Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

ripley · July 10, 2008

Minutes of JCC AGMs and EGMs are a matter of record and easily available. So much for "heresay".

"strait" facts (ie:the records) indicate EGM authorised for specific strategy and specific lawyer who was present to be interviewed by owners. Authorisation not given for alternative uses of fund. Every person at that meeting was given a FACT sheet of what they were voting on.

Who on committee voted for the return of that fund? Who was 'controlling' them? Who resigned after that? I think I get it - anyone who doesn't go along with your bluster is either corrupt or controlled. You are past the point of recognizing historical facts and do your best to obscure them. You can do this because to discover what really went down would involve delving into records, and few people will bother. But it does make us wonder how in touch you are with current facts and how or if you obscure them.

I'm in favour of the fight against VT7, but face it:

You've been nailed on this one.

Tammi · July 10, 2008

When I was involve in picking up our documents one of our former lawyer told use that our legal action was “still very much winnable”. He said we need a good appeal lawyer! He advise me about the feature article written in the Bangkok Post in the “OUTLOOK” section about a lawyer and I should check it out. Others advised me about the article on Mr. Surachai Trong-ngam and I already had the news paper and we were making contact. That article was wonderful timing!

Imagine our former lawyer thinks our case was still winnable after his partner lost in Rayong Admin Court!! Does that tell you something?

Is it correct what I have heard - that the partner is now part of Pattaya City Hall Administration? Glad to hear that Markus gave you some good advice - he has gone back up in my estimation.

prospero · July 10, 2008

Minutes of JCC AGMs and EGMs are a matter of record and easily available. So much for "heresay".
 "strait" facts (ie:the records) indicate EGM authorised for specific strategy and specific lawyer who was present to be interviewed by owners. Authorisation not given for alternative uses of fund. Every person at that meeting was given a FACT sheet of what they were voting on. Who on committee voted for the return of that fund? Who was 'controlling' them? Who resigned after that? I think I get it - anyone who doesn't go along with your bluster is either corrupt or controlled. You are past the point of recognizing historical facts and do your best to obscure them. You can do this because to discover what really went down would involve delving into records, and few people will bother. But it does make us wonder how in touch you are with current facts and how or if you obscure them. I'm in favour of the fight against VT7, but face it: You've been nailed on this one.

I really can't stand the sanctimony and hypocrisy of Ripley and JPM 76.

The investors in VT7 have all the financial resources multi-multi million baht developer behind them. This developer has connections in the government, the Thai military, and huge corporations. View Talay can spend limitless amounts on lawyers without anybody's approval. Those lawyers can change strategy instantly, without having to rally any co-owners or deal with the complex and time-consuming constraints of the Thai Condo Law. In addition, the company are joined at the hip with a powerful City Hall government and actually have one of Jomtien Complex' former lawyers no probably working aon their side. I'm sure they also have support from other huge developers like Raimon Land, that are trying to build close to the sea.

The co-owners of Jomtien Complex have almost no resources. They have been fighting fpr over a year with hardly any money, despite being betrayed by their lawyers, despite being mocked by so many smug investors in View Talay 7, who haven't had to contribute a dime to their own cause.

Ripley, you hassle Stop VT7 about some minor procedural point like you're some sort of ambulance chasing lawyer! Big deal, you "nailed" him! So what?

It's like Goliath complaining that David is holding the slingshot in the wrong hand.

stopvt7 · July 10, 2008

Dear ripley

Your Question “Who on (OLD 2006) committee voted for the return of that fund?” It was lead by Lana S. and the retired Thai colonel. The JCC committee has NO authority to act against a AGM or EGM co-owners meeting resolution or make a refund for a special legal fund. AGM or EGM co-owner meet as the authority over the elected committee. The elected committee must follow any legal co-owner voted on and passed resolution!

I was not on the committee but we have a “sunshine rule” that allows co-owners to visit JCC committee meeting. I went and ask why are they were refunding the first “legal fund”? I was told they wanted to be sure no further JCC committee would have a legal fund to spend. Does not this smells of corruption?

Rppley, you nailed know one!! At the April 2007 EGM and new legal fund resolution was passed! Which was billed to the co-owners in 2008! Have you paid ??

Dear Tammi

Yes, I been told that former lawyer Amnat is part of Pattaya City Hall Administration. I was told by Thais he was elect to the Pattaya city console.

Some say he sucking at the BIG TIT!

ripley · July 10, 2008

prospero - Agree w/ you about David & Goliath, but let's keep David honest.

ripley · July 10, 2008

stopvt7- So, are you claiming those two were "controlled"? (by who?) Corrupt? Who else voted for reimbursement? They were controlled as well? Let's hope they're not also litigious - oops! forgot! you now have insurance against lawsuits. Like I said, I'm not against you or your cause - just your contorted and sometimes malicious versions of "facts". Surely you can get where you want to be without sinking so low.

ripley · July 10, 2008

Sorry to you all. I'm a "newbie" & not a computer guy so maybe in trying to make reply I triggered all these repeats of the last 3 letters. Maybe someone knows how to clean up all these repeats? I tried using "edit". .. Anyway, Thanks.

Pattaya_Fox · July 10, 2008

Sorry to you all. I'm a "newbie" & not a computer guy so maybe in trying to make reply I triggered all these repeats of the last 3 letters. Maybe someone knows how to clean up all these repeats? I tried using "edit". .. Anyway, Thanks.

Excess quotes removed.

stopvt7 · July 10, 2008

Has anyone seen the BBC report on corruption in Thailand?

This current government could be going down? They talk about the court action aginst the government,

stopvt7 · July 11, 2008

Dear ripley

Were you on the committee? I have had a visitor. From that committee who came and talked with me about what happen and why he resigned. He also gave me information on issue 9. It was a informative meeting!

They held a EGM in September 2006 which they invited a Bangkok Law firm named Kimberly. Were you at that EGM? Then you know all the positive, constructive and optimistic talk about taking action from JCC committee. Which a special resolution was passed to raise money and required the JCC committee to take action. Now they had a resolution which required the committee to act and an 13 million baht legal fund. Then they did nothing! Many on the committee resigned. I think the majority of the committee was honest and a majority resigned! Only a few stop the committee from acting. They said the law firm told them they only had 30 days from the date they found a violation of the law to act. Then their time ran out. What BS!

