Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[ripley]

Tammi addresses a point which emerged recently regarding the new Thai Condo Law & its effect on AGMs & "second call" meetings. Alarming that a handful of people might be entitled to make decisions & demand money from the owners, etc. - even, taken to the extreme - one person who happens to be the only one attending a second-call.

In April, J. Fishback gave a speech & later held a kind of seminar for the ExPat's club on the new Thai Law. Later, he said he'd have to retract some of what he'd reported because his English translation of the new law was inaccurate.

I think it's important that condo owners find an accurate translation and educate themselves. This Thai Law takes precedence over individual condominium rules and regulations. How much room does it leave for abuse? What & where are the loopholes?

All of this is off the subject of "Condo owners sue for sea view", which is why I tried to start a new Topic. Maybe mine was too specifically JCC. How about one on Thai Condo Law and how it effects us, where we find the real deal, etc.?

[stopvt7]

Dear ripley

You never been on topic! "Condo owners sue for sea view"! So go to your new “Topic page” and discuss the old JCC committee, etc. It’s of no importance hear. Lana and her husband mite be willing to joint you! Then you 3 can dream about the pass. That was to do nothing to stop VT7!

Many think it was Lana group that worked to make sure VT7 were able to start their building? The older committee(before Lana lead a fight to take contol) had the building stopped. The a new Lana’s group came to power then VT7 started construction. They new of Issue 9 and did nothing to stop VT7. They only talked as if they were going to take action. Then they fired their Lawyer within 30 days of and EGM which mandated them to take legal action. That act smelled of corruption! As the saying goes "If it walk like a duck and quakes like a duck the most like it is ducks".

Ripley you are a condo owner at the JCC building. Which of the below are you in favor of suportimg?

A) "Condo owners sue for sea view" and their Thai legal rights.

Condo owners sue to save Thailand beaches.

C) Both of the above.

D) None of the above because Pattaya land developers should be able to buy what ever rights they want. .

[beginner]

All of this is off the subject of "Condo owners sue for sea view", which is why I tried to start a new Topic. Maybe mine was too specifically JCC. How about one on Thai Condo Law and how it effects us, where we find the real deal, etc.?

Agreed. How about also including House Law?

The two year moratorium on Company Owned houses ends soon (October). What is going to happen to those companies which do not comply with the FBA and Land Act? We could all do with some facts and proper official information about the plans and intentions of the Land Office.

A new thread covering these legal issues and other ongoing areas of concern such as the multi-ownership of condos by foreigners would be useful.

[Tammi]

All of this is off the subject of "Condo owners sue for sea view", which is why I tried to start a new Topic. Maybe mine was too specifically JCC. How about one on Thai Condo Law and how it effects us, where we find the real deal, etc.?

Agreed. How about also including House Law?

The two year moratorium on Company Owned houses ends soon (October). What is going to happen to those companies which do not comply with the FBA and Land Act? We could all do with some facts and proper official information about the plans and intentions of the Land Office.

A new thread covering these legal issues and other ongoing areas of concern such as the multi-ownership of condos by foreigners would be useful.

OK. Somebody start the thread and let's see if it takes off. I'm in!

[Wiresok]

I have to say that I find some of the personnal attacks that are creeping in here very dissapointing,but not suprising.

Myself, I have considered the evidence put up on here by the pro and anti vt7 groups and concluded that vt7 is unlawful above 14m.

I think that stopvt7 have proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.

I cannot believe that issue 9 was written to allow building closer to the sea than issue 8,and also to prohibit these structures being built 100m out to sea from MSL.

Its just ridiculous,I mean why specify only these structures

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.

In my view all the compelling, persuasive arguments regarding this matter have been posted by the stopvt7 group,with very little plausible, evidence put up here to support their case by the pro vt7 lobby.

I don’t see anything convincing to back up the expert witness version of events. .

Now the pendulum of justice has swung back toward the stopvt7 group, some of the pro vt7 supporters are rattled, and have unfortunately resorted to the age old tactic of “when all else fails then attempt to discredit and split your opponent”

Some of the personnal attack stuff appearing on here merely go’s to show how desperate some people have become, but its not suprising considering what’s at stake

[Tammi]

If VT7 does not get built the investors should console themselves that they will get their money back and be able to then buy something very much nicer as it becomes more and more a buyer's market.

[lookat]

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.

To stopvt7

You talked about your character flaws being dyslexic and a eccentric personally! Not a bad combination to lead a fight to enforce a Thai law. Keep up the good work!

I see you now have a third screen name. I guess you are the only one who support Issue 9 so you keep adding screen names? OhdLover get a life!

Back to my vacation.

[ripley]

To Wiresok - (If yours was directed to me) Thought I'd made it clear that I'm neither a VT7 supporter nor investor. I think VT7 is illegal in many ways - and not just the Issue 9 factor. It shouldn't have been approved and it needs to come down. The decision on this case affects much, much more than JCC losing its sea view. I'm glad that people are fighting it. I wish more would. It should be fought. The law should be clear and enforced equally to all. My criticisms were directed at the unseemly methods being used by stopvt7 in regards to mudslinging, etc. to prop up activities not strictly legal. My thinking was that some perspective was required.

