Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[Gary A]

Without a doubt the building is 100 percent legal. What is NOT legal is the distance from mean sea level.

[stopvt7]

Without a doubt the building is 100 percent legal. What is NOT legal is the distance from mean sea level.

Without a doubt the building is 100 percent illegal! Because their no where on the map or in the regulation you fine the measure into the sea 100 meters. The Supreme Court understood this argument. Before in their first ruling the why they allow the building to be build to 14 meters.

Below I took a quote June 19 court order from the http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

Even thou VT7 has a building permit but the permit violates Construction Control Acts then building can be torn down. This is a very simple case to understand. If the stopVT7 group is right the court will cancel the construction license. Then the court will order the removal.

"The requests for the court to kindly give judgments or orders are as follow;

1. To give an order to minimize the force by suspending the construction license No.: 162 / 2550, Issued on: 28 November 2549 before another order or the final decision is given, and take effect back dated to 28 November 2549. Because 10th Litigants would be extremely damaged until not being able to be solved in the future, if View Thalay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. still be allowed to continue with its construction.

2. To cancel the construction license No.: 162 / 2550, Issued on: 28 November 2549 which was issued to View Thalay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. The First Court of Administration gave an order for View Thalay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. to be an interpleader in this case and determined it to be 2nd Plaint Receiver.

The First Court of Administration made enquiries of both parties on the step of requesting to place the injunction to minimize injured consequences before judgment of the 10 Litigants, and the decision was made as, in this case, the prior point that has been disputed by both parties is the distance from the building, by the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ), stipulated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, which directly involves with the Construction……(page3)

Control Boundary that shown on the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree, stimulated to use the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479 to take control over the regions ...........of Chonburi Province, B.E. 2521. The 10 Litigants and 1st Plaint Receiver have different understanding in the starting point of measurement of the aforementioned Ministerial Regulations. The 10 Litigants fixed the starting point at the lowest point of low tide, but 1st Plaint Receiver fixed the distance of 100 meters outward from highest level of high tide. Therefore, to be able to judge this case, the court needs to inspect carefully and find out the starting point of measurement which was stated in the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521), promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, also to find out if the distance of the dispute building from that point is not in violation to the law."

I would not underestimate the Judges of Supreme Administrative Court. They have been very clear the their writings. Also they made this statement in August at their first court decision. "Nevertheless, ........ the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 prescribed that the 200 meter line measured from the construction control line shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree promulgating the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 governing ............. on the seaside shall be restricted from constructing of any building exceeding 14 meter high from road surface. 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."

What do you not understand in the word "unlawful"?

Edited June 26, 2008 by stopvt7

[lookat]

Could we be reading next about vt lawyer? I would not underestimate the Judges of Supreme Administrative Court. They have been very clear no snack boxes. Looks like an honest court.http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=128542

Thaksin denies involvement in snack box case

(BangkokPost.com) - Spokesman of Thaksin Shinawatra read a statement of the ex-premier that denied involvement in the two-million-baht snack box incident where his three lawyers were found guilty.

Pongthep Thepkanchana read the statement at the 111 Foundation on Thursday.

The statement, without the signature of Mr Thaksin, said the former prime minister feels sorry that his lawyers were found guilty of contempt of court and were sentenced to six month in prison

[ThaiBob]

Without a doubt the building is 100 percent legal. What is NOT legal is the distance from mean sea level.

Without a doubt the building is 100 percent illegal! Because their no where on the map or in the regulation you fine the measure into the sea 100 meters. The Supreme Court understood this argument. Before in their first ruling the why they allow the building to be build to 14 meters.

Below I took a quote June 19 court order from the http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

Even thou VT7 has a building permit but the permit violates Construction Control Acts then building can be torn down. This is a very simple case to understand. If the stopVT7 group is right the court will cancel the construction license. Then the court will order the removal.

"The requests for the court to kindly give judgments or orders are as follow;

1. To give an order to minimize the force by suspending the construction license No.: 162 / 2550, Issued on: 28 November 2549 before another order or the final decision is given, and take effect back dated to 28 November 2549. Because 10th Litigants would be extremely damaged until not being able to be solved in the future, if View Thalay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. still be allowed to continue with its construction.

2. To cancel the construction license No.: 162 / 2550, Issued on: 28 November 2549 which was issued to View Thalay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. The First Court of Administration gave an order for View Thalay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. to be an interpleader in this case and determined it to be 2nd Plaint Receiver.

The First Court of Administration made enquiries of both parties on the step of requesting to place the injunction to minimize injured consequences before judgment of the 10 Litigants, and the decision was made as, in this case, the prior point that has been disputed by both parties is the distance from the building, by the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ), stipulated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, which directly involves with the Construction……(page3)

Control Boundary that shown on the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree, stimulated to use the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479 to take control over the regions ...........of Chonburi Province, B.E. 2521. The 10 Litigants and 1st Plaint Receiver have different understanding in the starting point of measurement of the aforementioned Ministerial Regulations. The 10 Litigants fixed the starting point at the lowest point of low tide, but 1st Plaint Receiver fixed the distance of 100 meters outward from highest level of high tide. Therefore, to be able to judge this case, the court needs to inspect carefully and find out the starting point of measurement which was stated in the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521), promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, also to find out if the distance of the dispute building from that point is not in violation to the law."

I would not underestimate the Judges of Supreme Administrative Court. They have been very clear the their writings. Also they made this statement in August at their first court decision. "Nevertheless, ........ the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 prescribed that the 200 meter line measured from the construction control line shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree promulgating the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 governing ............. on the seaside shall be restricted from constructing of any building exceeding 14 meter high from road surface. 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."