Thirty days after that EGM meeting the JPM sent a letter firing the Kimberly Law firm! Then the committee voted to refund the 13 million baht legal fund. The fact are they did nothing! It took 10 co-owners to start a legal action against city hall for issuing a questionable building permit to VT7. That I’m asking “does not this smells of corruption?” Or control? You figure it out!

The above has nothing to do with our current court action, a sea view, the environment or Issue 9. So I’m not going to waste any more time on this subject!

To me what smells is who do you take a clearly written regulation called Issue 9 and miss use the map. The city lawyer explained that a arrow on the map which is pointing from the sea in the direction to the land which has “100 meters” written next to it. He claimed this arrow means you measure into the sea 100 meters (the apposite direction the arrow pointing) before you measure from MSL 100 meters onto the land. Then he claimed Issue 8 and 9 were the same and only difference is in Issue 9 you measure into the sea befor you measure onto to land. Now tell me where it is written you divide the 200 meter measurement in half and apply half (100 meters) on each side of the construction control line found at MSL. Then at a court hearing the expert witness said he do not know about the “technic” the city lawyer was using. Then later he use this “technic” in writing his report to the court which lead to the lifting of a injunction. This “technic” the expert witness used in his report Allowed building over 14 meters could be build 11 meter closer to the sea the issue 8 permitted. The expert witness gave no support maps or document to back up his claims in his report that you measured into the sea 100 meters.

Their are people who are hopping the Thai courts are corrupt or they will buy the crazy above explanation? Because Issue 9 is clearly written I do not think they have a change to win! Wish all you want! The Admin Supreme Court will follow the law and VT7 will end up lose their building permit before its over.

Do you not read the news paper and about the action which the Admin Supreme Court is doing to clean up corruption in the government? Many VT7 investors must be sweating? You can call me crazy I do not care! I think the Admin Supreme Court will act in our favor!

“Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521)

Issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479

By the virtue of the Section 15 of the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479, the Ministry of Interior issued the following Ministerial Regulations:

1. No. 1 of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 is to be amended by the followings statement:

“No. 1. This Ministerial Regulation applies within the boundary line of the map. Annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2520”

2. No. 3 of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 is to be amended by the following statement:

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

1. Place for keeping and selling fuel

2. Theatre

3. Wooden shop

4. Concrete shop house

5. Market

6. Garage or paint shop for car, motorcycle or motor boat

7. Warehouse

8. Building of 14 meters higher than road level.

The Ministerial Regulation is hereby given on the date of twenty-third of November B.E. 2521 (1978).

General Lek Naewmalee

Minister of Interior

(Mr. Somchai Leelaprapaporn)

Civil Engineer Grade 7

Note: The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation due to the updating of the construction control areas in Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue, by extending the construction restriction areas as appeared in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 controlling over the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521. It is, therefore, appropriate to amend the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 governing restriction of the construction of some kinds of building within the controlling areas under the aforesaid Royal Decree.

Copy taken from the Government Gazette No. 95 Section 157 dated 31 December 2521 (1978)

Certified correct

(Mr. Yuthana Rittisit)

Administrative Officer

Public Utility Section”

Where does it say measure into the sea 100 meters?

bobbin · July 11, 2008

Tammi is going to jump on me again for this but I have to say it.

Reading Stopvt7's posts is painful!! The man has never heard of a spell-checker, has no concept of grammar, and his logic is convoluted to say the least! He is like an illiterate CEO whose secretary is on vacation, and nobody is vetting his memos. He is the last person who should be fronting this appeal even though he may be the driving force.

Dyslexic is the word that springs to mind.

Having said that, I support the effort to clarify the laws. A good friend of mine is one of the group of 10, now reduced to 8. Until very recently, my friend was also the Chairman of the JCC commitee so I have good insight into the case.

ripley · July 11, 2008

Nope. Not on the committee. After what happened to Lana S. am surprised anyone would be. It might surprise you to know that some of us do read and have paid attention over the years. You may think this is off the subject of the vt7 fight, but it's a good idea to know who you're dealing with and what they're capable of. Don't know about your "retired colonel" but Lana S. was standing forward, often alone, to protect and wake up JCC against corruption, intrusion and VT7 before most of us even realised these were issues. She and her husband, at some personal risk, started the movement to prevent Tony's Entertainment Center from taking over the JCC 4th floor (free of charge). (Were you one of those who dropped a petition into their mailbox when an open petition was suppressed? I was.) She was voted onto the committee without her permission, and I talked her into serving. Twice she tried to resign and both times her resignation was refused and she was asked to return. Why? Because so much of the committee was absentee status that there wasn't anyone else to do the work. She would never dignify the vicious rumours by chasing shadows in an attempt to defend herself against allegations of corruption. I'm embarrassed now to admit that I've kept quiet along with the rest of us who know her, letting you shred her reputation.

It's true she was naive about the personalities, politics and personal agendas around her. But none of us doubt her honesty and her courage. When I told her last year about your ugly rumours she was shocked. Then she shrugged her shoulders and quoted: "No good deed goes unpunished."

I will support the stopvt7 efforts but will never let down my guard when dealing with you.

stopvt7 · July 11, 2008

Nope. Not on the committee. After what happened to Lana S. am surprised anyone would be. It might surprise you to know that some of us do read and have paid attention over the years. You may think this is off the subject of the vt7 fight, but it's a good idea to know who you're dealing with and what they're capable of. Don't know about your "retired colonel" but Lana S. was standing forward, often alone, to protect and wake up JCC against corruption, intrusion and VT7 before most of us even realised these were issues. She and her husband, at some personal risk, started the movement to prevent Tony's Entertainment Center from taking over the JCC 4th floor (free of charge). (Were you one of those who dropped a petition into their mailbox when an open petition was suppressed? I was.) She was voted onto the committee without her permission, and I talked her into serving. Twice she tried to resign and both times her resignation was refused and she was asked to return. Why? Because so much of the committee was absentee status that there wasn't anyone else to do the work. She would never dignify the vicious rumours by chasing shadows in an attempt to defend herself against allegations of corruption. I'm embarrassed now to admit that I've kept quiet along with the rest of us who know her, letting you shred her reputation.
It's true she was naive about the personalities, politics and personal agendas around her. But none of us doubt her honesty and her courage. When I told her last year about your ugly rumours she was shocked. Then she shrugged her shoulders and quoted: "No good deed goes unpunished."

I will support the stopvt7 efforts but will never let down my guard when dealing with you.