[stopvt7]

I recived a translation of the "court order" of the survey which you may read below. What interesting is “Department of Public Works and Town & City Planning shall measure the distance of the shoreline at MSL ................up to the Building of Dispute.”

Which in the Department of Public Works and Town & City Planning "report to the court" failed to follow the court order. So if this so-called expert witness can not read a court order how can you a court accept them as experts?

“Court Order

GARUDA EMBLEM

Black Case No. 54/2550

Under the Name of H.M. the King

The Administrative Court of Rayong

16 October 2007

Mr. Tenbuelt Aloysius Joannes Maria No. 1 and 9 Associates Litigants

Between

Pattaya City Local Official First Prosecuted Person

View Talay Jomthien Condominium Second Prosecuted Person

Recipient of this Order: Mr. Amnaj Thiengtham, the authorized lawyer of the 10 Litigants.

This case refers to the Department of Public Works and Town & City Planning as the authority issuing the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 applying to some areas of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 and the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) and further amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479. The Department had released a MOST URGENT letter No. Mor Tor 0710/7973 dated 15 October 2007 advising the Court that Officers of the Department of Public Works and Town & City Planning shall measure the distance of the shoreline at MSL under the provision of the abovementioned Royal Decree up to the Building of Dispute according to the Court Order. Those officials shall arrive Pattya City Hall on 15 November 2007 at 11.00 hour.

Yours faithfully

Signed ………………………………..

(Mr. Kritdanai Tromtat)

The Judge of Administrative Court

The Rayong Administrative Court

(within the Commercial Center of Rayong Province)

No. 777 Sukhumvit Road

Tambol Noenphra, Amphur Muang Rayong

Rayong Province 21150"

Now read the translation of the Witness Testimony on January 15, 2008 Court hearing. The witness Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul failed to follow the court order direction above.

“Witness Testimony Record

(Inquiring Stage)

Black Case No. 54/2551

GARUDA EMBLEM

The Administrative Court of Rayong

15 January 2008

Mr. Tenbuelt Aloysius Joannes Maria No. 1 and 9 Associates Litigants

Between

Pattaya City Local Official First Prosecuted Person

View Talay Jomthien Condominium Second Prosecuted Person

I have taken an oath to testify the following statement:

.My name is Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul

.I was born on 28 June B.E. 2500 age 50

.My profession is Legal Officer 7

.I reside at The Office of Building Control and Inspection within the Department of Public Works and Town & City Planning, Rama 6 Road, Khwang Samsennai, Khet Phayathai, Bangkok

.My relationship to the parties : Witness

My testimony shall be as follows:

The restricted zone of the building control area under the Royal Decree governing Building Construction Control B.E. 2521 shall be determined by the distance of 100 meter from Mean Sea Level outward to the sea.

In conducting the measuring, the witness did not measure from MSL towards the conflict building, but measured from the MSL to the 100 meters.

Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul, Legal Officer 7 and Mr. Wattanchart Kajornsiri, the Civil Engineer 6 of the Department of Public Works are the witnesses of the case.

The Litigants apply the motion to clarify the point of law and fact dated 15 January 2008. The motion was accepted by the Court and copy of this motion was given to the two prosecuted persons today.

The testimony of the parties and witnesses have been recorded by the Court.

All parties and witnesses requested copies of the witness testimony records together with proceeding report of today. The Court approved such requests.

All witnesses received witness’ fee of Bht 300 each and transportation cost of Bht 1,000 each. Each witness received total 1,300 baht.

The hearing closed at 10.45 hours.

Signed ……………………………………………. Judge of the file

(Mr. Kritdanai Tromtat) “

Now read Issue 8 and 9. Do you think the co-called expert witness undershoot how to read Issue 9? Or was he using Issue 8 in making his measurements?

"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

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

Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (B.E. 2519)

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. This Ministerial Regulation applies to the boundary line shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2479.”

2. The land areas under this Ministerial Regulation are restricted from construction of the following buildings:

3. To specify the area within the 100 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 Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2479 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 area under Article 3 above,

Construction of building, house must be at least 8 meters away from Highway No. 3135.

Building or house construction must be provided with 75% open, and uncovered space of size to the land plot on which the construction is applied for.

This Ministerial Regulation is given on the date of twelfth, June B.E. 2519 (1976)

MRV Seni Pramot

Ministry of Interior

Copy taken from the Government Gazette No. 93 Section 87 dated 29 June 1966.

Note: The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation is that further to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 applying to some areas of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2499, and the aforesaid areas are open public resorts. It is appropriate that the areas shall not be allow to construct some kinds of building considered to disturb good environment and generating any kind of wastes, pollutions. This Ministerial Regulation is, therefore, issued.

Certified correct copy

(Signed) Yuthana Rittisit

Administrative Officer

Public Utility Section

Office of the Secretary

Copy taken and reviewed by : Wallada

(Mr. Somchai Leelaprapaporn)

Civil Engineer Grade 7 "

[stopvt7]

Did you see this picture in the Bangkok Post on July 15?

It of the Admin Supreme Court complex in Bangkok.

[stopvt7]

Below is the English translation of the Department of Public Works and Town & City Planning in Bangkok report to Rayong Administrative Court. It starts withe a letter mark “most urgent” dated 18 December 2007.