What do you not understand in the word "unlawful"?

You have only quoted part of June 19 document where the SC courts goes in great detail to explain the history of the case. A little bit further the SC notes "...summarizing that, to fix the coast line at Mean Sea Level, the measurement must be started at the point of 0.00 meters of the Mean Sea Level. When the measurement is made 100 meters outward to the sea, then it will be the Construction Control Boundary that shown on the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree, stimulated to use the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479 to take control over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea, and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province, B.E. 2521, then made another 100 meters from the aforesaid point into the land, then it will be the distance of 200 meters of the Construction Control Boundary, as stipulated in clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), stipulated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, which had been amended by adding the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521), which stipulated to be in accordance with The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, which stated to prohibit the building with the height over 14 meters from the road surface. The measurement result reported that the building of 2nd Plaint Receiver is not in the boundary of 200 meters." The measurement is legal and perhaps this why the SC did not immediately re-instate the construction ban.

Again you like to quote the old August decision using the conditional words (i.e., "if", "should appear"). These are not declarative sentences.

[ThaiBob]

Could we be reading next about vt lawyer? I would not underestimate the Judges of Supreme Administrative Court. They have been very clear no snack boxes. Looks like an honest court.http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=128542

Thaksin denies involvement in snack box case

(BangkokPost.com) - Spokesman of Thaksin Shinawatra read a statement of the ex-premier that denied involvement in the two-million-baht snack box incident where his three lawyers were found guilty.

Pongthep Thepkanchana read the statement at the 111 Foundation on Thursday.

The statement, without the signature of Mr Thaksin, said the former prime minister feels sorry that his lawyers were found guilty of contempt of court and were sentenced to six month in prison

There you go again hinting or implying at corruption with no evidence.

[bobbin]

<br />

<font color="#000080"><b>Dear prospero<br />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. </b></font><font color="#000080"><b>Since t</b></font><font color="#000080"><b>heir 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. <br /></b></font>

<br /><br />So which buildings are you referring to?<br />Surely not the New World Department store? (after partial collapse of illegal extension).<br />It doesn't offer much encouragement for those hoping VT7 will be removed. see below<br /><br /><a href="http://nationmultimedia.com/2004/10/22/national/index.php?news=national_15147916.html" target="_blank">BMA compromises on New World demolition order</a> - <i>The Nation</i>, October 22, 2003<br /> [Even after the decades of stalling and the death of a tenant, the city still could not make the New World Department store comply with demolition orders.] <br /> <i>The demolition of the New World building, which partially collapsed in June, has been delayed due to a dispute between the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and Kaewfa Shopping Arcade Co Ltd over who should do the work, a Civil Court source said yesterday.<br /> But, the BMA in court compromised by asking the company to demolish the building in Bang Lumphu themselves with the agency in a supervisory role to ensure safety, the source said...</i><br /><br />It would be a great help to us all if you could give the exact details of when, where and why they were deemed illegal and exactly what was removed.<br />

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

Property Plus was ordered by the court to remove floors from eleven buildings that breached height limits. The deconstruction is taking place.

prospero

Could you please change whatever is causing all the extra characters in your posts? They are for all intents and purposes unreadable.

[bobbin]

<br />

<font color="#000080"><b>Dear prospero<br />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. </b></font><font color="#000080"><b>Since t</b></font><font color="#000080"><b>heir 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. <br /></b></font>

<br /><br />So which buildings are you referring to?<br />Surely not the New World Department store? (after partial collapse of illegal extension).<br />It doesn't offer much encouragement for those hoping VT7 will be removed. see below<br /><br /><a href="http://nationmultimedia.com/2004/10/22/national/index.php?news=national_15147916.html" target="_blank">BMA compromises on New World demolition order</a> - <i>The Nation</i>, October 22, 2003<br /> [Even after the decades of stalling and the death of a tenant, the city still could not make the New World Department store comply with demolition orders.] <br /> <i>The demolition of the New World building, which partially collapsed in June, has been delayed due to a dispute between the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and Kaewfa Shopping Arcade Co Ltd over who should do the work, a Civil Court source said yesterday.<br /> But, the BMA in court compromised by asking the company to demolish the building in Bang Lumphu themselves with the agency in a supervisory role to ensure safety, the source said...</i><br /><br />It would be a great help to us all if you could give the exact details of when, where and why they were deemed illegal and exactly what was removed.<br />

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

Property Plus was ordered by the court to remove floors from eleven buildings that breached height limits. The deconstruction is taking place.

prospero

Could you please change whatever is causing all the extra characters in your posts? They are for all intents and purposes unreadable.

[bobbin]

<br />

<font color="#000080"><b>Dear prospero<br />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. </b></font><font color="#000080"><b>Since t</b></font><font color="#000080"><b>heir 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. <br /></b></font>

<br /><br />So which buildings are you referring to?<br />Surely not the New World Department store? (after partial collapse of illegal extension).<br />It doesn't offer much encouragement for those hoping VT7 will be removed. see below<br /><br /><a href="http://nationmultimedia.com/2004/10/22/national/index.php?news=national_15147916.html" target="_blank">BMA compromises on New World demolition order</a> - <i>The Nation</i>, October 22, 2003<br /> [Even after the decades of stalling and the death of a tenant, the city still could not make the New World Department store comply with demolition orders.] <br /> <i>The demolition of the New World building, which partially collapsed in June, has been delayed due to a dispute between the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and Kaewfa Shopping Arcade Co Ltd over who should do the work, a Civil Court source said yesterday.<br /> But, the BMA in court compromised by asking the company to demolish the building in Bang Lumphu themselves with the agency in a supervisory role to ensure safety, the source said...</i><br /><br />It would be a great help to us all if you could give the exact details of when, where and why they were deemed illegal and exactly what was removed.<br />

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

Property Plus was ordered by the court to remove floors from eleven buildings that breached height limits. The deconstruction is taking place.

prospero

Could you please change whatever is causing all the extra characters in your posts? They are for all intents and purposes unreadable.