Did Lana S tell you the story about the "bag lady?" She was a committee person that voted against taking any legal action even in Admin Court! Why?

Her husband made threats toward me if I start any legal action? Why?

Every one to their own opinion about Lana S!

stopvt7 · July 11, 2008

Tammi is going to jump on me again for this but I have to say it.
Reading Stopvt7's posts is painful!! The man has never heard of a spell-checker, has no concept of grammar, and his logic is convoluted to say the least! He is like an illiterate CEO whose secretary is on vacation, and nobody is vetting his memos. He is the last person who should be fronting this appeal even though he may be the driving force.

Dyslexic is the word that springs to mind.

Having said that, I support the effort to clarify the laws. A good friend of mine is one of the group of 10, now reduced to 8. Until very recently, my friend was also the Chairman of the JCC commitee so I have good insight into the case.

Yes, I'm Dyslexic! I will not take your posting personel

Even with my Dyslexic, many people now underst Issue9 from my posting.

OhdLover · July 11, 2008

Tammi is going to jump on me again for this but I have to say it.
Reading Stopvt7's posts is painful!! The man has never heard of a spell-checker, has no concept of grammar, and his logic is convoluted to say the least! He is like an illiterate CEO whose secretary is on vacation, and nobody is vetting his memos. He is the last person who should be fronting this appeal even though he may be the driving force.

Dyslexic is the word that springs to mind.

Having said that, I support the effort to clarify the laws. A good friend of mine is one of the group of 10, now reduced to 8. Until very recently, my friend was also the Chairman of the JCC commitee so I have good insight into the case.

Yes, I'm Dyslexic! I will not take your posting personel

Even with my Dyslexic, many people now underst Issue9 from my posting.

Does Dyslexic also mean copying the same old info over and over again into this extensive thread?

Or has that something to do with lack of new information combined with loss of memory????

It's getting quite annoying to see your same post at least 1 time per page and I dont understand why

moderators don't take action on this.

stopvt7 · July 11, 2008

Dear OhdLover

Issue 9 needs to be repeated many times for the VT7 investors can understanding the regulation!

Have you checked the Issue 9 map?

Did you find where it said to measure 100 meters into the sea?

Tammi · July 11, 2008

Yes, I'm Dyslexic! I will not take your posting personel
Even with my Dyslexic, many people now underst Issue9 from my posting.

[/b]

Does Dyslexic also mean copying the same old info over and over again into this extensive thread?

Or has that something to do with lack of new information combined with loss of memory????

It's getting quite annoying to see your same post at least 1 time per page and I dont understand why

moderators don't take action on this.

New people are joining this topic all the time and, of course, don't want to wade through 1,700 + posts, so there are often repeats of information. You don't have to read the topic. But up to you, (as they say here), if you want to get your knickers in a twist..

Dyslexic people are always very intelligent.

Edited July 11, 2008 by Tammi

Wiresok · July 11, 2008

I am still baffled that the Rayong court could seriously believe that Ministerial Regulation 9 was issued to make unlawful the building of the following structures 100m out into the sea from MSL.

1. Place for keeping and selling fuel

2. Theatre

3. Wooden shop

4. Concrete shop house

5. Market

6. Garage or paint shop for car, motorcycle or motor boat

7. Warehouse

8. Building of 14 meters higher than road level.

According to the "expert witness " testimony, issue 9 means these structures are prohibited from being built 100m out into the sea.What sense can anybody see in this?

Additionally that the Rayong court could seriously believe that issue 9 was introduced to allow building closer to the sea than issue 8 !!! Whats the point in issueing it then if it involves detriment.

"Amazing Thailand !!"

Some people consider the expert witness testimony "interpretation" of issue 9,my view is its more like "manipulation" of issue 9 .

Others profess to be scholars,..but they dont blind anybody with science,just deluge everybody with pointless ,meandering nonsense,and hope to lose us.

Then there are the guys who know they are drowning and hit out in all directions.

If Rayong continues with this view,then the Thai legal system has serious credibility problems.

Fortunately the SC have not been deflected and retain a handle on things.

As I understand it,their brief is to root out corruption,whoever be involved,is it not

Its also going to be very interesting to hear how city hall/vt7 explain to the SC the public interest angle it has introduced.

I mean ,another 27 storey building,dubiously positioned on the beach,20m from the two JCC existing skyskrapers,adjacent to the vt5C/D buildings,and serviced by the worst road in Jomtien that now also has to accommodate a 91 storey monster,......it beggars belief.

OhdLover · July 11, 2008

Yes, I'm Dyslexic! I will not take your posting personel
Even with my Dyslexic, many people now underst Issue9 from my posting.

[/b]

Does Dyslexic also mean copying the same old info over and over again into this extensive thread?

Or has that something to do with lack of new information combined with loss of memory????

It's getting quite annoying to see your same post at least 1 time per page and I dont understand why

moderators don't take action on this.

New people are joining this topic all the time and, of course, don't want to wade through 1,700 + posts, so there are often repeats of information. You don't have to read the topic. But up to you, (as they say here), if you want to get your knickers in a twist..

Dyslexic people are always very intelligent.

Amazing. Apart from being dislexic, you can't keep your 2 nicknames apart....

But hey, stopvt7/Tammi, how did you think this thread got so big???? Maybe because of your copy/paste-work on each page????

Amazing again how you twist everything to your own advance.

Edited July 11, 2008 by OhdLover

stopvt7 · July 12, 2008

Has anyone seen the July 2008 issue of “Thailand Homes & Condos” magazine?

Their a good article by Clayton Wade. It looks like he understands Issue 9 importance to Thailand.

Look on page 26 for the article “Who’s In Charge Here?” or read it below.

“Think about it……who really is in charge here in Pattaya…..and does Pattaya’s City Hall have some ‘special’ long term plan in mind in which they have decided to let a few building and design regulations just sort of ‘float’ for an undetermined amount of time.

Is this the Pattaya political elite’s ‘growth adjustment’ plan, where they have determined that ‘if’ they allow a few construction and design regulations to be ‘bent’ a little…..it will somehow contribute to a more beautiful and successful business community in the future……or is it just old fashioned ‘corruption’?

It poses an interesting question or two: Who is in charge here…..and, in Pattaya, why are there so many instances where building codes and regulations ‘seem’ to be bent and/or totally ignored?

One of the most interesting (and damaging to so many!) is the ‘on going’ saga involving the View Talay 7 and the Jomtien Complex Condominium.