“MOST URGENT

GARUDA EMBLEM

Ref. Mor Tor 0710/9634

Dept. of Public Works

And Town & City Planning

Rama 6 Road, Phayathai

Bangkok 10400

18 December 2007

Subject Execution of Court Order

To The Director General of Rayong Administrative Court

Reference Order of Rayong Administrative Court dated 19 September 2007

Enclosure 1. Execution Report to Court Order with support document

.Photos taken to support the report

With reference to the Order of Rayong Administrative Court issued to the Department of Public Works and Town & City Planning, as the authority who responsible for the issuance of the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 applying to some areas of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 and the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 executing the measurement of distance of Mean Sea Level under the provision of the above Decree to the building under conflict. The measured distance shall be reported to the Court supporting by the map, The Department of Public Works would advise that our officers have been assigned to execute the Court Order since 15 through 17 of November 2007. The measurement report with related photographs recorded during the execution are attached (Attachment 1 and 2 referred).

Yours respectfully

(Mr. Suraphol Phongthaipat)

Senior Engineer

In charge of the Director of the Dept. of Public Works

Building Control and Inspection Division

Tel 0 2299 4360 – 1

The Report concerning the court order survey is below:

“Execution to Court Order Report

1. Original Story

The Rayong Administrative Court has its Order Black Case No. 54/2550 between Mr. Tenbuelt Aloysius Joannes Maria, No. 1 and 9 Associates totaling 10 Litigants and the Pattaya City Local Official, No. 1 Prosecuted Person and the No. 2 Prosecuted Person, Order dated 19 September 2007 referred.

The Department of Public Works being the authorized agency as the authority who responsible for the issuance of the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 applying to some areas of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 and the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 executing the measurement of distance of Mean Sea Level under the provision of the above Decree to the building under conflict. The measured distance shall be reported to the Court supporting by the map, after measurement is complete, the Department shall submit report with supporting map to the Court.

The Department of Public Works has assigned the following 8 staff members from the Building Inspection and Control Division accompanied by the Engineers of the Structural and System Engineering Division to accomplish the measurement

2. Staff involved

1. Mr. Viriya Visutrattanakul Legal Officer 7 Building Control and Inspection

2. Mr. Wattanachat Kajornsiri Civil Engineer 6 System Engineering Div.

3. Mr. Suthichai Boonlam Civil Engineer 4 System Engineering Div.

4. Mr. Vichet Chaithong-at Civil Engineer 2 System Engineering Div.

5. Mr. Soonthorn Vejpitak Civil Officer System Engineering Div.

6. Mr. Puchong Chansomboon Worker System Engineering Div.

7. Mr. Thongchai Yangsoong Worker System Engineering Div.

8. Mr. Thanivat Jangploy Driver Building Control and Inspection

Observers from the Litigants

1. Mr. Richard Litigant

2. Mr. Adam Litigant

3. Mr. Amnaj Thiengtham Authorized Lawyer

4. Mr. Rigis Tyer Observer

5. Mrs. Observer

6. Mrs Benyaporn Observer

7. Mr. Tanes Tumthong Lawyer‘s Representative

8. Mr. Chalermchat Vanitsirisit Lawyer’s Representative

9. Asst. Prof. Dr. Sanpetch Surnitipaisan Engineering Division, Chulalongkorn University

Observers from the Prosecuted Person 1 Pattaya City

1. Mr. Vidhaya Sirivorachai Chief Building Control Division

2. Mr. Samran Panpreecha Chief Building Control Section

3. Mr. Chavalit Jariyayanyong Traffic Researcher 7

4. Miss Benjawan Chinpat Legal Officer 4

5. Mr. Teeradej Srimuang Inspector Region 3

Observers from the Prosecuted Person 2 View Talay Jomthien (1999) Company

1. Mr. Somjet Hasan Project Engineer

2. Mr. Preecha Dechamuanvaivit Authorized Lawyer

3. Mr. Jeerasak Sangvanlek Observer

4. Mrs. Vilai Supcharoen Observer

Observer from the Meteorological Department

Mr. Jaruwat Srichana Meteorological Officer 6

3. Period of execution

The process had been operated from Thursday 15 November 2007 to Saturday 17 November 2007 for 3 days.

4. Methods

The measurement started from the brass peg No. Or Dor MSL C.B. 0029 which is 48.989 meter above mean sea level at the area of Chonburi Meteorological Department (Pattaya) on Phra Tamnak Hill targeted by survey telescope through the road towards the entrance of Royal Cliff Hotel to reach the Phra Tamnak 5 Road then leftward into Phra Tamnak 5 Road until the telescopic sight reach Jomthien Beach on the footpath level then further down to the construction area in dispute (before Dong Tan Police box). The distance was about 3.5 kilometer. Next step was by telescopic survey from the site of dispute backward to the brass peg MSL C.B. 0029 at the distance of again 3.5 kilometer to recheck the precision of measurement. In each measured point, temporary B.M. or B.M.T had been marked all the way as requested by the observer of the litigants. Two sets of temporary M.T. were marked again in front of the Jomthien Beach exactly in front of the construction site after precise leveling equivalent process was carried out. One set was marked at the MSL of 0.00 meter and the other was marked at MSL of 1.4477 meter. Measurement of distance from the two marked point to the conflict building was recorded in the presence of both parties. The parties were satisfied with the process therefore accepted the execution method carried out by the Department of Public Works (Attachment 1 refers).