[bobbin]

Sorry for triple(!) post. Internet playing up.

[lookat]

ThaiBob your said "There you go again hinting or implying at corruption with no evidence." Their is evidence! It is found in the January 16 Rayong court order?

[marekm1]

So what gonna happen with the shopping centre in Pattaya. Is Hilton going to give up the plan to build 2 towers on the top of the shopping centre because of one crazy and delusion farang trying to interpret the law his way. And what about tens of the buildings which are too close to MSL. Are they all going to be destroyed? It’s not about protecting the beaches of Thailand, it’s about protecting Thailand from crazy farangs wanting to destroy the developments around the beaches of Thailand.

[JaiDeeFarang]

So what gonna happen with the shopping centre in Pattaya. Is Hilton going to give up the plan to build 2 towers on the top of the shopping centre because of one crazy and delusion farang trying to interpret the law his way. And what about tens of the buildings which are too close to MSL. Are they all going to be destroyed? It's not about protecting the beaches of Thailand, it's about protecting Thailand from crazy farangs wanting to destroy the developments around the beaches of Thailand.

Marek, I love reading your posts, you're so to the point and direct. The sooner this small minded lot gets deported the better place Pattaya will become.

[prospero]

<br />

<font face="Calibri"><font size="3">So what gonna happen with the shopping centre in Pattaya. Is Hilton going to give up the plan to build 2 towers on the top of the shopping centre because of one crazy and delusion farang trying to interpret the law his way. And what about tens of the buildings which are too close to MSL. Are they all going to be destroyed? It's not about protecting the beaches of Thailand, it's about protecting Thailand from crazy farangs wanting to destroy the developments around the beaches of Thailand.</font></font>

<br /><br /> <img src="style_emoticons/default/cheesy.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="cheesy.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/default/cheesy.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="cheesy.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/default/cheesy.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="cheesy.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/default/cheesy.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="cheesy.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/default/cheesy.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="cheesy.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/default/cheesy.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="cheesy.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/default/cheesy.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="cheesy.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/default/cheesy.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="cheesy.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/default/cheesy.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="cheesy.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/default/cheesy.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="cheesy.gif" /> Marek, I love reading your posts, you're so to the point and direct. The sooner this small minded lot gets deported the better place Pattaya will become.<br />

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

It doesn't take much to amuse you, does it, JDF?

[lookat]

Breaking News?

Edited June 27, 2008 by lookat

[Tammi]

So what gonna happen with the shopping centre in Pattaya. Is Hilton going to give up the plan to build 2 towers on the top of the shopping centre because of one crazy and delusion farang trying to interpret the law his way. And what about tens of the buildings which are too close to MSL. Are they all going to be destroyed? It’s not about protecting the beaches of Thailand, it’s about protecting Thailand from crazy farangs wanting to destroy the developments around the beaches of Thailand.

You don't sound like a nice person but you probably are - its just that you obviously have a stake in VT7 building and are anxious and upset about the outcome of the court case.

One foreigner is not trying to interpret the law. By now, probably hundreds of us have read the relevant law and it says nothing over 14 meters may be built within the 200 metres, and Jomthien Compex Condominium's lawyer agrees.

You are right that many buildings are within the 200 meters. I have it on good authority that if no one complains within 5 years about the infringement of the Law then nothing can be done about removing such buildings. I would think that Grand Condotel co-owners must be waiting with bated breath for the current decision of the SAC so that they can go to court and have VT5 removed and get back their panoramic view and not have to look at washing lines, naked obese farangs and balcony kitchens.

Try to calm down. Getting your knickers in a twist and name calling is not good for your digestion, etc.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Tammi

[jpm76]

Without a doubt the building is 100 percent legal. What is NOT legal is the distance from mean sea level.

Without a doubt the building is 100 percent illegal! Because their no where on the map or in the regulation you fine the measure into the sea 100 meters. The Supreme Court understood this argument. Before in their first ruling the why they allow the building to be build to 14 meters.

Below I took a quote June 19 court order from the http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

Even thou VT7 has a building permit but the permit violates Construction Control Acts then building can be torn down. This is a very simple case to understand. If the stopVT7 group is right the court will cancel the construction license. Then the court will order the removal.

"The requests for the court to kindly give judgments or orders are as follow;

1. To give an order to minimize the force by suspending the construction license No.: 162 / 2550, Issued on: 28 November 2549 before another order or the final decision is given, and take effect back dated to 28 November 2549. Because 10th Litigants would be extremely damaged until not being able to be solved in the future, if View Thalay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. still be allowed to continue with its construction.

2. To cancel the construction license No.: 162 / 2550, Issued on: 28 November 2549 which was issued to View Thalay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. The First Court of Administration gave an order for View Thalay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. to be an interpleader in this case and determined it to be 2nd Plaint Receiver.