Has the 200 Meters from ‘Mean Sea Level’ regulation changed since the Jomtien Complex Condominium building was constructed by the original developer? I don’t think so.

Did the original developer of the Jomtien Complex Condominium building originally decide that he did not want to build his condominium too close to the beach? I don’t think so.

Do the ‘other’ condominium buildings in the area that seem to be built along the same line and distance from the beach’s ‘Mean Sea Level’ have anything to do with the 200 Meters from ‘Mean Sea Level’ regulation. Yes, I really do think so.

So, just where am I going with this line of thought? Am I jumping on a current ‘band wagon political thorn’ in an attempt to ‘show support’ to many that will be hurt financially? Yes, I am.

Speaking of which, who is going to be hurt? That’s a very easy question to answer…..a whole lot of people in one building or the other……and until a proper decision is made……everybody, in both buildings, is suffering the ‘unknown’!

That’s exactly where I am going with this line of thought……why is it, when it is very clear that a substantial number of people in one of those two buildings is going to be damaged financially, that the local city government is allowing this travesty to unfold?

The old adage “Figures Don’t Lie” does not seem to apply here…..and I for one would like to know why.

Why, when there is a very clear law, involving the proper measurement which substantiates beachfront building heights, is there any question here at all?

Does someone really think all of those other condominium developers were stupid when they built there condominiums along the same line and distance from the beach’s ‘Mean Sea Level’?

Again and back to my original line of thought…..just who is in charge here? We all know that a ‘young man’ from I believe Bangsaen is our new mayor and judging from his lineage, I would suppose that things are going to continue as they have for quite some time…..so, why not the beachfront building codes?

I have been very supportive of Pattaya’s great commercial and residential development future and I have always been very ‘bullish’ about the real estate industry here……but at this stage, we (Thai’s and foreigner’s alike) need to ‘get things in order’.

We need to get the ‘rule book’ out and start showing some penalty cards…..and the View Talay 7 vs. Jomtien Complex is definitely a ‘red card’!

I have done well not to establish or show ‘apparent’ judgment on this issue, mainly because I think it is so obvious that it isn’t necessary…..but secondly, because I am trying to bring attention to the big picture and the long term repercussions of ‘these kinds’ of ‘discrepancies’ within our construction and development community.

Is there a feeling amongst the leaders of our area that things like this will just go away? If there is, they have another thing coming…..and it’s called ‘Farangs in your face’!

Pattaya and the entire Eastern Seaboard are thriving with business from foreigners. Foreigners involved in the petrochemical industry in both Mapthaput and Laemchabang, automobile manufacturing in both the Eastern Seaboard Industrial Estate and Amata City and the hospitality business through all of the Eastern Seaboard areas many hotels, guest houses, condos and housing estates.

The point I am working towards is that we have a very serious problem that is brewing on a number of fronts here amongst our residential developments (condos and houses) and if we do not get things in order…..we will have a lot of very angry foreigners sending out the message that it is not safe to purchase property in Pattaya.

There’s going to be hundreds of very disappointed (financially in particular) in either the View Talay 7 or the Jomtien Complex…..you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

As of the latest supreme court appearance (June 19, 2008), it was decided by the supreme court judges that there ‘was’ a need for even further scrutiny and in fact did accept the plaintiff’s (Jomtien Complex owners) appeal against the construction of View Talay 7.

What is going to be the outcome of this next court of appeals…..unfortunately, it is anybody’s guess!

Are Thailand’s construction control regulations clear and without cause for debate?

Will Thailand’s court system uphold their construction control regulations?

What is sure….is that this is probably the most important court case the Thailand real estate industry has faced…ever!

Pattaya needs to look at the long term effects of what is going on right now.

Pattaya is growing very fast and it is growing to a very great extent because of foreigners!

Pattaya’s ‘political elite’ need to start realizing that ‘Farangs’ are not going to ‘roll over’ on these issues involving their investments in Thailand. There money is just as dear to them as it is to any Thai citizen.

Pattaya’s political elite need to start ‘constructing’ a real estate industry model that all (Thai’s and foreigners alike) can depend on.

Investors need to ‘know’ that a building is being built by proper standards.

Investors need to ‘know’ that their investment money is safe.

Investors need to ‘know’ that a building is going to be finished…..for God’s sake!

Do I want to see the purchasers in either View Talay 7 or Jomtien Complex suffering…..of course not!

Do I want to damage the reputations and incomes of one of our local developers…..not my point at all!

I want foreigners and Thais to be able to purchase properties here in Pattaya and throughout the Eastern Seaboard with confidence.

So let’s get out the ‘measuring tape’ and the ‘rule book’ and make the right decisions now….and stop this ugly and painful dilemma, as it is a quagmire that is holding up progress here.

Let’s give those Jomtien Complex owners and the View Talay 7 developer what they deserve by the laws of Thailand, which are stated within their building codes and regulations…..and bring this debacle to a head!

We don’t need the ‘lack of clarity’…..we deserve action according to the laws and civil codes of the Thai Government…..not this real estate fiasco!

Let all that wish to purchase properties here in Pattaya and throughout the Eastern Seaboard know that we play ‘fair ball’ here…..and that means…..with houses and condos that are being built by proper standards…..with houses and condos that do get completed near schedule…..and most of all…..know that this is an area where investors can deposit money with developers safely and prosper from their investments!

The ‘Real Boom’ is still ahead…..so let’s ‘clean house’ a bit and get back on track……because, like a locomotive…..this Pattaya real estate success story is going to be almost impossible to stop!”

Tammi · July 12, 2008

Good article, Clayton Wade. Thank you StopVT7, for bringing it to our attention.

ripley · July 13, 2008

Started a new thread for communications, news, etc. about JCC in case anyone's interested.

jpm76 · July 13, 2008

Minutes of JCC AGMs and EGMs are a matter of record and easily available. So much for "heresay".
 "strait" facts (ie:the records) indicate EGM authorised for specific strategy and specific lawyer who was present to be interviewed by owners. Authorisation not given for alternative uses of fund. Every person at that meeting was given a FACT sheet of what they were voting on. Who on committee voted for the return of that fund? Who was 'controlling' them? Who resigned after that? I think I get it - anyone who doesn't go along with your bluster is either corrupt or controlled. You are past the point of recognizing historical facts and do your best to obscure them. You can do this because to discover what really went down would involve delving into records, and few people will bother. But it does make us wonder how in touch you are with current facts and how or if you obscure them. I'm in favour of the fight against VT7, but face it: You've been nailed on this one. 
 
