Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[fredKroket]

You are right KOTO does a very good job teaching locals and foreigners to take care of the beach and nature. The people in jomthien complex only care about view and condo values.

[stopvt7]

Dear jpm

The Rayong court order asked only for the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning to fine MSL and measure the location of the VT7 building to MSL. The Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning acted as the expert witness failed to follow a simple court order when they sent their report to the court. The expert witness had to be verbally asked in the court hearing to answer the court order. That why I question if he was a expert witness?

The Supreme Admin Court heard the argument early about “measurement into the sea before you measure on to the land” in VT7 Petition to the Supreme Administrative Court on 8th May 2007

Go to: http://openvt7.blogspot.com/ and read VT7 Petition to the Supreme Administrative Court. Which we won!

The Court rejected the arguments to “measure into the sea” when the court said. “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 of construction the building exceeding height limit by the Defendant No. 2.”

We do not clutching at straws but we do understand the facts! I also like this little guy!

The Supreme Admin Court has hear the argument May 2007 about” measurement into the sea before you measure onto the land” which they rejected. The expert witness could not read and respond correctly to a Rayong court order. The expert witness report to the Rayong court should had been rejected by the judge because of Clauses 55. We with our lawyers believe Issue 9 and our brief is clearly written and the law is on our side! These are a few reasons why we expect a favorable answer on this Thursday from the Supreme Admin Court.

[OhdLover]

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

Although it sounds nice, again.... you are wrong.

[lookat]

OhdLover because Issue 9 is about no building over 14 meters can be built within 200 meters of the sea shore at msl. With a stopvt7 group win then the Pattaya beaches will be protected and Thailand become more favorable place for foreign investments! Also stopvt7 and friends view of the protected beaches can be restored by tearing vt7 down to 14 meters.

Did you buy your vt7 condos on the third floor? Because I’m looking forward you being my neighbor.

[fredKroket]

I don't know if you look at pattaya mail but there is some talk about making pattaya have special changes as a tourist destination to be made in government. They are talking about building out into the sea by walking street. I don't really think pattaya is a beach resort, more a city by the sea. if people want to visit the beach they should go to hua hin, samet, samui or phuket. pattaya is known for its wild nightlife not for its beaches. do you swim in sea here in all the crap? pattaya will not become favourable for foreign investment if what you say happens. do you think hilton and holiday inn would make their hotels here if your law is correct? no.

[lookat]

fredKroket; the breaking of the law is not a defense! Even if you bought a building permit to make your action look legal. Tomorrow is the day we fine out about the king's admin court system?

[fredKroket]

fredKroket; the breaking of the law is not a defense! Even if you bought a building permit to make your action look legal. Tomorrow is the day we fine out about the king's admin court system?

I read this thread before and see many these people say about corrupt. are you now say hilton and holiday inn pay for building permit? I think you say all people corrupt if they not agree you.

you will have answer tomorrow from king admin court? I think I know answer already and I dont think you like to hear it. maybe they take down holiday inn hotel if you right? no.

[lookat]

fredKroket; Everyone pays for a building permit. The question if they paid for a special building permit? The stopvt7 group will find out tomorrow if vt7 has a special building permit.

Only the vt7 investors us the word “corrupt” are you tell us something?

[stopvt7]

Let me say “Thanks you” to the stopvt7 remaining group of 8 and the JCC co-owners who dared to believe in the Thai legal system.

Today may justice be done!

Off to court to protect Pattaya beaches!

[JaiDeeFarang]

Let me say "Thanks you" to the stopvt7 remaining group of 8 and the JCC co-owners who dared to believe in the Thai legal system.

Today may justice be done!

Off to court to protect Pattaya beaches!

You sound like Zorro, the caped crusader! What happened to the 2 members of the group who pulled out? Maybe they had more sense than you and could see this was going to blow up in your face.

One other thing, you had said before that the appeal will not take place in an open court, that there would not be a hearing and that the decision would be given without you going to court. So why are you going? Has the court summoned you to answer charges of defamation and obstuction to VT, City Hall, The expert witness, your previous lawyer and the Admin Court Judge. These are just a few people you have slated over the last few months because they do not agree with you, is there anyone I left off the list? Good luck, you'll need it!