The First Court of Administration made enquiries of both parties on the step of requesting to place the injunction to minimize injured consequences before judgment of the 10 Litigants, and the decision was made as, in this case, the prior point that has been disputed by both parties is the distance from the building, by the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ), stipulated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, which directly involves with the Construction……(page3)

Control Boundary that shown on the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree, stimulated to use the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479 to take control over the regions ...........of Chonburi Province, B.E. 2521. The 10 Litigants and 1st Plaint Receiver have different understanding in the starting point of measurement of the aforementioned Ministerial Regulations. The 10 Litigants fixed the starting point at the lowest point of low tide, but 1st Plaint Receiver fixed the distance of 100 meters outward from highest level of high tide. Therefore, to be able to judge this case, the court needs to inspect carefully and find out the starting point of measurement which was stated in the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521), promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, also to find out if the distance of the dispute building from that point is not in violation to the law."

I would not underestimate the Judges of Supreme Administrative Court. They have been very clear the their writings. Also they made this statement in August at their first court decision. "Nevertheless, ........ the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 prescribed that the 200 meter line measured from the construction control line shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree promulgating the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 governing ............. on the seaside shall be restricted from constructing of any building exceeding 14 meter high from road surface. 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."

What do you not understand in the word "unlawful"?

What do you not understand about the words "process of law"?

Nothing is illegal yet until the full process has been followed. Presently, the VT7 building is fully legal with full legal building permission.

As your own point 2 above acknowledges, the First Court of Administration clearly wrote that there was a difference in interpretation as to what the law stipulates, and more specifically between the opinions of the 10 (now 8) litigants and that of VT and Pattaya City Hall. You constantly assume that you are right, and the only one with any grey matter, but everyone else recognises that this is exactly the central points under dispute ie the interpretation of the law. You continually post your arguments and continually remind us just how right that you think you are. But, then you are probably the only one who knows the "TRUTH" since if it differed from your OPINION, then it would have to be wrong.

Only after the whole "PROCESS OF LAW" has been exhausted will we know how the courts interpret the meaning of the law. Both sides have their merits, and to assume that you are 100% correct only shows ignorance and inability to ever see any viewpoint other than your own (I bet that you are very annoying in a "discussion"!). In the meantime, it does not matter how many times you post the same arguments here, they will still be subject to the final interpretation of the Thai courts.

Your small victory is only the right to have some form of appeal (vs being completely thrown out of court and told to pack your bags and not come back). I think that the court ruled correctly also, as you should have had a right to appeal (it is part of the full legal process), but it does not make you any more right in the meantime. It certainly does not mean that you will win because your arguments were not good enough last time. Your SC appeal win was only upholding your legal right to have your case heard again, this time ON APPEAL. How could a SC court rule otherwise, unless your arguments were completely ridiculous. I understand that your arguments have merit, and you have others that have joined your crusade along the way, but you completely REFUSE to acknowledge that there are other interpretations that interpret the law differently (NOT THAT I EXPECT FOR YOU TO COME TO ANY OTHER CONCLUSION OTHER THAN WE MUST BE CORRUPT because that is all we have heard form you).

We will not know this outcome for a while I suspect, but I doubt that it will prevent you from continually posting the same old arguments here just in case you happen to find another chance websurfer who has not followed the full course of these postings. You will always find the support of those who naturally assume corruption in countries like Thailand, and admittedly, it goes on, but IN ALL PARTS OF THE WORLD, not just Thailand. I think that there is enough of a case to assume that corruption was nowhere ever in this case, and I would posit the difficulty that VT7 had in getting all of its planning approvals in the first place - they had to go to great lengths, but that neither supports or removes any allegations of corruption. My point is that you cannot assume, nor post to the general public, unsubstantiated allegations of corruption, when the facts do not even

There are only differing interpretations of the laws in question, and I think that we can both say that third party observers have come to this post and argued for both sides. There are those that just assume corruption in places like Thailand (or perhaps are Seattle-type protestors of the world order of capitalism and individualism), and then those, who may feel that the arrogance of foreigners who come to another country and try to make allegations against all the locals (including specialist professionals) who do not agree with THEIR PERSONAL viewpoint and interests (and I do not think that you have any record of being a beach-protecting environmentalist until VT7 threatened your view, so cut the crap about being ALL about the beaches) is a bit too much to take, and argue against your attitude.

As for the whole point of how the JCC board came to fund your expenses, personally I would argue that there was a little abuse of power (ie corruption) in that scenario because I cannot understand how a full HOA of owners can be forced to pay for the crusade of 10, no now 8. As I have posted before, I think that either JCC felt a bit guilty about some of the things that it had represented to its owners, or it was clear abuse of power. If your case is ALL ABOUT PROTECTING THE BEACHES, then please explain to me the relationship between JCC owners and encroaching environmentalism - was it a condition of sale that you must all be active environmentalists. No, the irony of this case is that you allege corruption, but yet have managed your own little version of it. Nothing that you can say to me could convince me that all the JCC owners were all so passionately involved in your case that they were willing to fund your case, else they would have been part of your legal action from the start. I think that you have 8-10 condo owners there who are concerned about their views being lost, and so you come up with all this crap about defending the beaches, taking a moral position, that to me seems laughable considering the facts about how JCC owners are now being forced to pay for your legal costs. It was not VT7 investors that informed me about this, but rather your own post acknowledging the fact.

In summary, you have every right to form your own viewpoint upon the law, and then to fight that viewpoint in the appeal courts, but give back the JCC owner funds that you would use to launch your crusade, else you are little more than a common thief, abusing the power of a condo HOA board...well that is my opinion. VT7 is definitely NOT ILLEGAL until you hear that the courts agree with you about your assumptions that VT7 breaches Construction Control Acts, and this will be a long time coming if it comes...but do not worry about that, because you have found a new source of funds to continue this VERY PERSONALLY interested fight. Nothing you have written ever convinced me of your supposed altrusim, unless you can prove that you have been a long time beach-loving protestor.