I really can't stand the sanctimony and hypocrisy of Ripley and JPM 76.

The investors in VT7 have all the financial resources multi-multi million baht developer behind them. This developer has connections in the government, the Thai military, and huge corporations. View Talay can spend limitless amounts on lawyers without anybody's approval. Those lawyers can change strategy instantly, without having to rally any co-owners or deal with the complex and time-consuming constraints of the Thai Condo Law. In addition, the company are joined at the hip with a powerful City Hall government and actually have one of Jomtien Complex' former lawyers no probably working aon their side. I'm sure they also have support from other huge developers like Raimon Land, that are trying to build close to the sea.

The co-owners of Jomtien Complex have almost no resources. They have been fighting fpr over a year with hardly any money, despite being betrayed by their lawyers, despite being mocked by so many smug investors in View Talay 7, who haven't had to contribute a dime to their own cause.

Ripley, you hassle Stop VT7 about some minor procedural point like you're some sort of ambulance chasing lawyer! Big deal, you "nailed" him! So what?

It's like Goliath complaining that David is holding the slingshot in the wrong hand.

The reason why Ripley's point is so important is because it is evidence of the way that StopVT7 manipulates everything posted here - even those who fight against VT7 can see that StopVT7 has no credibility that can be believed. He believes in his own cause to the point of blindness. As for my hypocrisy, I do not know what you are referring to - I am pointing out the hypocrisy of StopVT7 in his constant claims of corruption, yet he supports the action of the JCC Board forcing all condo owners (many who are not that interested in his personal crusade) to pay for his legal expenses. That is hypocrisy.

Anyone who has read here for a while realises that whilst VT7 investors know that the court battle is all about interpretation of laws not so clearly defined, StopVT7 tries to convince all that he just cannot be mistaken. The arguments that others post here to show him that there are alternative readings of these laws (that yes do include protection of the sea area since many countries do allow building in the sea) have always fallen on deaf ears in his case, but yet he posts and copies his old evidence constantly to remind us that he is not going to give up.

As for you, do you not think that we have every right to make our own posts here and to defend our case (the VT7 investor case) against the likes of posters such as StopVT7 who has not drawn any lines in his attempt to spread propaganda all the while. I joined in writing on these posts after I got tired of the hits at VT7 investors being portrayed as vicious blood thirsty capitalists - it was StopVT7's crew that was hitting out at everywhere, and whilst Ripley may support StopVT7's cause, he also recognises that StopVT7 just cannot stand any opposition to his views, opinions (which are always portrayed as unchallenged facts). He has the personality type (as demonstrated by his posts) of a bad dictator that would squash any who did not agree with him, and along with his corruption claims constantly against ALL who do not agree with him (including hiw own legal team, his own previous board etc, not just our side of the case), I personally think that there is a whole lot of irony in this whole case. And I woudl laugh more if I did not have money at risk here, but the main reason why i post here is because of the way that StopVT7 has gone about things.

It matters little that VT7 can be an analagous case between Goliath and StopVT7 is David. All have access to the law, and all have the right to be heard in posting here. StopVT7 seems to believe that he owns this post, and owns all the content that should go here. Unfortunately, I am not the only one who challenges his character and the method that he uses. He is a propagandaist, and it matters little about posting the truth of facts (if they do nto help his cause). He is VERY selective and interprets completely in accord with his own opinions. He claims that he does not use interpretation because he understands the facts, yet there is none that can understand these facts without interpretation, and interpretation requires personal input (and we should all be aware of the fact that he cannto be trusted to be a clear unbias view across to the general public). This is not using science to confound him, it is about using clear logic so that all can understand that the StopVt7 posts are nothing more than opinion and the abuse of "facts" as he interprets them. The point is to ensure that the general public receives a FAIR and HONEST picture of the scenario, and that cannot be left in the hands of StopVT7.

I believe that he has a case to be heard, but it is for the courts to decide the outcome, and in the meantime, I have to admit the possibility that he may win the case on facts, but yet this is something that his personality will not allow - he is 100% self assured and 100% self-righteous, and all this is the face of those who have tried to coerce him to tarnish his views a little with a little more fairness and more truth. These efforts have been a waste of energy, as he is not interested in doing anything but convinving us all of just how "right' he is, and how wrong we are all to disagree with him. God help us all if he were ever to own a little power himself - I believe that he would be highly corrupt and a pure propaganda machine of a Soviet type. the ironies in this case are for me, pointing towards his reflections of his own self, and that is why he retaliates the way that he does.

Of course, then there is all the lies that he has asked us to believe... like this all being about the fight to protect the beaches, and that if there were any fight to protect sea views, then that could only be referring to other people. It all smacks of a completely unreliable and highly suspect source. I commend his efforts in trying to understand this case, and I believe that he has done us all a service by bringing these matters into the limelight, but I think that there required someone with the passion of StopVT7, but yet a completely different personality nature to handle all this. That being said, i do not know him at all, and I am only going from the posts that he has made here. Still, anyone who gave my points a moment of a chance would probably understand exactly what I am referring to.

We are all fighting for our personal interests here, and I understand that I am a little harsh upon him at times, but if I (and other StopVT7 critics/VT7 investors) did not post, then StopVT7 would have unrestricted usage of the airwaves (figure f speech, not a fact), and they are certainly media that he is not shy of using to further his own cause.

I do not think that a double sided argument would be presented, and I believe that credibility needs to be established, especially in the absence of the evidence of things that he is claiming. It can damage Thailand's reputation, and perhaps unjustly, if Richard Haines is making all these assumptions that prove to be false in the bigger picture. Should the courts rule that StopVT7 has come to a wrong interpretation of the intention of the law, he will walk away from all this, but all those who ever read here would have a unjust tarnished view of Thailand, and it will be because of the storm that he willed to create in this place (and others).