[lookat]

Dear stopvt7 and your group.

Issue 9 is much bigger the a sea view or Pattaya beach.

[JaiDeeFarang]

stopvt7 isn't going to court over issue 9, he's going as an eco warrior to protect the beaches of Pattaya! He cannot say he is going to court over issue 9, as he told his co-owners at JCC he is doing it for the beaches in order to obtain money out of them for his personal crusade.

[prospero]

<br />stopvt7 isn't going to court over issue 9, he's going as an eco warrior to protect the beaches of Pattaya! He cannot say he is going to court over issue 9, as he told his co-owners at JCC he is doing it for the beaches in order to obtain money out of them for his personal crusade.<br />

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

I heard a rumor that things did not go very well for VT7 at today's reading of the Supreme Administrative Court decision. Can anyone confirm?

[JaiDeeFarang]

Do you care to elaborate on that rumour? There may be trouble ahead......

[prospero]

<br />Do you care to elaborate on that rumour? There may be trouble ahead......<br />

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

I heard that the VT7 lawyer dropped into his seat when he heard the decision.

The case will continue, that's all I know.

[JaiDeeFarang]

Surely stopVT7 has some news to post?

[stopvt7]

BIG WIN! At the Administrative Supreme Court

Today we won our “Petition - The Appeal against the Rejection order of the last appeal” dated the 27 of March 2008. What happened was Rayong Court had block our appeal to the Administrative Supreme Court. Then we had to Petition the Admin Supreme Court to hear our “Appeal the order of lifting the injunction” dated 15 of February 2008. The Administrative Supreme Court decide they needed to hear our appeal which is relate to the Public Benefits. The supreme court doesn’t have to hear any case and today win is very positive action in our fight to stop View Talay 7 construction. This decision means the Admin Supreme Court disagreed with something in the 16 of January Rayong court order which lifted the View Talay7 injunction what aloud construction to start on the contested 27 store condominiums. They order View Talay and Pattaya City Hall to give their answer to our appeal within 30 days. Then the court will decide concerning our appeal.

Again, today is a very BIG WIN! Now the Admin Supreme Court will go on to rule on Issue 9 measurements and examine the expert witness report which is part of our 15 of February appeal. With the lifting on the injunction.

Issue 9 is a well written regulation which effect the beach environment by restricting no building over 14 meters high within 200 meter from the seashore. We have a very strong legal case to stop the VT7 building. Also we understand this is not simple legal case and it would take time before the final decision.

You may read both the 27 of March 2008 “Petition - The Appeal against the Rejection order of the last appeal” which we won. Also, read the 15 of February 2008 “Appeal the order of lifting the injunction” which the court will next make their decision. Go to: http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

This Administrative Supreme Court order was sent to the university in Bangkok for English translation. The finished the translation will be posted on our blog; http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

[stopvt7]

<br />Do you care to elaborate on that rumour? There may be trouble ahead......<br />

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

I heard that the VT7 lawyer dropped into his seat when he heard the decision.

The case will continue, that's all I know.

Yes, this did happen in court today!

He is a old man and it worry us. Then moments later he stood back up while the judge finished reading the Admin Supreme Court Order.

[ThaiBob]

BIG WIN! At the Administrative Supreme Court

Today we won our “Petition - The Appeal against the Rejection order of the last appeal” dated the 27 of March 2008. What happened was Rayong Court had block our appeal to the Administrative Supreme Court. Then we had to Petition the Admin Supreme Court to hear our “Appeal the order of lifting the injunction” dated 15 of February 2008. The Administrative Supreme Court decide they needed to hear our appeal which is relate to the Public Benefits. The supreme court doesn’t have to hear any case and today win is very positive action in our fight to stop View Talay 7 construction. This decision means the Admin Supreme Court disagreed with something in the 16 of January Rayong court order which lifted the View Talay7 injunction what aloud construction to start on the contested 27 store condominiums. They order View Talay and Pattaya City Hall to give their answer to our appeal within 30 days. Then the court will decide concerning our appeal.