VT7 may be found legal or illegal, but it is certainly a while yet before we can make these judgements. Anything done sooner is little more than spouting off peronal opinons to any who will hear you, but full credit to you, as you have struck a chord somewhere (ceratinly Lookat's chord is well struck (unless you are actually the same person, and then you are merely striking your own chord). But unfortunately, you are no closer to the TRUTH than you have ever been, and you are merely a foreigner (farang) who chose to exercise your rights to follow legal process. Now I hope that you, the beacon of "grey matter" and understanding, and the self-styled hope of our natural environment, can understand that. You only take quotes out of context, twist them to your purpose, and then ridicule those who try to understand the whole bigger picture ie the picture bigger than what you make it out to be, but it does not change the fact that this is far from over, and NO determinations can be made yet. SO give up on the 100% because nothing in this case is 100% - it is why there is DUE LEGAL PROCESS. Anyone who has followed your posts know that you have very little credibility left, and that we should be taking you with a pinch of salt. That being said, you do at least bring "facts" (small "f" out to us) and we are more in the know, even if we do not agree with your interpretations of what is actually said.

[tropiccapricorn]

I suppose the inclusion of a so called expert witness happens for 2 reasons only.

First possibility, the judge is not up to his job and therefore has to be educated,

second it is some kind of back engineering, meaning somebody wants a desired result absolutely

and therefore a formula (interpretation) must be created to kind of create a connection between

original law and desired result and that in a fashion that does not result in horses can’t stop laughing.

[Tammi]

What do you not understand about the words "process of law"?

Nothing is illegal yet until the full process has been followed. Presently, the VT7 building is fully legal with full legal building permission.

As your own point 2 above acknowledges, the First Court of Administration clearly wrote that there was a difference in interpretation as to what the law stipulates, and more specifically between the opinions of the 10 (now 8) litigants and that of VT and Pattaya City Hall. You constantly assume that you are right, and the only one with any grey matter, but everyone else recognises that this is exactly the central points under dispute ie the interpretation of the law. You continually post your arguments and continually remind us just how right that you think you are. But, then you are probably the only one who knows the "TRUTH" since if it differed from your OPINION, then it would have to be wrong.

Only after the whole "PROCESS OF LAW" has been exhausted will we know how the courts interpret the meaning of the law. Both sides have their merits, and to assume that you are 100% correct only shows ignorance and inability to ever see any viewpoint other than your own (I bet that you are very annoying in a "discussion"!). In the meantime, it does not matter how many times you post the same arguments here, they will still be subject to the final interpretation of the Thai courts.

Your small victory is only the right to have some form of appeal (vs being completely thrown out of court and told to pack your bags and not come back). I think that the court ruled correctly also, as you should have had a right to appeal (it is part of the full legal process), but it does not make you any more right in the meantime. It certainly does not mean that you will win because your arguments were not good enough last time. Your SC appeal win was only upholding your legal right to have your case heard again, this time ON APPEAL. How could a SC court rule otherwise, unless your arguments were completely ridiculous. I understand that your arguments have merit, and you have others that have joined your crusade along the way, but you completely REFUSE to acknowledge that there are other interpretations that interpret the law differently (NOT THAT I EXPECT FOR YOU TO COME TO ANY OTHER CONCLUSION OTHER THAN WE MUST BE CORRUPT because that is all we have heard form you).

We will not know this outcome for a while I suspect, but I doubt that it will prevent you from continually posting the same old arguments here just in case you happen to find another chance websurfer who has not followed the full course of these postings. You will always find the support of those who naturally assume corruption in countries like Thailand, and admittedly, it goes on, but IN ALL PARTS OF THE WORLD, not just Thailand. I think that there is enough of a case to assume that corruption was nowhere ever in this case, and I would posit the difficulty that VT7 had in getting all of its planning approvals in the first place - they had to go to great lengths,[/color] but that neither supports or removes any allegations of corruption. My point is that you cannot assume, nor post to the general public, unsubstantiated allegations of corruption, when the facts do not even

There are only differing interpretations of the laws in question, and I think that we can both say that third party observers have come to this post and argued for both sides. There are those that just assume corruption in places like Thailand (or perhaps are Seattle-type protestors of the world order of capitalism and individualism), and then those, who may feel that the arrogance of foreigners who come to another country and try to make allegations against all the locals (including specialist professionals) who do not agree with THEIR PERSONAL viewpoint and interests (and I do not think that you have any record of being a beach-protecting environmentalist until VT7 threatened your view, so cut the crap about being ALL about the beaches) is a bit too much to take, and argue against your attitude.

As for the whole point of how the JCC board came to fund your expenses, personally I would argue that there was a little abuse of power (ie corruption) in that scenario because I cannot understand how a full HOA of owners can be forced to pay for the crusade of 10, no now 8. As I have posted before, I think that either JCC felt a bit guilty about some of the things that it had represented to its owners, or it was clear abuse of power. If your case is ALL ABOUT PROTECTING THE BEACHES, then please explain to me the relationship between JCC owners and encroaching environmentalism - was it a condition of sale that you must all be active environmentalists. No, the irony of this case is that you allege corruption, but yet have managed your own little version of it. Nothing that you can say to me could convince me that all the JCC owners were all so passionately involved in your case that they were willing to fund your case, else they would have been part of your legal action from the start. I think that you have 8-10 condo owners there who are concerned about their views being lost, and so you come up with all this crap about defending the beaches, taking a moral position, that to me seems laughable considering the facts about how JCC owners are now being forced to pay for your legal costs. It was not VT7 investors that informed me about this, but rather your own post acknowledging the fact.