5. Execution results

The reading from telescopic survey process to identify MSL appeared in the horizontal line herewith attached (Attachment 2 refers) and from the examination on MSL, referred to in the Book printed in the memorial of the Meteorological Department on its 80th Anniversary Chapter 5 page 88, published on 10th January 2007 claimed that the MSL value equals to 0.00 meter. The MSL of 1.4477 meter is the reference MSL at Ko Lak area of Prachuab Khirikhan Province. This is the reference MSL used by the Ordnance Survey Department throughout the country by means of leveling transfer (Attachment 3 refers). Therefore, the measurement of MSL at the shoreline must be measured from MSL 0.00 seaward to the distance of 100 meter is the area for construction restriction appeared in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 applying to some areas of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua, and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521.

Where the measure from this point toward the land in front of the building construction for another 100 meter, the area shall be identified as the 200 meter restriction area for construction referred under Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (2521) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 governing restriction of construction of the building exceeding 14 meter from ground level. Measurement result is appeared in the attached map (Attachment 4 refers).

Report prepared by

Mr. Wattanachart Kajornsiri

Certified Correct Copy

Mrs. Suthida Chiengpongse

Administrative Case Officer “

How can anyone read Issue 9 and make this report? Look at what Issue 9 said “No 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map.......................at the seashore in which the following constructions shall not be built:” “Building of 14 meters higher than road level”

There is no where in Issue 9 it said to measure seaward 100 meters from MSL! Then to measure 100 meters from MSL onto the land. After which you add the two measurements together for a 200 meters measurement from the seashore at MSL. What was this man drinking?

If the so-called expert would go read the debate minutes then he would understand who to measure. Thankfully the Supreme Admin Court has a copy of these debate minutes taken while writing the regulation.

After being able to read the English translation of the Department of Public Works and Town & City Planning report to the court. I feel very confident about the up coming Supreme Admin Court decision!

[stopvt7]

Below is Minutes from “Meeting on the Drafting of Ministerial Regulation No. 8

“Meeting on the Drafting of Ministerial Regulation No. 8” (Which is part of Issue 9)

"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 ?

- 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.”

- 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.“

We are looking forward to the Administrative Supreme Court Decision!

[ripley]

If you're looking for these threads just type in to Google "Thai Condo Law 2008" or "Thai Condo Law text". Thai visa forum lists both

[Tammi]

If you're looking for these threads just type in to Google "Thai Condo Law 2008" or "Thai Condo Law text". Thai visa forum lists both

I have a b****r of a time searching for threads on ThaiVisa. I kept being told that words under 5 characters are not searchable.

[ripley]

I'd type in "google.com" - then "Thai visa forum thai condo law" or "Thai visa forum thai condo law text" & it would come up. Today the "text" comes up, but don't know what has become of our fledgling thread. It's gone. Don't know why. Anyone??

Edited July 18, 2008 by ripley

[stopvt7]

Below is a translation of VT7 motion filed in Rayong Admin Court which lifted the injunction. Please read this motion carefully!

“Motion

The Rayong Administrative Court

2 January 2008

Mr. Tenbuelt Aloysius Joannes Maria No. 1 and 9 Associates Litigants

Between

Pattaya City Local Official First Prosecuted Person

View Talay Jomthien Condominium Second Prosecuted Person

I, View Talay Jomthien Condominium (1999) Company Limited by Mr. Preecha Techamualvaivit, the authorized lawyer …………………………………………. of the Prosecuted Person 2 would file the motion as follows:

The inquiring process to all parties and witnesses – Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul and Mr. Wattachart Kajornsiri have been completed since 15 January 2007. The Court also sent the copy of the MOST URGENT letter reference Mor Tor 0710/9634 issued by the Department of Public Works and City & Town Planning to the parties.

Report of execution to Court Order that accomplished by the officials of the Department of Public Works and Town & City Planning from the central office, after which the results are as follows:

1. Measurement from shoreline at 0.00 MSL at the north side of the land of conflict towards the land mark foundation is 50.15 meter and if further measure into the land plot of another 49.85 meter the total distance will be 100 meter measured from the shoreline at MSL 0.00 at this side.

2. Measurement from the shoreline at 0.00 MSL at the south side of the land of conflict towards the land mark foundation is 49.60 meter and if further measured into the land plot of another 50.40 meter the total distance will be 100 meter measured from the shoreline at MSL 0.00 at this side.

3. The high-rise building line that will be constructed on the land of conflict towards the seaside by meter meters behind 100 meter line.

(Please see details in the enclosed map of measuring according to the Court Order)

As the measurement of 100 meter referred in No. 2 above, it is verified that the building in conflict is not built in the restricted area of 200 meter as prohibited by the Construction Permit No. 162/2550.”

What a very poorly written motion! Where is the BS phrase to measure a “100 meter into the sea from MSL”? This motion makes you think the lawyer does not understand Issue 9. This motion said they measured from the shoreline at MSL 100 meters. Issue 9 said to measure form the shoreline at MSL 200 meters. Some people reading this motion might think he was working for use.