Again, today is a very BIG WIN! Now the Admin Supreme Court will go on to rule on Issue 9 measurements and examine the expert witness report which is part of our 15 of February appeal. With the lifting on the injunction.

Issue 9 is a well written regulation which effect the beach environment by restricting no building over 14 meters high within 200 meter from the seashore. We have a very strong legal case to stop the VT7 building. Also we understand this is not simple legal case and it would take time before the final decision.

You may read both the 27 of March 2008 “Petition - The Appeal against the Rejection order of the last appeal” which we won. Also, read the 15 of February 2008 “Appeal the order of lifting the injunction” which the court will next make their decision. Go to: http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

This Administrative Supreme Court order was sent to the university in Bangkok for English translation. The finished the translation will be posted on our blog; http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

When you say you won your Petition this would mean at a minimum that the construction has stopped again until a final ruling. Has the Supreme Court ruled that construction must stop pending the next ruling in 30 days?

[prospero]

<br />

<font color="#000080"><b><font size="4"><font color="#ff0000">BIG WIN! At the Administrative Supreme Court <img src="style_emoticons/default/partytime2.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="partytime2.gif" /> </font></font><br /><br />Today we won our <font color="#ff0000">"Petition - The Appeal against the Rejection order of the last appeal"</font> dated the 27 of March 2008. What happened was Rayong Court had block our appeal to the Administrative Supreme Court. Then we had to Petition the Admin Supreme Court to hear our <font color="#ff0000">"<u>Appeal</u> the order of lifting the injunction"</font> dated 15 of February 2008. The Administrative Supreme Court decide they needed to hear our <u>appeal</u> which is relate to the Public Benefits. The supreme court doesn't have to hear any case and today win is very positive action in our fight to stop View Talay 7 construction. This decision means the Admin Supreme Court disagreed with something in the 16 of January Rayong court order which lifted the View Talay7 injunction what aloud construction to start on the contested 27 store condominiums. They order View Talay and Pattaya City Hall to give their answer to our appeal within 30 days. Then the court will decide concerning our appeal. <br /><br />Again, today is a very BIG WIN! Now the Admin Supreme Court will go on to rule on Issue 9 measurements and examine the expert witness report which is part of our 15 of February appeal. With the lifting on the injunction. <br /><br />Issue 9 is a well written regulation which effect the beach environment by restricting no building over 14 meters high within 200 meter from the seashore. We have a very strong legal case to stop the VT7 building. Also we understand this is not simple legal case and it would take time before the final decision. <br /><br />You may read both the 27 of March 2008 <font color="#ff0000">"Petition - The Appeal against the Rejection order of the last appeal" </font><u>which we won</u>. Also, read the 15 of February 2008 <font color="#ff0000">"Appeal the order of lifting the injunction"</font> which the court will next make their decision. Go to: </b><font color="#000000">http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/</font><b><br /><br />This Administrative Supreme Court order was sent to the university in Bangkok for English translation. The finished the translation will be posted on our blog; </b><font color="#000000">http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/<br /><br /></font><b><br /></b></font>

<br /><br />When you say you won your Petition this would mean at a minimum that the construction has stopped again until a final ruling. Has the Supreme Court ruled that construction must stop pending the next ruling in 30 days?<br /><br /><br /><br />

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

This seems to me to be quite significant. Clearly, if the Supreme Administrative Court had wanted to stop the legal process, it could have rejected the Jomtien Complex appeal. If ithad, construction of VT 7 would be a straight shot to completion. Since the SAC has all the documents from both sides, it may very well have doubts about the testimony of the so-called "expert witness". It looks like the court will not try to avoid the 200 meter issue, but intends to address it squarely, one way or the other.

So, in a way, we are back where we started. Originally, the Rayong court had real doubts about how City Hall came up with "measure 100 meters out and 200 meters in" concept. Then, all sorts of stuff happened. Now, the same question is back in contention, and it looks like City Hall will have to provide an answer directly to the Bangkok court.