I let him have his say (even if I do not agree with it, and especially not the way that he contorts the argument), but i also believe that I have the right to have my own say here. I hope to help present another side, and unfortunately, that involves bringing StopVT7's credibility in question in order to remind readers that StopVT7 is only interested in his own cause and not the bigger picture. If he was truly about the bigger picture, then he would ensure that Truth, fairness and viewpoints of "others" (ie not just his own self) would be firstly "tolerated" (the other side of liberty as per John Locke's On Tolerance at the beginning of the liberal revolution in 17th century England) and secondly "heard" ie that the opinions of others may actually have something in it that can make some impression upon our All-impervious StopVT7. Then a reasonable and fair debate would have emerged, rather than the twisted form of a debate that has occured here on ThaiVisa forum. The debate rages on with one side waiting to hear what the courts have to say, and the other already having determined what the courts must say, else they be corrupt, and in the meantime ensuring that the public opinion is contorted to such a viewpoint to accept that the courts ruling must only be second to the ruling of Richard Haines' own determinations (unless of course it agrees with him).

That fact that we have those naturally inclined to his own side (in Ripley) posting to the same effect around StopVT7's credibility should only boost our own argument of needing to straighten out the StopVT7 version of the facts so that others can filter the writings of StopVT7 back to a more believable standpoint.

Tammi · July 13, 2008

jpm76, what has StopVT7 manipulated? He has repeated many times the law laid down in Issue 9 and he has thought there could have been/were corrupt practices. Certainly it would seem that there was a conflict of interest on the part of the Thai lawyer hired by JCC.

I took a walk over to Dongtarn Beach today and you will be pleased to know that building VT7 is still going on so it would seem that VT7 developer is not at all concerned that the court case will not favor him.

Edited July 13, 2008 by Tammi

stopvt7 · July 14, 2008

Dear jpm76

What a bunch of BS! Thank you for a wonderful laugh!

Your statement to “straighten out the StopVT7 version of the facts” I change you to read Issue 9 and the map and explain to me where you or VT7 read “measure into the sea 100 meters from MSL?

You may pack your pipe with what ever you like and smoke it. But, this will not change the facts you measure 200 meters from the construction control line found at MSL at the sea shore on to the land. As it is explained in the debate minutes the law writtin Issue 8,

“ Meeting on the Drafting of Ministerial Regulation No. 8

There have been several amendments made during the Meeting on proposals to the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 B.E. 2518 issued under the virtue of Building Control Act B.E. 2479 , i.e.

1. Article 2, the first meeting prescribed “The road along the edge of the sea” means the road that one side connected to the sea does not exceed 50 meters from building construction restriction line.”

The meeting held later on further amended “setting of 100 meters from the construction control line referred to the map annexed.”

2. Article 4, “Within the distance of 50 meters from the road along the edge of the sea, the following types of buildings are not permitted to be constructed.”

(8) Building of 14 meters above the road surface.

This was later amended to read “The area of 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the map annexed, from the sea towards the shore shall not be permitted to construct the following types of buildings”

(8) Building of 14 meters above the road surface.

Further amendment was to delete the wording “towards the shore” since the wording was clearly understood, then the following wording was used instead “to fix the 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction”

During the meeting, the Chairperson questioned the person who proposed this amendment that if the amendment shall take advantage on villagers who have only small piece of land on the sea shore for not being to optimize the use of land plots. The person who made this proposal answered that “minority must be sacrificed for the majority ”

The amendments were consented by the meeting because the meeting wanted to protect the beach by controlling the construction which may impact the natural look of sea beach area.”

Note: The above info is from the “Royal Degree Department “ in Bangkok. http://www.krisdika.go.th/home.jsp

Also compare the facts of Issue 8 and the Issue 9 update.

Issue 8 “to fix the 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction”

Issue 9 “to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction”

Issue 9 has a reason attached:

“Note: The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation due to the updating of the construction control areas in Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol

Nhong Prue, by extending the construction restriction areas as appeared in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 controlling over the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521. It is, therefore, appropriate to amend the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 governing restriction of the construction of some kinds of building within the controlling areas under the aforesaid Royal Decree.

Copy taken from the Government Gazette No. 95 Section 157 dated 31 December 2521 (1978)”

You need to accept the truth! Thailand is a country of laws and the Supreme Admin Court will uphold Regulation of Issue 8 and the update on Issue 9 to the building construction control act.

We whish no harm to any YT7 investor! But you need to face the the above facts. Then go to VT7 office and ask them why they never gave you a English copy of the facts before you signed a contract?

A improper building permit dos’t make a build legal!

