go to court because of loss of sea views or protection of the beaches - they went to court because the Law says that no building over 14 meters can be built within 200 meters of the sea shore.

[JaiDeeFarang]

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-owners were very happy that someone started to take legal action...........

I was talking to an old friend last night. He and his wife have lived in JCC since it was built (I met them in JCC in 1996). He has heard nothing and has read nothing about this resolution and the alleged levy!!! He suggests that the story is pure fiction and his wife, who was on the Co-owners' Committee at one time, agreed with him.

He lives in Tower 'B' of JCC and has watched the construction of VT7 from the start. He, and others, in Tower 'B' aren't so vocal as StopVT7 because VT7 will mar the view from Tower 'A' but not so much Tower 'B'. He concurred that the issue is all about loss of sea view and has nothing to do with the protection of beaches.

His only positive comment about StopVT (Richard Haines) was (quote) "At least he tried". (Note the past tense!!!)

(Edit: Spelling)

If my question / allegation is incorrect, how come stopvt7 answered with his statement saying that the "co-owners were very happy that someone started to take legal action"? Very strange indeed, perhaps stopvt7 doesn't know but decided to answer and declare that everyone supports his crusade / vendetta.

Tammi, get real please everyone knows they went to court to protect their sea views and property prices. If VT7 was positioned elsewhere along Jomtien / Pattaya at the same distance from the sea, they wouldn't have taken the matter to court. They wouldn't give a dam_n about the beach or anyone elses seaviews, but because it's on their doorstep and blocking their views they've taken the matter to court.

[JaiDeeFarang]

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!

Tammi, according to this post from stopvt7 he states that he has taken legal action to protect the Thailand beaches. Are you now saying this is incorrect and that the only legal battle is over the 14m height restriction?

If this is the case I think this could possibly be called fraud in as much as stopvt7 has misrepresented his case before the co-owners in order to obtain money, as according to you he is fighting for the law of the 14m to be enforced, not for the good of the beaches or the views.

[Taijitu]

Jomthien Complex did not go to court because of loss of sea views or protection of the beaches - they went to court because the Law says that no building over 14 meters can be built within 200 meters of the sea shore.

Tammi, you're quite right......Jomtien Complex did not go to court!!!! A group of co-owers did!!

OK, I'm being pedantic, but so are you. Of course, they could only present their case according to whatever law they thought was being breached. Petitioning for "loss of view" would have been far too tenuous. Yes, definitely time to get real!!

[Taijitu]

At the 2007 Annual General Meeting, a resolution was passed...........

The 2007 Annual General Meeting? This took place nearly one year ago!

[Wiresok]

Well thanks for having a go at that but can you see the lengths you are having to go to with stretched,complex,unfounded arguments to support the "expert witness" against what is in essence a very simple issue.

This sort of response is always a sure sign of a struggle to make things fit a point of view,even though they go against common sense.

Common sense indicates to me that you would not introduce new legislation to allow you to build closer to the sea than the earlier legislation would.Why would the lawmakers want to allow building closer to the sea,doesn't make sense.

And not seeing any tall buildings 100m out into the sea,or any applications to build any there in the last 30 years,gives no reason to want to write issue 9 to provide blanket legislation to specifically prohibit such buildings 100m out there to sea.Is the "expert witness" suggesting you can build up to 14m in the plus/minus 100m zone,or cannot build anything?

Buildings allowed out into the sea but only up to 14m?

You see,the questions just go on and on.

You have to remember that to change legislation costs a fortune in time and money to implement,so you arn't going to change it unless you have compelling reasons which offer improvements and benefits.

The expert witness reasoning does not offer benefits,only detriments ,and more questions,and that is where it falls down.

To make a case to support the "expert witness" defies common sense and logic,so still not convinced.

One of the reasons I have been following this thread is to see if someone can come up with logical answers to some of these questions, but I think that they mostly defy logic. As I see it, whatever the "expert" says, it is at this time, legal to build up to at least 14 meters high however far out to sea you wish. Of course practicalities, construction costs and land ownership are issues which are probably more relevant than legalities. Which comes back to the question, why legislate to deal with something no one wants to do anyway?