[stopvt7]

Dear prospero

You are right on the issue!

The Admin Supreme Court decided they wanted to hear our appeal because it relates to the Public Benefit and the rule of law. The supreme court doesn’t have to hear every case presented to them. It would been easy for them to of ended everything by rejecting our petition. But the accepted our appeal shows their interest in Issue 9.

If they chose View Talay 7 can continue building during the appeal procedure. Which we thing would be very risky because of the interest of the Admin Supreme Court in our appeal. Also the history of Thai courts in removing illegal portions of builds it risky to go on working.

[lookat]

The Admin Supreme Court order spook once 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,.”

I guess the expert witness, Rayong court, vt7 and city hall did not understand their order so that why they accepted the appeal. Next time they hopefully make it loud and clear to all.

[prospero]

<br /><font color="#000080"><b>Dear prospero<br /><br />You are right on the issue!<br /><br />The Admin Supreme Court decided they wanted to hear our appeal because it relates to the Public Benefit and the rule of law. The supreme court doesn't have to hear every case presented to them. It would been easy for them to of ended everything by rejecting our petition. But the accepted our appeal shows their interest in Issue 9. <img src="style_emoticons/default/clap2.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="clap2.gif" /> <br /><br />If they chose View Talay 7 <img src="style_emoticons/default/hit-the-fan.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="hit-the-fan.gif" /> can continue building during the appeal procedure. Which we thing would be very risky because of the interest of the Admin Supreme Court in our appeal. Also the history of Thai courts in removing illegal portions of builds it risky to go on working.</b></font><br />

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

What is the history of Thai courts in removing illegal portions of builds? Have any buildings been altered or removed as a result of court orders regarding illegal permits or permit granting procedures?

[stopvt7]

Dear prospero

Your question “the history of Thai courts in removing illegal portions of builds?” When I asked our Bangkok attorneys a seemlier question they sight three samples. Since their been one example talked about in the news paper. I had a meeting with one of are Bangkok Thai advisors who was involved in removing a illegal building in Bangkok.

We are working in the Thai nation courts and I would not challenge their authority. A illegal building can still be illegal even though it had a local building permit. Specially when the local permit breaks the nation law. This is not hard to understand!

We wish no harm to VT7 investors, but have some respect for the King’s court.

http://nationmultimedia.com/2008/06/13/opi...on_30075398.php

"We must all pull together to solve our problems

By Thanong Khanthong

[email protected]

The Nation

Published on June 13, 2008

On Wednesday evening at the Chitrlada Palace, His Majesty the King granted an audience to new judges serving the Constitution Court and Administrative Court.

They took an oath of office. They all swore before the King to pursue their judgeship with honesty and integrity.

His Majesty gave the judges his blessing. He also called on them to perform their duty to the utmost to prevent the country from sliding into calamity.

In his speech to the judges of the Administrative Court, the King said: "If you don't perform your duties well enough, it also means that HM the King is not performing his duties well enough. Before this, we had a lot of turmoil. Now don't let more turmoil happen again.

"If we do not do what we have sworn to do, it would create problems. Therefore, you have to be strict with yourself and become stronger in doing your duty, which is performed under the Royal Signature. This means that what His Majesty is doing, you have to do as he does. If you don't perform to your utmost, you'll be in trouble.

"You can foresee what's going to happen. If you don't do or don't help to resolve the problem, not only the four or five of you will be in trouble, everyone will face trouble too. If we're in trouble, we won't get good results. Bad results will bring about calamity. We have already faced calamity before. A bad result will create an even worse situation.

"In your role as Administrative Court judges, you have to help in the administration of this country. Whatever hardship you may face, I wish you success in carrying out your tasks. Let the administration [of the country] not be faced with calamity. Let the administration carry on successfully.

"Since you are knowledgeable and have studied your field, you know what to do. Millions of people will suffer if you fail in your duty. I wish you every success. You have to use your skills and your knowledge in order to succeed in your assignment. Then you'll be able to feel proud of yourselves. HM the King will also feel proud of you.