In summary, you have every right to form your own viewpoint upon the law, and then to fight that viewpoint in the appeal courts, but give back the JCC owner funds that you would use to launch your crusade, else you are little more than a common thief, abusing the power of a condo HOA board...well that is my opinion. VT7 is definitely NOT ILLEGAL until you hear that the courts agree with you about your assumptions that VT7 breaches Construction Control Acts, and this will be a long time coming if it comes...but do not worry about that, because you have found a new source of funds to continue this VERY PERSONALLY interested fight. Nothing you have written ever convinced me of your supposed altrusim, unless you can prove that you have been a long time beach-loving protestor.

VT7 may be found legal or illegal, but it is certainly a while yet before we can make these judgements. Anything done sooner is little more than spouting off peronal opinons to any who will hear you, but full credit to you, as you have struck a chord somewhere (ceratinly Lookat's chord is well struck (unless you are actually the same person, and then you are merely striking your own chord). But unfortunately, you are no closer to the TRUTH than you have ever been, and you are merely a foreigner (farang) who chose to exercise your rights to follow legal process. Now I hope that you, the beacon of "grey matter" and understanding, and the self-styled hope of our natural environment, can understand that. You only take quotes out of context, twist them to your purpose, and then ridicule those who try to understand the whole bigger picture ie the picture bigger than what you make it out to be, but it does not change the fact that this is far from over, and NO determinations can be made yet. SO give up on the 100% because nothing in this case is 100% - it is why there is DUE LEGAL PROCESS. Anyone who has followed your posts know that you have very little credibility left, and that we should be taking you with a pinch of salt. That being said, you do at least bring "facts" (small "f" out to us) and we are more in the know, even if we do not agree with your interpretations of what is actually said.

Above post from an emplyee of View Talay? Note the --" NOT THAT I EXPECT YOU TO COME TO ANY OTHER CONCLUSION OTHER THAN WE MUST BE CORRUPT.

And "I would posit the difficulty that VT7 had in getting all its planning approvals in the first place, they had to go to great lengths".

And "until you hear that the courts agree with you --------and this will be a long time coming"

The poster, jpm76, obviously knows View Talay business.

Perhaps jpm76 could finish the 5th paragraph for us?

I would caution jpm76 not to make allegations of corruption and abuse of power by "personally" accusing stopVT7 group of corruption and abuse of power and thievery. As he himself writes "I cannot understand". Since jpm76 has no understanding he cannot speak on that matter.

[stopvt7]

Dear jpm76 your statement "As for the whole point of how the JCC board came to fund your expenses, personally I would argue that there was a little abuse of power (ie corruption)". This is BS!

It was a Annual General Meeting (AGM) of co-owners who voted to pay the legal expends to the co-owners how started the legal action against city hall for issuing a incorrect building permit. The JCC board or committee now check and approve the legal expends before the office pays.

jpm76, you do not understand the clear facts of Issue 9 . You chose to ignore the Judges of Supreme Administrative Court. It was very clear in their writings of August 2007 in the first decision. "Nevertheless, ........ the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 prescribed that the 200 meter line measured from the construction control line (at the MSL) shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree promulgating the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 governing ............. on the seaside shall be restricted from constructing of any building exceeding 14 meter high from road surface. 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."

The Judges of Supreme Administrative Court have already heard the argument about measuring into the sea 100 meters before you measure onto the land 200 meters and VT7 was over 100 meters from MSL. Which the expert witness claimed. Which they rejected! Let me take a quotation from VT7 "Petition to The Supreme Administrative Court" dated 8th of May 2007.

"Then there had been an alteration and amendment to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 where the distance had been increased to 200 m. from the Buildings Control area as per map attached to the Act B.E. 2521 which had been extended into the sea. Therefore, the 100 m. as per the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 and the distance of 200 m. as per the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 was the same point. In accordance with the Act year B.E. 2521 the Controlled Building area shall thus be extended 100 m. further from the shoreline at MSL, the medial sea level, was at the highest point of the sea at natural high tide, the building of the plaint receiver 2 was situated about 205 m. from the Controlled Building area as per the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9."

You may read the whole VT7 petition at: http://openvt7.blogspot.com/

From one so called "crazy and delusion farang" who is not interpret the law. I can read Issue 8 and 9 and understand their meanings. Our group been encourage to follow throw with an appeal to the Admin Supreme Court. We have the most respect for this court and think they understand how to read maps. We respect the kings wisdom in setting up this new administrative court system to hear disagreements between government and the public.

The Admin Supreme Court lunch box story in the newspapers is very interesting. It shows me the honesty of the court to report the money. Our lawyer speaks highly of them and we think their orders in our case have been very fair and shows thier knowledge of the issues.

The Admin Supreme Court asked to hear our appeal and many ("crazy and delusion farang" with Thais) expect a favorable decision.

May the court save our beaches!!

[laurus77]

Where the beach is going? It is there with or without VT7 project!

And beaches are so so different places in Thailand like in Pattaya area, really

[kwonitoy]

Dear jpm76 your statement "As for the whole point of how the JCC board came to fund your expenses, personally I would argue that there was a little abuse of power (ie corruption)". This is BS!

It was a Annual General Meeting (AGM) of co-owners who voted to pay the legal expends to the co-owners how started the legal action against city hall for issuing a incorrect building permit. The JCC board or committee now check and approve the legal expends before the office pays.

jpm76, you do not understand the clear facts of Issue 9 . You chose to ignore the Judges of Supreme Administrative Court. It was very clear in their writings of August 2007 in the first decision. "Nevertheless, ........ the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 prescribed that the 200 meter line measured from the construction control line (at the MSL) shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree promulgating the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 governing ............. on the seaside shall be restricted from constructing of any building exceeding 14 meter high from road surface. 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."