Without going into whether the "expert" is right or wrong in his interpretation, can anyone come up with logical answers to these questions?

I don't know if you live here or for how long you've been visiting, but IMHO you do not fully understand Thailand if you make such comments as these. Anyone who has spent any time here realises that 'LOGIC' and 'COMMON SENSE' doesn't occur here very often, if ever. Thais will do whatever suits them even if there is absolutely no thought given to the consequences, they will do it anyway. Using the word Logic is a bit Naive of you.

To say the Thai court will protect you farangs against Thais is also Naive, do you really think the court will rule in your favour and in turn make all the Thais involved with the case 'lose face'?

They will duck, dive, go left, go right, do anything to avoid confrontation and loss of face and interpret the law whichever way suits them best. We are in Thailand, not the western world!

One other thing, have you seen the developements they have in Dubai such as The World, The Palms for instance? As beach front land in tourist areas becomes more scarce, what legislation would govern Raimon Land for example with their wealthy Middle Eastern investors developing something similar in Thailand? Take a look at this link http://www.raimonland.com/RLengV2/media_ce...ails.asp?id=137

Sadly ,thats the sort of response I would expect from someone who has no answers to the simple questions.

I certainly dont agree with your view of the Thai courts.

Regards your views about logic and common sense, ,remember the Bangkok Administrative Supreme Court has already ruled for the plaintiffs ......on what?......on the basis of logic and common sense!.

[Tammi]

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!

Tammi, according to this post from stopvt7 he states that he has taken legal action to protect the Thailand beaches. Are you now saying this is incorrect and that the only legal battle is over the 14m height restriction?

If this is the case I think this could possibly be called fraud in as much as stopvt7 has misrepresented his case before the co-owners in order to obtain money, as according to you he is fighting for the law of the 14m to be enforced, not for the good of the beaches or the views.

Protect Thailand beaches = build nothing over 14 metres as per the Law.

StopVT7 did not take the case to court - a group did and apparently with the blessing of an AGM.

Why do you try to cause trouble by talking about fraud?

[Tammi]

At the 2007 Annual General Meeting, a resolution was passed...........

The 2007 Annual General Meeting? This took place nearly one year ago!

Nothing surprising about that. I know of cases that have been going on for many years.

[marekm1]

Can anyone from stopvt7 group explain what’s going on with the shopping centre next to View Talay 6 in Pattaya. The project is about 50m from the beach and is now well over 14m. I would suppose the project is well watched by people, who want to protect the beaches and a lot of red flags raising against it. And so far I cannot see any. Has anybody gone to City Hall or is any court case pending against it. Or it would be to cynical from my side thinking that nobody cares.

[Taijitu]

Can anyone from stopvt7 group explain what's going on with the shopping centre next to View Talay 6 in Pattaya. The project is about 50m from the beach and is now well over 14m. I would suppose the project is well watched by people, who want to protect the beaches and a lot of red flags raising against it. And so far I cannot see any. Has anybody gone to City Hall or is any court case pending against it. Or it would be too cynical from my side thinking that nobody cares.

Of course nobody from the StopVT7 lobby cares ....no way will this project interfere with the view from JCC. "S0d this part beach as long as my own view remains intact".

[Taijitu]

At the 2007 Annual General Meeting, a resolution was passed...........

The 2007 Annual General Meeting? This took place nearly one year ago!

Nothing surprising about that. I know of cases that have been going on for many years.

You're wrong. It takes a minute to pass a resolution, or otherwise, once a forum is recognised. After all, it just related (allegedly) to the imposition of a levy.

[ThaiBob]

Well thanks for having a go at that but can you see the lengths you are having to go to with stretched,complex,unfounded arguments to support the "expert witness" against what is in essence a very simple issue.

This sort of response is always a sure sign of a struggle to make things fit a point of view,even though they go against common sense.

Common sense indicates to me that you would not introduce new legislation to allow you to build closer to the sea than the earlier legislation would.Why would the lawmakers want to allow building closer to the sea,doesn't make sense.