Why did not our lawyer Amnat and Klemm of Asia LawWorks point out what the this motion was BS!

I feel better about the up come Admin Supreme Court decision! Thailand is a country of laws and the Judges of the Admin Supreme Court have been making very good decision.

Have you been reading the Bangkok papers?

Remember the Supreme Administrative Court decision from August 2007? I would of though the VT7 lawyer would have refreshed his memory by reading the case file before writing this above motion.

Read the previous decsion conclusion of the Supreme Administrative Court below:

“Nevertheless, where No. 3 (8) under the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 amended by 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 Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klue and Tambol Nhong Prue of Ampur Bang Lamung Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 on the seaside (shoreline) 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. Whilst the Administrative Court of First Instance ordered the provisional measure to cease construction before judgment, the building’s base rocks were built, the construction did not reach the height limit of 14 meter above the road surface. Where the Administrative Court of First Instance issued the order of provisional measure to effect temporary protection by ceasing the entire construction is, therefore, in excess of what reasonable under the circumstances.

The Supreme Court, therefore, gives an order to amend the order of the Administrative Court of First Instance. That the Defendant No. 2 shall cease the construction performed, under the Work Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2007, on the part exceeding 14 meter height. On a temporary basis until the Court has ordered otherwise.

Mr. Vorapoj Visarutpich ........ ......... ............. ..............

Judge of Supreme Administrative Court"

Do you think the co-call expert witness report and VT7 motion will change the Judges of the Supreme Administrative Court minds?

I feel great about the up come Supreme Administrative Court!

[Burgernev]

When is the next court date/decision due ?

Burgernev

[stopvt7]

When is the next court date/decision due ?

Burgernev

Dear Burgernev

I was told VT7 and Pattaya City Hall had 30 days from June 19 to answer our Supreme Administrative Court appeal. So next week our lawyers in Bangkok should receive copies of their answers. Then the court could take two plus months (a estimated guess) to issue their order.

[ripley]

STILL wondering what happened to Thai Condo Law thread that was beginning to show some promise. Can anyone from the Forum answer?

[Pattaya_Fox]

STILL wondering what happened to Thai Condo Law thread that was beginning to show some promise. Can anyone from the Forum answer?

The thread which you started is running Here in the Real Estate and Housing forum.

[prospero]

<br />

When is the next court date/decision due ?<br /><br />Burgernev

<br /><br /><b><font color="#000080">Dear Burgernev<br /><br />I was told VT7 and Pattaya City Hall had 30 days from June 19 to answer our Supreme Administrative Court appeal. So next week our lawyers in Bangkok should receive copies of their answers. Then the court could take two plus months (a estimated guess) to issue their order.<br /><br /></font></b><br />

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

Please let us know what City Hall says. I'm sure Amnat had a hand in drafting it.

[stopvt7]

I will get their replies translated!

Reading the Supreme Administrative Court decision one other thing came to my thoughts. That the last sentence "On a temporary basis until the Court has ordered otherwise." Was it a temporary basis because the Supreme Administrative Court didn't have enough facts to remove the building permit. They were not sure where the VT7 building located in relation to MSL. Now they know the MSL location from the building and VT7 is inside the 200 meter limit.

The Rayong court "ordered otherwise" by removing the injunction. Which the Supreme Administrative Court must have a big problem with that Rayong order. Because they ordered our appeal to be forward for their consideration.

One thing in life is for sure and that is it not nice to make a judge look wrong! Rayong judge made Bangkok Supreme Administrative Court judges look bad with their court order lifting the injunction. Bangkok Supreme Administrative Court already said the VT7 building looks illegal!

Edited July 19, 2008 by stopvt7

[jpm76]

I will get their replies translated!

Reading the Supreme Administrative Court decision one other thing came to my thoughts. That the last sentence "On a temporary basis until the Court has ordered otherwise." Was it a temporary basis because the Supreme Administrative Court didn't have enough facts to remove the building permit. They were not sure where the VT7 building located in relation to MSL. Now they know the MSL location from the building and VT7 is inside the 200 meter limit.

The Rayong court "ordered otherwise" by removing the injunction. Which the Supreme Administrative Court must have a big problem with that Rayong order. Because they ordered our appeal to be forward for their consideration.

One thing in life is for sure and that is it not nice to make a judge look wrong! Rayong judge made Bangkok Supreme Administrative Court judges look bad with their court order lifting the injunction. Bangkok Supreme Administrative Court already said the VT7 building looks illegal!

StopVT7, I see that you continue to post and repost the same old arguments, represent personal opinions as facts, and completely

ignoring the other sides interpretations. I will await your translations and then use them as fire starter paper as I know that your English is such that I feel that I may have as good a crack at trnslating the Thai myself. You do not understand English, and therefore you fail to understand the subleties of the arguments as they are provided in English or Thai. So much for you being the only one with grey matter...

VT7 is at the 200m limit of Issue 9 when you take into account that they are 100m plus the 100m in the sea. It has never been about measuring out to sea and then measuring back onto the land. The point was that the measurement of 200m begins at the point 100m out at sea as the Issue 9 tried to prevent building in the sea as many other countries have done. Measuring 200m from here, you get to the 100m mark where VT7 is.