The Judges of Supreme Administrative Court have already heard the argument about measuring into the sea 100 meters before you measure onto the land 200 meters and VT7 was over 100 meters from MSL. Which the expert witness claimed. Which they rejected! Let me take a quotation from VT7 "Petition to The Supreme Administrative Court" dated 8th of May 2007.

"Then there had been an alteration and amendment to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 where the distance had been increased to 200 m. from the Buildings Control area as per map attached to the Act B.E. 2521 which had been extended into the sea. Therefore, the 100 m. as per the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 and the distance of 200 m. as per the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 was the same point. In accordance with the Act year B.E. 2521 the Controlled Building area shall thus be extended 100 m. further from the shoreline at MSL, the medial sea level, was at the highest point of the sea at natural high tide, the building of the plaint receiver 2 was situated about 205 m. from the Controlled Building area as per the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9."

You may read the whole VT7 petition at: http://openvt7.blogspot.com/

From one so called "crazy and delusion farang" who is not interpret the law. I can read Issue 8 and 9 and understand their meanings. Our group been encourage to follow throw with an appeal to the Admin Supreme Court. We have the most respect for this court and think they understand how to read maps. We respect the kings wisdom in setting up this new administrative court system to hear disagreements between government and the public.

The Admin Supreme Court lunch box story in the newspapers is very interesting. It shows me the honesty of the court to report the money. Our lawyer speaks highly of them and we think their orders in our case have been very fair and shows thier knowledge of the issues.

The Admin Supreme Court asked to hear our appeal and many ("crazy and delusion farang" with Thais) expect a favorable decision.

May the court save our beaches!!

[kwonitoy]

Dear jpm76 your statement "As for the whole point of how the JCC board came to fund your expenses, personally I would argue that there was a little abuse of power (ie corruption)". This is BS!

It was a Annual General Meeting (AGM) of co-owners who voted to pay the legal expends to the co-owners how started the legal action against city hall for issuing a incorrect building permit. The JCC board or committee now check and approve the legal expends before the office pays.

jpm76, you do not understand the clear facts of Issue 9 . You chose to ignore the Judges of Supreme Administrative Court. It was very clear in their writings of August 2007 in the first decision. "Nevertheless, ........ the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 prescribed that the 200 meter line measured from the construction control line (at the MSL) shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree promulgating the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 governing ............. on the seaside shall be restricted from constructing of any building exceeding 14 meter high from road surface. 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."

The Judges of Supreme Administrative Court have already heard the argument about measuring into the sea 100 meters before you measure onto the land 200 meters and VT7 was over 100 meters from MSL. Which the expert witness claimed. Which they rejected! Let me take a quotation from VT7 "Petition to The Supreme Administrative Court" dated 8th of May 2007.

"Then there had been an alteration and amendment to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 where the distance had been increased to 200 m. from the Buildings Control area as per map attached to the Act B.E. 2521 which had been extended into the sea. Therefore, the 100 m. as per the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 and the distance of 200 m. as per the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 was the same point. In accordance with the Act year B.E. 2521 the Controlled Building area shall thus be extended 100 m. further from the shoreline at MSL, the medial sea level, was at the highest point of the sea at natural high tide, the building of the plaint receiver 2 was situated about 205 m. from the Controlled Building area as per the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9."

You may read the whole VT7 petition at: http://openvt7.blogspot.com/

From one so called "crazy and delusion farang" who is not interpret the law. I can read Issue 8 and 9 and understand their meanings. Our group been encourage to follow throw with an appeal to the Admin Supreme Court. We have the most respect for this court and think they understand how to read maps. We respect the kings wisdom in setting up this new administrative court system to hear disagreements between government and the public.

The Admin Supreme Court lunch box story in the newspapers is very interesting. It shows me the honesty of the court to report the money. Our lawyer speaks highly of them and we think their orders in our case have been very fair and shows thier knowledge of the issues.

The Admin Supreme Court asked to hear our appeal and many ("crazy and delusion farang" with Thais) expect a favorable decision.

May the court save our beaches!!

I think you mean to say "May the court save the beach directly in front of JCC"

[stopvt7]

Dear kwonitoy

OK, I can agree that some may only care about beach directly in front of JCC!

[stopvt7]

I been called and asked why do I write about saving the beaches? Because, the reason for making Issue 8 regulation into a law was to protect selected Pattaya beach areas for tourism. Then Issue 8 was updated by Issue 9 to expand the protection area. So the 200 meter area came to protest the beaches and their sea view for the condo owners. Who condos were built as the regulation required.

For what ever the reason, along came some builders with city hall which action said &lt;removed&gt; the legal condos co-owners. Because if we clam you measure into the sea before you measure onto the land we can build 100 meters closer to the beaches. Also, we can build more condo and make more money. We can even build in front of condo whose owners were told about Issue 9 when buying their condos. The sales office told JCC buyers not to weary, because nothing over 14 meters high can be built in front of the JCC building to the beach. Or maybe it is because they not able to understand Issue 8 was updated by Issue 9 and who the law work?

If you could look at all the court document you would find a letter from VT7 builder to city hall asking for a building permit at 100 meters from MSL. But Issue 9 said 200 meters. Please read a quotation from Issue 9 “No 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line (found at MSL) see the map......... at the seaside in which the following constructions shall not be built; Building of 14 meters higher than road level.”