And not seeing any tall buildings 100m out into the sea,or any applications to build any there in the last 30 years,gives no reason to want to write issue 9 to provide blanket legislation to specifically prohibit such buildings 100m out there to sea.Is the "expert witness" suggesting you can build up to 14m in the plus/minus 100m zone,or cannot build anything?

Buildings allowed out into the sea but only up to 14m?

You see,the questions just go on and on.

You have to remember that to change legislation costs a fortune in time and money to implement,so you arn't going to change it unless you have compelling reasons which offer improvements and benefits.

The expert witness reasoning does not offer benefits,only detriments ,and more questions,and that is where it falls down.

To make a case to support the "expert witness" defies common sense and logic,so still not convinced.

Well I tried but not surprised, years ago I couldn't convince my Dad not to vote for Ronald Reagan either! Seriously, in reading your reply I suspect we'll never agree on this subject; we simply think differently. Your arguments tend to focus on the philosophical such as intent, or "offer improvement and benefits", benefits versus detriments, etc. As an analyst by profession, my thinking is based on using facts and numbers. We could discuss intent and play Monday morning quarterbacks all day long but the crux of this discussion is the interpretation of the Issue 9 “annexed map". Hopefully you studied the map before reaching your conclusions. For me, the City/VT7 case is clear, concise and logical. It is supported by a court ordered independent report and backed up with expert witness testimony. Also read the Court order removing the temproary injuction and how it clearly summarizes the facts. Your argument that the City/VT7 case “with stretched, complex, unfounded arguments to support the "expert witness" against what is in essence a very simple issue." actually expresses my feelings about the litigant’s case. In reading all the litigant’s court filings they had to go to great lengths to interpret that big bold line which represents "borderline of the construction restriction area". Again, to accept the litigants argument means you accept a 300 meter measurement; 100 meters from the MSL out to the construction control area border and then 200 meters from the MSL landward (realizing of course that Issue 9 does not say to measure from the MSL!). You are right this is a simple issue and litigants are trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

“And not seeing any tall buildings 100m out into the sea, or any applications to build any there in the last 30 years, gives no reason to want to write issue 9 to provide blanket legislation to specifically prohibit such buildings 100m out there to sea. Is the "expert witness" suggesting you can build up to 14m in the plus/minus 100m zone, or cannot build anything?

Buildings allowed out into the sea but only up to 14m?

You see, the questions just go on and on.”….. I agree Issue 8/9 leaves many unanswered questions but your comments also could be applied to the litigant’s argument. In practice I suppose the law’s impact would be different for different area’s (Walking Street/Naklua private property versus JomTien/Dong Tan public beach). But it will be comforting to know that radio station KJCC can not build a 50 meter antenna structure in front of VT7!

“You have to remember that to change legislation costs a fortune in time and money to implement, so you arn't going to change it unless you have compelling reasons which offer improvements and benefits.

The expert witness reasoning does not offer benefits, only detriments, and more questions, and that is where it falls down.

To make a case to support the "expert witness" defies common sense and logic, so still not convinced.” ..... Not clear to me what you are saying or implying. Who is trying to change what? The experts witness testimony is not the “change” but it is the current law which the City of Pattaya has applied consistently for years. The litigant’s position is the “change” to protect their sea views.

[ThaiBob]

Dear ThaiBob here a new fact you can twist!

The Administrative Court of Rayong Province ordered the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning of Bangkok to survey and reports the measurement location of VT7 from MSL. That was all the Rayong court ordered requested or required.

Did not the expert witness report provide a “determination of a question of law” when they wrote their report requesting the removal of the injunction? When they measured into the sea? The Rayong court use that report in their court order and used the word “if” often when quoting the the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning of Bangkok report.

Below is a government English translation. From the Thailand government act which set up the Administrative Court system:

“RULE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF JUDGES OF THE SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT ON ADMINISTRATIVE COURT PROCEDURE, B.E. 2543 (2000)

Clause 55: The Court, if it thinks fit or upon an application by a party, may issue an order appointing an expert for studying, examining or analyzing any matter in connection with the case, provided that it is not the determination of a question of law, and then preparing a report or giving statements to the Court. A copy of a report or a memorandum of statements given by an expert shall be furnished to the party concerned for the purpose of preparing comments for submission to the Court within the period of time specified by the Court. The Court may issue an order instructing the expert to give oral statements supplementing the expert’s report.”