Now, if you happen to find any who agree with you, just like if we find any who agree with us, it will be because our INTERPRETATION of the amibiguity of these laws falls on one side or the other. The Rayong Court agrees with our interpretation, and you tend to believe that the Supreme Court agrees with your interpretation (this I cannot verify at all because all I saw from the ocuments provided by you is that the Supreme Court overthrew the negation of you ever appealing it stating that you have a right to appeal. You imply that this means that they support you, but I see it as they believe in your right to appeal, as they should. They have not made any decision yet, and they will no doubt need to take a deeper look at all the facts shortly, and this is why it was a temporary order. Currently however, against your stated fact that "Now they know where the MSL is, and that VT7 is within the 200m limit", you have the order of Rayong stating that VT7 is just outside the 200m limit form the construction control line (as stated upon the map in Issue 9), and that therefore the Suprmem Courts does not know that VT7 is within the 200m limit if Issue 9. This is an example of how you take facts, and then without the grey matter required to apply clear unbias logic, fail in drawing the conclusion. Perhaps you are correct in that the Supreme Court's final INTERPRETATION (because the judicial is also known as the interpretative power) will agree with yours, but you dance your celebration victory far too early, and I would argue should still recognise that you are nowhere close, but rather one stop form being eliminated form the game. You remind like the frog being eaten by the stork, but yet in a last desperate lunge of life, manage to get a hold of the stork neck, and you think that you have saved yourself and now are about to give the stork a beating (whilst only your hands around its neck stops you from being dinner). ie You are still looking down the barrel of a gun at this point, but yet you continue your propaganda as if you are the victor. This is how funny you are.

Let me clarify and put things into perspective for you (since you seem to be heavily deluded). You have only earned the right to an appeal, and nothing that you have shown me demonstrates that the Supreme Court will vote one way or the other... I hope that they have yet to make any decision as that would be as premature as your victory march. Supreme Court did not say that the bulding was illegal... they said (as per your translation provided) "IF", and previous posters have pointed this out to you. Now

"IF" in the English language is not a definite judgement at all, but rather of a "conditional" nature, and therefore, they have not passed any judgements as to who is right or wrong. I know that this is a waste of time writing to you (not that I am writing to you but rather your public that you continue to throw your one sided BS at), but if you do not understand the meaning of such small words as "IF", how can you be relied upon to provide translations or make any determinations around anything written in English?

Ripley's posts were very relevant as they gave evidence that your "facts" around the JCC internal matters were actually lies (ie that you had full support of all JCC owners and that they were willing to pay for your personal court actions), and that you condone abuses of powers when it helps you (ie when JCC forces all condo owners to pay for your actions). In my eyes, based upon the type of character you have shown, and the way that you are blind to all but your ends ie propaganda, you have absolutely not one shred of credibility to stand on. If this were a personal matter, I am sure that you would be the laughing stock of Thailand, but you are fortunate that others are also affected, and that you can find other causes such as beaches etc to find supporters frm other parts.

Some of your evidence is worthy of note, but since you only post the evidence in the light that you want others to believe it, it is hard to trust anything that comes from you because experience has furnished us all that StopVT7 is the most dangerous type to be believed.

But bring on your translations, but also remember what others have told you along the way about presenting evidence in its proper context because we have caught you several times of trying to twist certain statements, and pulling them out of all context to actually make them appear as if they are written to the other sides benefit.

Thanks for the photo. I note that I will have some lovely seaviews when this project finally is built. This is because the land in front of you was purchased, and no more would I expect to have ocean front views if I only paid for land with views several blocks back in Thailand, as I would any other country. Whilst you may be certain that you have the correct interpretation in this case, it has also been pointed out that a whole range of buildings exist within this 100m/200m zone all up the coast. Where was StopVT7, our ardent beach lover then, I wonder?

Onto the supreme courts then and them being given the opportunity to present the full evidence.

BTW, Tammi, do you really believe that VT7 investors will get there money back (with interest as per the contracts)? If they are as pervasive as all have suggested, then we could only dream as the VT7 corporation would simply claim bankruptcy (and every project has a separate corporation for its building projects so that they are independent of one another), but first I have not given up on the fact that this building has not been declared illegal at any point yet, despite all of StopVT7's clamouring. There are actually strong cases also that show that this building is exactly at the point closest to the beach that it can be built, but rather than launching an internet crusade to any who will listen, I will just wait for the courts to decide, and hope that they continue in the stream that they have been ruling and put StopVT7 to rest once and for all, for my own personal good, but also the good of Thailand overall.

In the meantime I will continue to take StopVT7's posts with a grain of salt and wonder what he will come up with next. I have never in my own life seen such a blatant effort in completely misconstruing facts, twisting all views out of proportion, and then, when everything around them continues to suggest that they are wrong, can still muster up energies to suggest victory is at hand. Certainly it looks better for him now that the Supreme Court has granted him a right to appeal, but this should have been expected given the scope of this case and its ability to affect a much larger portion of Thailand.