"If you fail, the work of The King will also be affected. I would like you to have strong determination in what you are doing. Millions of Thais will feel proud of your accomplishments. Then the country will enjoy progress. The benefits will fall on everybody."

I translated HM the King's speech from Thai into English and italicised some of the important sentences. You can feel that His Majesty is very concerned about the situation of the country at the moment. At the same time, you also learn of the uniqueness of Thailand's administration, which has the Monarchy as the symbolic head of all branches of government.

"Therefore, you have to be strict with yourself and become stronger with your duty, which is performed under the Royal Signature. This means that what the HM the King is doing, you have to do like him." By this remark, you come to appreciate the fact that since the Judiciary is performing its duty in the justice system under the auspicious Royal Signature, it has to abide by the highest values of justice as obligated by His Majesty himself. I have found no other beautiful phrase to describe the special symbolic bond between the Monarch and the Judiciary -

"What HM the King is doing, you have to do like him."

Another meaningful remark from His Majesty is: "You have to use your tools and your knowledge in order to succeed in your assignment. Then you'll feel proud with yourself. The King will also feel proud with you." This means that if the Judiciary performs its duty with sound knowledge and the value of justice for all, it will not only create pride for itself but also for the Monarchy.

Finally, HM the King warned that: "If you fail, the work of the King will also face calamity." It means that His Majesty alone can't restore peace and normalcy to the country if other branches of government fail to do their job adequately.

HM the King's speech reflects a unique symbol, the relationship between the Monarchy and other branches of government and the Thai people. More often than not, foreigners and many Thais also do not quite grasp the role of the Monarchy. But as HM the King told Thai diplomats several weeks ago, "We are Thais. Foreigners might look at us as satpralad (strange monster). But we're still Thai."

[Wiresok]

This decision by the Bangkok Supreme Administrative Court does not suprise me,and is as I expected.

It is the correct thing to do on the basis of the evidence before it.

They looked past the vt7 smoke and mirrors,and remained consistent in their focus on the facts.

Clearly they are not convinced of the legality of vt7,but I suspect this is just the start of the wider "clean up" Pattaya campaign before it sinks completely.

The plaintiffs will have to be wary however,and stay on guard,because vt7/city hall will no doubt be capable of unearthing another "expert witness" to provide another twist .

[prospero]

<br />This decision by the Bangkok Supreme Administrative Court does not suprise me,and is as I expected.<br />It is the correct thing to do on the basis of the evidence before it.<br />They looked past the vt7 smoke and mirrors,and remained consistent in their focus on the facts.<br />Clearly they are not convinced of the legality of vt7,but I suspect this is just the start of the wider &quot;clean up&quot; Pattaya campaign before it sinks completely.<br /><br />The plaintiffs will have to be wary however,and stay on guard,because vt7/city hall will no doubt be capable of unearthing another &quot;expert witness&quot; to provide another twist .<br />

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

That is highly likely. Let's not forget that Khun Amnat Thingtham, the AsiaLawWorks attorney who betrayed the co-owners of Jomtien Complex, is now a member of the City Council. He and his turncoat partner Markus Klemm have full access to all of the plaintiff's documentation. There is little doubt Amnat will find a way to turn over the legal product that his former clients paid so much for.

[lookat]

This decision by the Bangkok Supreme Administrative Court does not suprise me,and is as I expected.

It is the correct thing to do on the basis of the evidence before it.

They looked past the vt7 smoke and mirrors,and remained consistent in their focus on the facts.

Clearly they are not convinced of the legality of vt7,but I suspect this is just the start of the wider "clean up" Pattaya campaign before it sinks completely.

The plaintiffs will have to be wary however,and stay on guard,because vt7/city hall will no doubt be capable of unearthing another "expert witness" to provide another twist .

Wiresok your on to something, I had a conversation with one of the stopvt7 group. They were advise by a secretary from the palace to petition the rejection decision of their appeal to the supreme court.

The stopvt7 group had to petition the ASC to hear their appeal and they accepted on the grounds of public benefit argument. Normal this change to be accepted on a public interest argument is less then 1 in a 10,000. I was told their Bangkok lawyer was surprised as well. Their lawyer made a committed that this case has just became very interesting.