I think the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning of Bangkok report violated "clause 55" from Thailand government act which set up the Administrative Court system. Because Rayong used only the report in their decision and never explained their meaning of Issue 9 in the court order.

It’s about all though “if”s in their decision!

http://bp1.blogger.com/_1x8bR0BbXM4/R5b9gd...for+Blog%29.jpg

http://bp2.blogger.com/_1x8bR0BbXM4/R7jT7C...8English%29.jpg

I agree that the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning should not have made any recommendations. I say that based on my experience and my limited knowledge of the American court system only. I suspect the witness's opinions, recommendations if any came out during testimony and cross-examination by the Court. I did notice that Court used the measurement and witness testimony only in writing it's conclusion therefore they may have dodged a bullet. Regardless, if I was in your place I would have included this finding as part of your appeal. Needless to say I think you errored in not translating perhaps the most important document (the report) so far, especially based on your past experience with Thai lawyers. I think your Thai lawyer should have caught this.

[JaiDeeFarang]

Jomthien Complex did not go to court because of loss of sea views or protection of the beaches - they went to court because the Law says that no building over 14 meters can be built within 200 meters of the sea shore.

To build 14 metres, 23 metres, 100 or 200 metres does not affect the beach one bit and I would once again suggest a fraud may have taken place if stopVT7 claims the money obtained for his legal crusade is for anything other than to protect his sea views, it is misrepresentation on his part if he claims it is to protect the beaches of Thailand.

Before a highrise can be built it has to be EIA approved, this enviromental impact assessment is not easy to come by and strict guidelines must be adhered to in order to obtain approval.

Anything over 23 metres in height must apply for EIA before obtaining a building permit. VT7 met all the criteria asked of it in order to get enviromental approval. Once this was granted they could then go for the building permit, which was given because VT7 meets all the enviromental and legal requirements to build a highrise in that location.

I am not causing trouble and I wish the JCC no harm, I just wish you lot would stop manipulating things to suit your own needs and believing anyone who does not run with your train of thought is wrong. Look how far your legal battle has got you so far, about 12 storeys high and growing I believe.

[stopvt7]

Dear ThaiBob

Your statement: “I agree that the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning should not have made any recommendations. I suspect the witness's opinions, recommendations if any came out during testimony and cross-examination by the Court.”

We think the expert witness recommendations was a breach of Clause 55 “determination of a question of law” which came in their written report to the court.

No one cross-examination expert witness and this was a real problem for our group! We were promised before Rayong court hiring by Amnat of Asia LawWorks that he would be very tough on questioning the expert witness. Then when the judge finished his question he ask the attorney if they had any question? Amnat said NO! He stated he would let his brief ask his question. This act was a shock! Then after the court hearing we were able to read a English translation of Amnat brief and other shock! Shocked is not a right word to represent Asia LawWorks brief. We were betrayed! We think they did a treacherous act and we fired Amnat, Klemm and Asia LawWorks. I ask you as I ask them, were in the H_ll does it say in Issue 8 or 9, on their maps, or in the minutes from the drafting of the regulation “to measure into the sea 100 meter”? Where does it say to measure from a borderline of the area of the map?

Issue 9 is very clear you measure 200 meters. From the construction control line at the seashore on Issue 9 map which is found at MSL..

Then later we learned about clauses 55.

What’s important is the next Supreme Admin Court decision and if they act coherently in their answer. They know about clause 55 as many foreigners “groups” (if you know that I mean?). I was informed to read the act establishing the court by a “foreign group”. That’s why I say our little case is being watch by others.