One of the cornerstores of our civil society has to be the ability to debate disagreements in a rational and fair manner, and whilst StopVT7 has shown at times the ability to do this (ie there is actually grey matter (as he terms it there), the bulk of his posts are heavily biased (unfair), irrational and contorted beyond all reliance for third parties. readers would be best served by just waiting for the court decision, which whilst we (VT7 investors) appear to be holding the bulk of trump cards by having the current legal determinations in our favour, I still recognise that this could fall either way yet.

[marekm1]

Any judge, who rules against VT7 has to know that there are 50+ buildings, which are against stopVT7 law. There are all in danger to be destroyed. That will never happens. Nobody going to destroy half of the buildings in Pattaya to protect the sea view of one crazy farang. I don’t see any protest against Pattaya shopping centre, which is against StopVT7 law. This huge project has to be stopped if StopVT7 rules. Fortunately he can bully and extort money from the committee of JCC but he cannot change the thought of Thai law.

VT7 will be build like any other project along Pattaya coast line.

[jpm76]

Any judge, who rules against VT7 has to know that there are 50+ buildings, which are against stopVT7 law. There are all in danger to be destroyed. That will never happens. Nobody going to destroy half of the buildings in Pattaya to protect the sea view of one crazy farang. I don't see any protest against Pattaya shopping centre, which is against StopVT7 law. This huge project has to be stopped if StopVT7 rules. Fortunately he can bully and extort money from the committee of JCC but he cannot change the thought of Thai law.

VT7 will be build like any other project along Pattaya coast line.

I just checked out StopVT7's website, and readers here will find this funny given that StopVT7 has continually rebutted all our arguments that his claims to be protecting other than his own interests are BS. He would have us believe that he is doing all this for saving the beaches, and yet, on his own website I find this comment "We are only concerned with the land in front and the side of JCC condos". What happened to your crusade about saving the beaches StopVT7? I know that that only came in well into the debate, but you have made several posts now that you are doing this for Thailand, but I do not see how protecting only the land in front and the side of JCC helps Thailand more than it heps you. More BS

Also I thought it funny that there seemed to be more blog posts telling Richard to give it up, calling him a sore loser and asking him how he thought that everyone else could be wrong. In one posts dated January 28, an anonymous poster wrote "Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. The worst losers are the ones who keep stating they were right, while everybody know they are wrong".

For the record, it is the first time that I have ever seen this website, and I have never posted there at all. I just thought it interesting that whist StopVT7 virtually controls this post, on his own website, there is a lot more oppostion to him telling him to virtualy wake up and smell the coffee. The coffee smell is that not everyone in Thailand is corrupt, paid off (and his charges have been against experts, his own lawyers who lost his case, even former JCC committees for not listening to him) as StopVT7 has constantly claimed, but rather that StopVT7 is just wrong and cannot admit it to himself or those who have supported him.

For those who have continued to support StopVT7, I suggest hat you do your own research about Issue 9 - it is 200m from the construction control line. StopVT7 continues to hold that it is the MSL limit, but the law states the construction control line. If you do the research on the construction control line, it appears to be different from the MSL, and should therefore force Richard that he should not be 100% convinced he is right (particularly since everyone of import has sided against him including the most recent court decision, not counting the order for his right to appeal ie not that he is right, but only a right to have an appeal heard). Richard thinks not, and laughs at any who do not agree with him, but I have made my points about his character flaws in this whole affair. I am not interested in attacking his character anymore other that I am interested in showing showing people that he is just spouting propaganda against all the flow of events in this case - he has had to rely upon misinformation and distortion to keep his case alive, but I think that things will come home to roost. I am just sad to hear that they somehow have forced JCC owners to pay the cost of his continuing legal actions now (unless they legally challenge this abuse of power). Richard has always held it was done with JCC owners support and implicit permission, but we have heard from JCC owners (including Ripley who supports his overall cause but have provided us with information as to the real facts surrounding how the JCC levy would be forced upon JCC owners ie without any real chance of opposing it), and learned that it was virtually passed silently and that they were informed, not asked to vote at all. For me the irony is that they are doing to JCC owners what they are claiming is being done to them ie abuses of power/corruption. Apart from the evidence suppied others, I have not independenty verified any of this, but I smelled a rat when the JCC levied the StopVT7 8 member litigant costs upon the other owners who chose not to support the action with any hard cash. It seems that they are being forced to pay it anyway because the current JCC board has made a charge on all owners (I believe that JCC is covering its own hide from the fact that they explicitly told JCC owners that nothing would be built on the and that they sold to VT7 - why woud VT7 buy it if they did not pan to build upon it I wonder...what did JCC think that VT7 would do with the land?) If JCC took a simiar interpretation to the law as StopVT7 himself has, why should JCC condo owners have to pay for it?

[Tammi]

jpm76, I know I shouldn't be nasty but I really, really hope that someone builds an entertainment complex with 100 floor hotel/condo in the sea right in front of you. And don't think it can't happen - that's what condos outside the 200 meters thought.

Edited July 21, 2008 by Tammi

[dsfbrit]

jpm76, I know I shouldn't be nasty but I really, really hope that someone builds an entertainment complex with 100 floor hotel/condo in the sea right in front of you. And don't think it can't happen - that's what condos outside the 200 meters thought.