prospero · July 14, 2008

Minutes of JCC AGMs and EGMs are a matter of record and easily available. So much for "heresay".
 "strait" facts (ie:the records) indicate EGM authorised for specific strategy and specific lawyer who was present to be interviewed by owners. Authorisation not given for alternative uses of fund. Every person at that meeting was given a FACT sheet of what they were voting on. Who on committee voted for the return of that fund? Who was 'controlling' them? Who resigned after that? I think I get it - anyone who doesn't go along with your bluster is either corrupt or controlled. You are past the point of recognizing historical facts and do your best to obscure them. You can do this because to discover what really went down would involve delving into records, and few people will bother. But it does make us wonder how in touch you are with current facts and how or if you obscure them. I'm in favour of the fight against VT7, but face it: You've been nailed on this one. 
 I really can't stand the sanctimony and hypocrisy of Ripley and JPM 76. The investors in VT7 have all the financial resources multi-multi million baht developer behind them. This developer has connections in the government, the Thai military, and huge corporations. View Talay can spend limitless amounts on lawyers without anybody's approval. Those lawyers can change strategy instantly, without having to rally any co-owners or deal with the complex and time-consuming constraints of the Thai Condo Law. In addition, the company are joined at the hip with a powerful City Hall government and actually have one of Jomtien Complex' former lawyers no probably working aon their side. I'm sure they also have support from other huge developers like Raimon Land, that are trying to build close to the sea. The co-owners of Jomtien Complex have almost no resources. They have been fighting fpr over a year with hardly any money, despite being betrayed by their lawyers, despite being mocked by so many smug investors in View Talay 7, who haven't had to contribute a dime to their own cause. Ripley, you hassle Stop VT7 about some minor procedural point like you're some sort of ambulance chasing lawyer! Big deal, you "nailed" him! So what? It's like Goliath complaining that David is holding the slingshot in the wrong hand. 
 The reason why Ripley's point is so important is because it is evidence of the way that StopVT7 manipulates everything posted here - even those who fight against VT7 can see that StopVT7 has no credibility that can be believed. He believes in his own cause to the point of blindness. As for my hypocrisy, I do not know what you are referring to - I am pointing out the hypocrisy of StopVT7 in his constant claims of corruption, yet he supports the action of the JCC Board forcing all condo owners (many who are not that interested in his personal crusade) to pay for his legal expenses. That is hypocrisy. Anyone who has read here for a while realises that whilst VT7 investors know that the court battle is all about interpretation of laws not so clearly defined, StopVT7 tries to convince all that he just cannot be mistaken. The arguments that others post here to show him that there are alternative readings of these laws (that yes do include protection of the sea area since many countries do allow building in the sea) have always fallen on deaf ears in his case, but yet he posts and copies his old evidence constantly to remind us that he is not going to give up. As for you, do you not think that we have every right to make our own posts here and to defend our case (the VT7 investor case) against the likes of posters such as StopVT7 who has not drawn any lines in his attempt to spread propaganda all the while. I joined in writing on these posts after I got tired of the hits at VT7 investors being portrayed as vicious blood thirsty capitalists - it was StopVT7's crew that was hitting out at everywhere, and whilst Ripley may support StopVT7's cause, he also recognises that StopVT7 just cannot stand any opposition to his views, opinions (which are always portrayed as unchallenged facts). He has the personality type (as demonstrated by his posts) of a bad dictator that would squash any who did not agree with him, and along with his corruption claims constantly against ALL who do not agree with him (including hiw own legal team, his own previous board etc, not just our side of the case), I personally think that there is a whole lot of irony in this whole case. And I woudl laugh more if I did not have money at risk here, but the main reason why i post here is because of the way that StopVT7 has gone about things. It matters little that VT7 can be an analagous case between Goliath and StopVT7 is David. All have access to the law, and all have the right to be heard in posting here. StopVT7 seems to believe that he owns this post, and owns all the content that should go here. Unfortunately, I am not the only one who challenges his character and the method that he uses. He is a propagandaist, and it matters little about posting the truth of facts (if they do nto help his cause). He is VERY selective and interprets completely in accord with his own opinions. He claims that he does not use interpretation because he understands the facts, yet there is none that can understand these facts without interpretation, and interpretation requires personal input (and we should all be aware of the fact that he cannto be trusted to be a clear unbias view across to the general public). This is not using science to confound him, it is about using clear logic so that all can understand that the StopVt7 posts are nothing more than opinion and the abuse of "facts" as he interprets them. The point is to ensure that the general public receives a FAIR and HONEST picture of the scenario, and that cannot be left in the hands of StopVT7. I believe that he has a case to be heard, but it is for the courts to decide the outcome, and in the meantime, I have to admit the possibility that he may win the case on facts, but yet this is something that his personality will not allow - he is 100% self assured and 100% self-righteous, and all this is the face of those who have tried to coerce him to tarnish his views a little with a little more fairness and more truth. These efforts have been a waste of energy, as he is not interested in doing anything but convinving us all of just how "right' he is, and how wrong we are all to disagree with him. God help us all if he were ever to own a little power himself - I believe that he would be highly corrupt and a pure propaganda machine of a Soviet type. the ironies in this case are for me, pointing towards his reflections of his own self, and that is why he retaliates the way that he does. Of course, then there is all the lies that he has asked us to believe... like this all being about the fight to protect the beaches, and that if there were any fight to protect sea views, then that could only be referring to other people. It all smacks of a completely unreliable and highly suspect source. I commend his efforts in trying to understand this case, and I believe that he has done us all a service by bringing these matters into the limelight, but I think that there required someone with the passion of StopVT7, but yet a completely different personality nature to handle all this. That being said, i do not know him at all, and I am only going from the posts that he has made here. Still, anyone who gave my points a moment of a chance would probably understand exactly what I am referring to. We are all fighting for our personal interests here, and I understand that I am a little harsh upon him at times, but if I (and other StopVT7 critics/VT7 investors) did not post, then StopVT7 would have unrestricted usage of the airwaves (figure f speech, not a fact), and they are certainly media that he is not shy of using to further his own cause. I do not think that a double sided argument would be presented, and I believe that credibility needs to be established, especially in the absence of the evidence of things that he is claiming. It can damage Thailand's reputation, and perhaps unjustly, if Richard Haines is making all these assumptions that prove to be false in the bigger picture. Should the courts rule that StopVT7 has come to a wrong interpretation of the intention of the law, he will walk away from all this, but all those who ever read here would have a unjust tarnished view of Thailand, and it will be because of the storm that he willed to create in this place (and others). I let him have his say (even if I do not agree with it, and especially not the way that he contorts the argument), but i also believe that I have the right to have my own say here. I hope to help present another side, and unfortunately, that involves bringing StopVT7's credibility in question in order to remind readers that StopVT7 is only interested in his own cause and not the bigger picture. If he was truly about the bigger picture, then he would ensure that Truth, fairness and viewpoints of "others" (ie not just his own self) would be firstly "tolerated" (the other side of liberty as per John Locke's On Tolerance at the beginning of the liberal revolution in 17th century England) and secondly "heard" ie that the opinions of others may actually have something in it that can make some impression upon our All-impervious StopVT7. Then a reasonable and fair debate would have emerged, rather than the twisted form of a debate that has occured here on ThaiVisa forum. The debate rages on with one side waiting to hear what the courts have to say, and the other already having determined what the courts must say, else they be corrupt, and in the meantime ensuring that the public opinion is contorted to such a viewpoint to accept that the courts ruling must only be second to the ruling of Richard Haines' own determinations (unless of course it agrees with him). That fact that we have those naturally inclined to his own side (in Ripley) posting to the same effect around StopVT7's credibility should only boost our own argument of needing to straighten out the StopVT7 version of the facts so that others can filter the writings of StopVT7 back to a more believable standpoint.

Your simplistic reading of this thread, is annoying, despite your reference to John Locke.

There have been many views posted on this site. VT7's is only one of them. He has every right to his very one-sided opinion, as do you. He also has a right to suspect corruption in the system. After all, his lawyer turned out to be working for the other side. Payments, threats, and other forms of intimidation are not unknown here in Thailand, unlike Central America where you live and invest.

It might interest you to know that Thailand ranks 84 on the 2006 Transparency Internatonal Perceptions of Corruption Index, alongside such pillars of rectitude as Swaziland, Montenegro, and Gabon.

The Administrative Court was quite specifically founded by the Palace because of royal concern about this very issue.

From the court's website. Note Mission Statement 2

Vision 2005-2008 of the Administrative Court of Thailand

The Administrative Court, with its judicial power to adjudicate administrative disputes, is determined to render justice with a view to maintain equilibrium between the people’s rights and liberties and the public interests.