We think the Supreme Admin Court acted coherently and fair with thief first order by saying. “Therefore, if the Construction Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2006 granted by the Defendant No. 1 to the Defendant No. 2 should appear to be unlawful against the Ministerial Regulation thereto as being claimed by the ten plaintiffs, the Court of First Instance should have sentenced this point of being unlawful, i.e. the judgment shall be focused on the permission of construction the building exceeding height limit by the Defendant No. 2.”..... Supreme Administrative Court.......”

We wait for the Supreme Admin Court decision next week!

[stopvt7]

Jomthien Complex did not go to court because of loss of sea views or protection of the beaches - they went to court because the Law says that no building over 14 meters can be built within 200 meters of the sea shore.

Dear JaiDeeFarang

Beach Protection equals Sea View!

What is wrong with protecting both?

So let go of your complaint about sea view. Sea View has nothing to do with the upcoming court decision next week.

[Pattaya46]

We wait for the Supreme Admin Court decision next week!

How high is VT7 today ? (or how many floors already ?)

[ThaiBob]

Dear ThaiBob

Your statement: “I agree that the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning should not have made any recommendations. I suspect the witness's opinions, recommendations if any came out during testimony and cross-examination by the Court.”

We think the expert witness recommendations was a breach of Clause 55 “determination of a question of law” which came in their written report to the court.

No one cross-examination expert witness and this was a real problem for our group! We were promised before Rayong court hiring by Amnat of Asia LawWorks that he would be very tough on questioning the expert witness. Then when the judge finished his question he ask the attorney if they had any question? Amnat said NO! He stated he would let his brief ask his question. This act was a shock! Then after the court hearing we were able to read a English translation of Amnat brief and other shock! Shocked is not a right word to represent Asia LawWorks brief. We were betrayed! We think they did a treacherous act and we fired Amnat, Klemm and Asia LawWorks. I ask you as I ask them, were in the H_ll does it say in Issue 8 or 9, on their maps, or in the minutes from the drafting of the regulation “to measure into the sea 100 meter”? Where does it say to measure from a borderline of the area of the map?

Issue 9 is very clear you measure 200 meters. From the construction control line at the seashore on Issue 9 map which is found at MSL..

Then later we learned about clauses 55.

What’s important is the next Supreme Admin Court decision and if they act coherently in their answer. They know about clause 55 as many foreigners “groups” (if you know that I mean?). I was informed to read the act establishing the court by a “foreign group”. That’s why I say our little case is being watch by others.

We think the Supreme Admin Court acted coherently and fair with thief first order by saying. “Therefore, if the Construction Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2006 granted by the Defendant No. 1 to the Defendant No. 2 should appear to be unlawful against the Ministerial Regulation thereto as being claimed by the ten plaintiffs, the Court of First Instance should have sentenced this point of being unlawful, i.e. the judgment shall be focused on the permission of construction the building exceeding height limit by the Defendant No. 2.”..... Supreme Administrative Court.......”

We wait for the Supreme Admin Court decision next week!

As you know we are on opposite sides of the fence on how to interpret Issue 9 but I understand why you feel betrayed by your old law firm and I would feel the same if I were in your shoes. Going forward, I would have little faith in Thai lawyers. I would check if your new lawyer is not some third cousin to Khun Amnat or worked on his campaign!

So I understand completely, your appeal to Supreme Court hopes to re-instate the construction ban that was removed by the Rayong Court? And are we still waiting for Rayong Court's final ruling on this case?......or did they make a "de facto" ruling when they denied your appeal and you then appealed to the Supreme Court?

[stopvt7]

ThaiBob statement: "And are we still waiting for Rayong Court's final ruling on this case?......or did they make a "de-facto" ruling when they denied your appeal and you then appealed to the Supreme Court?"

Yes, their no final ruling by Rayong court. No "de-facto" ruling, it was a normal act to be deny an appeal by a lower court!

The Supreme Admin Court decision could end the case or their decision could direct Rayong to take a direct action. They could order Rayong to restore the building to 14 meters in high?

Yes, VT7 has a legally issued building permit but the Pattaya building permit could violate a nation regulation and this could cause the Supreme Admin Court to order the restoring of the nation law. But, that's a guess and I find it impossible to out guess a court! Their many positive ways they can answer our case.