Some think this is what behind the Supreme Court asked to hear our appeal. The court was set up to take charge over wrongful action by government. Maybe the court thinks the law is more important then profit for a few. I think the court understands clearly the Issue 9 regulation and plans to enforce the law.

The VT7 investors need not lose with a favorable decision for us. Because VT will need to make refunds and they have very deep pockets. If not them then city hall has big pockets to make refunds and you can make a civil action in Admin Court to collect. So why do you become angry with JCC farangs? Who is protecting Pattaya beach areas for both Thai and farang tourism?

It does not matter why we filed this legal action. What really matter is Issue 9 and its map is the regulation which controls building construction. Thailand laws are for both Thais and farangs. A court win that clearly upholds Issue 9 will be good for foreign investment. So we waiting for the court issue their order.

Then we will understand who is crazy and delusional !

[beginner]

[Tammi]

The developer of Jomthien Condotel and Grand Condotel gave same assurance to the buyer - the Law said that nothing over 14meters could be built between them and sea.

Edited June 30, 2008 by Tammi

[prospero]

<br />The developer of Jomthien Condotel and Grand Condotel gave same assurance to the buyer - the Law said that nothing over 14meters could be built between them and sea.<br />

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

And now, another developer, armed with another permit from City Hall, is attempting to build another over sized building too close to the sea. What VT7 is doing may be for his own interests. Fair enough. But his fight is bigger than his own interests. Many of us who live in buildings like Grand and Jomtien Condotels applaud his courage and persistance. Dong Tarn Beach is a very pleasant place. Why would anyone want looming towers to block sunlight and bring overcrowding? Views do matter. So does the environment. Self-interest can coincide with public interest.

I find it amusing that hypocritical VT7 investors like Jai Dee Farang claim to be speaking on behalf of the Thai People against the evil farangs. Is JDF a Thai citizen? Did he grow up in a village in Esan? Did he enlist in the Thai miltary? If I were him, I would wait for the Supreme Administrative Court to determine what is for the good of the Thai People. As I understand it, most of the units in View Talay Seven will be occupied by prosperous big-bellied foreigners who will sit on their balconies drinking beer, looking out to sea, and looking down on the rest of the country.

Edited June 30, 2008 by prospero

[OhdLover]

As I understand it, most of the units in View Talay Seven will be occupied by prosperous big-bellied foreigners who will sit on their balconies drinking beer, looking out to sea, and looking down on the rest of the country.

Well.... how well informed you are....

I am the prototype of your "prosperous big-bellied foreigners who will sit on their balconies drinking beer" !!!

Oh wait... I am 1.72m, my weight is 68kg and I dont drink beer.... so.... what is it?

Did I buy in the wrong building or is your information wrong?

Tell me, how on earth do you want to claim the BS you are writing here???

Did you personally visit all the people that bought units in VT7?? (send me the list)

Did somebody hide in the bushes in front of the VT-office and take a picture of all buyers??? (send me the pics)

Please tell me how you know all of this... or be brave and apologise, admitting you are, as we say in Holland,

talking out of your neck. And along with that state that your contribution to this topic is worth... ZERO!!!

Edited June 30, 2008 by OhdLover

[Tammi]

<br />The developer of Jomthien Condotel and Grand Condotel gave same assurance to the buyer - the Law said that nothing over 14meters could be built between them and sea.<br />

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

And now, another developer, armed with another permit from City Hall, is attempting to build another over sized building too close to the sea. What VT7 is doing may be for his own interests. Fair enough. But his fight is bigger than his own interests. Many of us who live in buildings like Grand and Jomtien Condotels applaud his courage and persistance. Dong Tarn Beach is a very pleasant place. Why would anyone want looming towers to block sunlight and bring overcrowding? Views do matter. So does the environment. Self-interest can coincide with public interest.

I find it amusing that hypocritical VT7 investors like Jai Dee Farang claim to be speaking on behalf of the Thai People against the evil farangs. Is JDF a Thai citizen? Did he grow up in a village in Esan? Did he enlist in the Thai miltary? If I were him, I would wait for the Supreme Administrative Court to determine what is for the good of the Thai People. As I understand it, most of the units in View Talay Seven will be occupied by prosperous big-bellied foreigners who will sit on their balconies drinking beer, looking out to sea, and looking down on the rest of the country.

The JCC group said that they considered putting VT5 on their complaint to the Court. It's perhaps a pity that they didn't approach Grand Condotel co-owners and ask them to join the plaintiffs. I was told that when co-owners at Grand queried the building of VT5 right at the beginning of construction that the General manager/Juristic Person Manager told them that "it is legal because the Law can be changed every 5 years". Now we all know that was BS.

[stopvt7]

Dear Tammi

I was convinced some of the 2006 JCC committee members were being controlled. Some on the committee only talk why thing could not be done! Much talk about co-owners could be sue if the JCC committee start a legal case against VT or our JCC developers. We were also told the co-owners could lose their condos if we took legal action. Their was a lot of BS floating around. So be aware the first thing a developer wants to do is get control of the management group and / or the committee. To stop any legal action.

That why a group of ten stood up and started the legal action in Administrative Court. One person was convinced that city hall issued a illegal building permit. So he started talking with other. They became convinced that Issue 9 protected 200 meter from the seashore where no building over 14 meters could be built. We found some a lawyers which agree and told us the law was very clear on the 200 meters and they never saw such a strong case. Who those lawyers lost their way in court you can decided?

We now have new lawyers who think we have a real strong action in the Supreme Court! We now wait for a positive decision!