I found a quotation from their petition; “3.... The 8 Litigants would like to add on the clarification of the facts, points of law which relate to the Public Benefits, of which, should be brought up to be considered, to the Supreme Court of Administration with respect. The aforesaid order from the Administrative Court of Rayong Province which was the order of Lifting the Injunction that had been placed in order to minimize the injurious consequences before the final decision is given, is considered to be the order that effects the rights, freedom and properties of the majority residences of Jomthien Complex Condotel and the surrounding areas in the negative way....................................................... replace the order of rejection of the Administrative Court of Rayong Province by accepting the Appeal which was lodged by the 8 Litigants, therefore, the justice will be served.“

Their thing going on with this case I don’t think we understand. A national "clean up" Pattaya campaign could be part on it?

[ThaiBob]

This decision by the Bangkok Supreme Administrative Court does not suprise me,and is as I expected.

It is the correct thing to do on the basis of the evidence before it.

They looked past the vt7 smoke and mirrors,and remained consistent in their focus on the facts.

Clearly they are not convinced of the legality of vt7,but I suspect this is just the start of the wider "clean up" Pattaya campaign before it sinks completely.

The plaintiffs will have to be wary however,and stay on guard,because vt7/city hall will no doubt be capable of unearthing another "expert witness" to provide another twist .

What decision? I find it interesting how people can speculate, jump to conclusions, claiming victory (we won!), twist something to suit their own agenda when in fact nobody knows the details of the SC reading. This much we do know. The stopVT7 litigants appealed the Rayong Court decision to remove the construction injuction order. The SC agreed to hear their appeal. The SC instead of giving a ruling apparently has asked the City of Pattaya and VT to address the "public benefits" concerns in the litigants appeal within 30 days. End of story.

One could easily argue that the SC has responsibilty to mitigate damages to all parties concerned if in fact they were leaning one way or the other, and to suspend construction until their final ruling on the appeal. Of course, that didn't happen.

[lookat]

ASC asked city hall and vt to address the stopvt7 appeal which is about issues 9 and why the expert witness report was wrong. If ASC thought Rayong was right about issues 9 or the report they would never agreed to hear the appeal.

As before the court will not issue a injunction until they hear both sides. If I was a vt7 investor I ask them to stop working and receiving payments until a finial decision. Or ask for a personal guarantee to refund money if they loss. Is it not time for vt7 invertors take action to protect their investments?

[prospero]

<br />

This decision by the Bangkok Supreme Administrative Court does not suprise me,and is as I expected.<br />It is the correct thing to do on the basis of the evidence before it.<br />They looked past the vt7 smoke and mirrors,and remained consistent in their focus on the facts.<br />Clearly they are not convinced of the legality of vt7,but I suspect this is just the start of the wider "clean up" Pattaya campaign before it sinks completely.<br /><br />The plaintiffs will have to be wary however,and stay on guard,because vt7/city hall will no doubt be capable of unearthing another "expert witness" to provide another twist .

<br /><br />What decision? I find it interesting how people can speculate, jump to conclusions, claiming victory (we won!), twist something to suit their own agenda when in fact nobody knows the details of the SC reading. This much we do know. The stopVT7 litigants appealed the Rayong Court decision to remove the construction injuction order. The SC agreed to hear their appeal. The SC instead of giving a ruling apparently has asked the City of Pattaya and VT to address the "public benefits" concerns in the litigants appeal within 30 days. End of story.<br /><br />One could easily argue that the SC has responsibilty to mitigate damages to all parties concerned if in fact they were leaning one way or the other, and to suspend construction until their final ruling on the appeal. Of course, that didn't happen.<br /><br /><br />

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

I really don't think the responsibility of the Supreme Court is to mitigate damages for the investors of VT7. It seems to me that's their responsibility. I eagerly await the translation of the decision. If I had money in VT7, I'd want to have a lawyer at this point. Perhaps AsiaLawWorks could handle things for you.