What important is the upper new court uses a coherently thought with written information found in the regulation whem applying Issue 9. That why our little case will be examine by groups not involved.

This will be a big decision, announced on Thursday in Rayong. by the Supreme Administrative Court. It will be done in a formal reading..

Edited June 12, 2008 by stopvt7

[ThaiBob]

ThaiBob statement: “And are we still waiting for Rayong Court's final ruling on this case?......or did they make a "de-facto" ruling when they denied your appeal and you then appealed to the Supreme Court?”

Yes, their no final ruling by Rayong court. No "de-facto" ruling, it was a normal act to be deny an appeal by a lower court!

The Supreme Admin Court decision could end the case or their decision could direct Rayong to take a direct action. They could order Rayong to restore the building to 14 meters in high?

Yes, VT7 has a legally issued building permit but the Pattaya building permit could violate a nation regulation and this could cause the Supreme Admin Court to order the storing of the nation law. But, that’s a guess and I find it impossible to out guess a court! Their many positive ways they can answer our case.

What important is the upper new court uses a coherently thought with written information found in the regulation whem applying Issue 9. That why our little case will be examine by groups not involved.

You have confirmed the Rayong Court has not made a final ruling so why do you think the Supreme Court would pre-empt a lower court and make a ruling? I could see the SC either denying the appeal or re-instating the construction ban pending the lower court's final ruling.

[stopvt7]

Dear ThaiBob

I guess because over many year I have read many brief and court decision. Read our brief and look for a answer by Supreme Administrative Court to address our brief questions.

We think Issue 9 and our brief questions are clear! We expect a favorable and clear answer..

[OhdLover]

Dear OhdLover

Your "Free advice for stopvt7."

Sea View <=> Beach Protection / Yes what wrong with protecting both?

Same, same but different!

Sorry stopvt7, I think you mixed up your logins. You signed in under lookat this time to reply.... be more carful next time.

However, good to know that what I thought, is right.

[lookat]

Dear OhdLover

Your "Free advice for stopvt7."

Sea View <=> Beach Protection / Yes what wrong with protecting both?

Same, same but different!

Sorry stopvt7, I think you mixed up your logins. You signed in under lookat this time to reply.... be more carful next time.

However, good to know that what I thought, is right.

No stupid! I comment to your posting for stopvt7. It’s my opinion the case is not about sea view or beach protection. It’s about Issue 9 and JCC co-owners rights under Thai law. Also it about the Thai chines thinking they are above the law.

Or money is god!

[ThaiBob]

Dear OhdLover

Your "Free advice for stopvt7."

Sea View <=> Beach Protection / Yes what wrong with protecting both?

Same, same but different!

Sorry stopvt7, I think you mixed up your logins. You signed in under lookat this time to reply.... be more carful next time.

However, good to know that what I thought, is right.

I have your same suspicions. Same writing style, same misspellings. Perhaps that is why stopVT7 uses the bold fonts? When stopVT7 was on a holiday, there were no postings from lookat.

Dear Moderator, does ThaiVisa permit multiple handles?

[OhdLover]

Dear OhdLover

Your "Free advice for stopvt7."

Sea View <=> Beach Protection / Yes what wrong with protecting both?

Same, same but different!

Sorry stopvt7, I think you mixed up your logins. You signed in under lookat this time to reply.... be more carful next time.

However, good to know that what I thought, is right.

No stupid! I comment to your posting for stopvt7. It's my opinion the case is not about sea view or beach protection. It's about Issue 9 and JCC co-owners rights under Thai law. Also it about the Thai chines thinking they are above the law.

Or money is god!

I wrote to stopvt7, not to you, but hey... you're the same. You're both calling everybody stupid, make the same mistakes in zpelling... it's not too hard to find out..... just be more careful chosing your right handle next time.....

But what's more important, I judged you wrong!!! Sorry.

Not only are you fighting for the sake of the beaches, no, you just added another great reason to start your fight!!!

Those arrogant Thai Chinese!! Who the .... do they think they are???? You, a native Thai... ehmmm.. oh no, even better, just a guest in this beautiful country, fighting everything that those innocent Thai people don't care about.