The Administrative Court’s Mission

1) To try and adjudicate administrative cases impartially and swiftly, in order to assure the protection of rights, liberties, and administer justice to the parties in dispute.

2) To set precedents in the area of administrative law as the guidelines for good practice in public administration for State agencies and officials.

ripley · July 14, 2008

stopvt7 is pretty cautious about attacking the Thai authorities on corruption. After all, he's hoping to win them over & doesn't want to alienate them. Smart, despite the sometimes nauseating flag-waving. And he's got the right to hammer on about his interpretation of Thai law - don't think anyone would deny him that

JPM76 got the point when he addressed the character of this guy. A Cautionary Tale: His predecessors outlined a legal strategy and followed their interpretation of condo rules and condo law to get it off the ground. All open and transparent. When the lawyers proved bogus, their strategy too risky to the owners these people weren't able to come up with options. Having no clear strategy, unable to agree on legal representation, they refunded money the co-owners had been invoiced for a strategy & lawyers which had become defunct. It may be mentioned that a huge percentage of owners were refusing to pay, so they were looking at taking each one to court as well as City Hall, VT, JCC developers, etc. Now comes Haines & Co. Exactly the same scenario, but they chose to handle it differently. Decided on a lawyer, introduced him briefly to an AGM, took the money from the maintenance fund, lawyer screwed them - picked a new lawyer. All without informing owners. Eventually did present demand for funding legal battle which was voted in at a second call AGM (and we all know what those are.)

Different ways of handling the same problem & both sincere efforts you might say and - be generous - leave it at that. But Stopvt7s overweening arrogance (and paranoia of being caught in a cleft stick of his own carving) chose to resort to mud-slinging and accusations of corruption by the very people who started the action in the first place. There was no reason for this except an attempt to cover up and justify his questionable methods. JPM76 picked up on the distasteful, potentially dangerous character flaw and mode of operations here which was what I was trying to warn against for those who too eagerly place their complete trust in stopvt7.

Tammi · July 14, 2008

stopvt7 is pretty cautious about attacking the Thai authorities on corruption. After all, he's hoping to win them over & doesn't want to alienate them. Smart, despite the sometimes nauseating flag-waving. And he's got the right to hammer on about his interpretation of Thai law - don't think anyone would deny him that
JPM76 got the point when he addressed the character of this guy. A Cautionary Tale: His predecessors outlined a legal strategy and followed their interpretation of condo rules and condo law to get it off the ground. All open and transparent. When the lawyers proved bogus, their strategy too risky to the owners these people weren't able to come up with options. Having no clear strategy, unable to agree on legal representation, they refunded money the co-owners had been invoiced for a strategy & lawyers which had become defunct. It may be mentioned that a huge percentage of owners were refusing to pay, so they were looking at taking each one to court as well as City Hall, VT, JCC developers, etc. Now comes Haines & Co. Exactly the same scenario, but they chose to handle it differently. Decided on a lawyer, introduced him briefly to an AGM, took the money from the maintenance fund, lawyer screwed them - picked a new lawyer. All without informing owners. Eventually did present demand for funding legal battle which was voted in at a second call AGM (and we all know what those are.)

Different ways of handling the same problem & both sincere efforts you might say and - be generous - leave it at that. But Stopvt7s overweening arrogance (and paranoia of being caught in a cleft stick of his own carving) chose to resort to mud-slinging and accusations of corruption by the very people who started the action in the first place. There was no reason for this except an attempt to cover up and justify his questionable methods. JPM76 picked up on the distasteful, potentially dangerous character flaw and mode of operations here which was what I was trying to warn against for those who too eagerly place their complete trust in stopvt7.

Yes we all know what second call AGMs are. But that loophole has been rectified (?) by the new Condominium Act which came into force on 4 July 2008 as far as I know.

"Section 43: A general meeting shall be attended by at least one-fourth of the members who have the right to vote of the total number of the qulaified members in order to constitute a quorum.

If the co-owners do not attend the meeting in the number to constitute a quorum pusuant to paragraph one another general meeting shall be announced and held within fifteen days from the published date of the previous meeting. For this new meeting the constitution of a quorum shall be irrelevant."

Great!! Suppose that StopVT7 attends the 2nd called meeting and is all alone. He will be able to move and pass resolutions all by himself!!

stopvt7 · July 14, 2008

Dear ripley

I heard it was not the lawyer who were bogus but it was some of the committee members! The committee had a copy of issue 9 and the lawyer could of sued in Admin Court!

Instead Lana lead attack not to follow the EGM resolution? Her action was against the condo act by refund the legal fund! The committee does not have authority or chose to violate a EGM resolution! The committee start no legal action and I think that is why the majority quite. A few lead to misinformed the majority to stop any legal action by the committee?

Go ahead and attacking my character! I know many co-owner will tell you I been very open about the legal action against city hall and their issuing as questionable building permit to VT7. I open a blog: http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/ and posted all our court filings with copies of the English translated court documents. If this is a character flaw sharing knowledge so it a good one.

I given explanation at AGM and EGM co-owners meets. I have been ask many question concerning the legal action. I always take time to answers these question. Is this the character flaw you talking about?

This action of our group has helped educate interested parties in what is going on in Admin Court. They do not have to rely on hearsay. They may read Issue 8 and 9 with the maps all the court filings. With a open mind they draw their own conclusion. I asked not that you agree with me or the group of 8 but when disagreeing with us please use the facts to point out where we are wrong. Not attack one character with lies.

I personal think the Admin Supreme Court is working hard to correct the questionable action of many government official. Do you not read the Thai English news papers? The court is interested in our appeal to corrected a lower court misunderstanding of Issue 9. We are going to win! Is believing in something when your understand the facts a character flaw?

Or is it my eccentric personally which is the character flaw that bothers you? If that the one I could care less!

Ripley why not do something constructive and go check the Issue 9 map and tell me where it said to measure 100 meters into the sea from MLS before you measure onto the land? As city hall and the so call expert witness claims.

Also, the VT7 investors believe you measure 100 meters into the sea but have failed to point out where our group in wrong! Even after we give them copies of both Issue9 and the map the VT7 invertors failed.

ripley · July 15, 2008

Thanx for so eloquently illustrating my point, stopvt7.

Sign In

Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

raro

Posted Images

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US