You are saving the country!!! A statue for stopvt7/lookat??????? I vote yes!!!!!!

I like this little guy he makes me laugh!!

Edited June 13, 2008 by OhdLover

[lookat]

OhdLover. Your know it all. It must be great to have that ability.

[jpm76]

What this, a real fact! Clause 55: "The Court, if it thinks fit...... may issue an order appointing an expert for studying, examining or analyzing any matter in connection with the case, provided that it is not the determination of a question of law,"

This is a new fact that the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning report violated class 55! This is a BIG new fact!

BS! It depends how you interpret it, actually it doesn't. It depends on how the court interprets it and I also notice at the very start there is another IF!

Dear JaiDeeFarang

You don't like the "if" in "if it thinks fit...... may issue an order appointing an expert for studying"? Well that what the judge did when he appointed the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning of Bangkok to do survey and report to the court the VT7 location from MSL.

Can you understand the words "provided that it is not the determination of a question of law"?? How would the Court interpret "provided that it is not the determination of a question of law" in clause55? I think clause55 is very clearly worded!

Do you have the grey matter to understand the clear English translation of clause 55?

I like this little guy he make me laugh!

Seems you like the grey matter a lot, and no suprise to see again that you seem to think that you are only one who actually has any of it... Expert witnesses are often called in to determine technical matters under question - the courts call in expert witnesses because they have specific technical skills that the judges may not - they are quite useful in determining technical points, and surely courts rely upon them for their knowledge. It does not mean that they have determined anything other than providing a view point upon the intention and "technical" points of a particular law - it is their specialist knowledge that makes valuable. The judge, lacking in this specialist knowledge, then uses these expert advices for making his legal determination (ie employing what is his specialty) - the expert witness has not "determined" a point of law, but rather provided specialist advice as to what the existing regulation and legislation is about. As Clause 55 states, it is not unusual for a judge to refer to specialists, but these specialists cannot make law, only the judged can. The specialists however are specifically called to offer an interpretation of specialist knowledge, hence why the court may choose to call upon them. It is not the determination of a question of law, but rather the law drawing upon expert advice in order to make their own legal determinations. The judge makes the interpretation of the law, but draws upon experts to gain knowledge of technical matters existing within the law to aid his interpretation. It is a subtle point, and I understand your confusion with it. Clause 55 is designed to ensure that experts witnesses do not engage in making laws, however if they were not supposed to influence them (or ratehr provide the information that is specifically requested to make sens eof law and guide direction of the law), why would they ever be called in. Not as clearly worded as you may think, or rather there is still a degree of interpretation in determining the limits between judge and expert. But it is all a question of what you want to see again.

[jpm76]

Jomthien Complex did not go to court because of loss of sea views or protection of the beaches - they went to court because the Law says that no building over 14 meters can be built within 200 meters of the sea shore.

Tammi,

Better read STopVt7's posts again...he constantly tells us that this is all about protecting the beaches as he always makes it so clear - why do we find it so hard to believe that he is pure altrusim...perhaps his constant BS, and the fact that he has self-interest to gain.

[JaiDeeFarang]

Seems there is no answer to that. stopvt7 / lookat's ole grey matter must be malfunctioning as he tries to comprehend the expert witness has nothing to do with law making, but only gives his professional opinion on how the law stands and is to be interpretted by the judge.

A case of clutching at staws I would suggest. I like this little guy, he makes me laugh!

[JaiDeeFarang]

Jomthien Complex did not go to court because of loss of sea views or protection of the beaches - they went to court because the Law says that no building over 14 meters can be built within 200 meters of the sea shore.

Tammi,

Better read STopVt7's posts again...he constantly tells us that this is all about protecting the beaches as he always makes it so clear - why do we find it so hard to believe that he is pure altrusim...perhaps his constant BS, and the fact that he has self-interest to gain.

KOTO aka 'Keeper of the ocean' should be in charge of protecting the beaches, at least he doesn't pick and chose which beaches he wants to protect and has the interests of all the beaches at heart, even the ones which are not directly outside his front door!