I am inclined to sympathise with StopVT7 as well. StopVT7 may or not have a valid argument, to be honest this has all got so complicated it is hard to tell who is 'right', but at least he is standing up for what he believes in.

Nowadays, this sort of determination (should I say courage ?) in the face of massive opposition, is rare and should be applauded.

[prospero]

<br />

<font face="Calibri"><font size="3">Any judge, who rules against VT7 has to know that there are 50+ buildings, which are against stopVT7 law. There are all in danger to be destroyed. That will never happens. Nobody going to destroy half of the buildings in Pattaya to protect the sea view of one crazy farang. I don't see any protest against Pattaya shopping centre, which is against StopVT7 law. This huge project has to be stopped if StopVT7 rules. Fortunately he can bully and extort money from the committee of JCC but he cannot change the thought of Thai law.</font></font><br /><br /><font face="Calibri"><font size="3">VT7 will be build like any other project along Pattaya coast line.</font></font>

<br /><br />I just checked out StopVT7's website, and readers here will find this funny given that StopVT7 has continually rebutted all our arguments that his claims to be protecting other than his own interests are BS. He would have us believe that he is doing all this for saving the beaches, and yet, on his own website I find this comment "We are only concerned with the land in front and the side of JCC condos". What happened to your crusade about saving the beaches StopVT7? I know that that only came in well into the debate, but you have made several posts now that you are doing this for Thailand, but I do not see how protecting only the land in front and the side of JCC helps Thailand more than it heps you. More BS<br /><br />Also I thought it funny that there seemed to be more blog posts telling Richard to give it up, calling him a sore loser and asking him how he thought that everyone else could be wrong. In one posts dated January 28, an anonymous poster wrote "Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. The worst losers are the ones who keep stating they were right, while everybody know they are wrong".<br /><br />For the record, it is the first time that I have ever seen this website, and I have never posted there at all. I just thought it interesting that whist StopVT7 virtually controls this post, on his own website, there is a lot more oppostion to him telling him to virtualy wake up and smell the coffee. The coffee smell is that not everyone in Thailand is corrupt, paid off (and his charges have been against experts, his own lawyers who lost his case, even former JCC committees for not listening to him) as StopVT7 has constantly claimed, but rather that StopVT7 is just wrong and cannot admit it to himself or those who have supported him.<br /><br />For those who have continued to support StopVT7, I suggest hat you do your own research about Issue 9 - it is 200m from the construction control line. StopVT7 continues to hold that it is the MSL limit, but the law states the construction control line. If you do the research on the construction control line, it appears to be different from the MSL, and should therefore force Richard that he should not be 100% convinced he is right (particularly since everyone of import has sided against him including the most recent court decision, not counting the order for his right to appeal ie not that he is right, but only a right to have an appeal heard). Richard thinks not, and laughs at any who do not agree with him, but I have made my points about his character flaws in this whole affair. I am not interested in attacking his character anymore other that I am interested in showing showing people that he is just spouting propaganda against all the flow of events in this case - he has had to rely upon misinformation and distortion to keep his case alive, but I think that things will come home to roost. I am just sad to hear that they somehow have forced JCC owners to pay the cost of his continuing legal actions now (unless they legally challenge this abuse of power). Richard has always held it was done with JCC owners support and implicit permission, but we have heard from JCC owners (including Ripley who supports his overall cause but have provided us with information as to the real facts surrounding how the JCC levy would be forced upon JCC owners ie without any real chance of opposing it), and learned that it was virtually passed silently and that they were informed, not asked to vote at all. For me the irony is that they are doing to JCC owners what they are claiming is being done to them ie abuses of power/corruption. Apart from the evidence suppied others, I have not independenty verified any of this, but I smelled a rat when the JCC levied the StopVT7 8 member litigant costs upon the other owners who chose not to support the action with any hard cash. It seems that they are being forced to pay it anyway because the current JCC board has made a charge on all owners (I believe that JCC is covering its own hide from the fact that they explicitly told JCC owners that nothing would be built on the and that they sold to VT7 - why woud VT7 buy it if they did not pan to build upon it I wonder...what did JCC think that VT7 would do with the land?) If JCC took a simiar interpretation to the law as StopVT7 himself has, why should JCC condo owners have to pay for it?<br />

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

I don't know which is worse -- VT7's dyslexic incoherence or JPM76 pretentious, tedious verbosity. Both you guys need an editor or a basic writing course.

[OhdLover]

jpm76, I know I shouldn't be nasty but I really, really hope that someone builds an entertainment complex with 100 floor hotel/condo in the sea right in front of you. And don't think it can't happen - that's what condos outside the 200 meters thought.

Thanks Tammi, for taking another step. No that you agree VT7 wil be built, you may dream about another complex in front of us.

Once that will happen, you may laugh. By the way, VT7 never guaranteed me my seaview, I didnt even ask for it.

So if your entertainment complex will be built, I wont even go to court. I have better things to do than losing time, money and face.

But I am very happy you agree that this thread can be closed. Respect!

[OhdLover]

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.

To stopvt7

You talked about your character flaws being dyslexic and a eccentric personally! Not a bad combination to lead a fight to enforce a Thai law. Keep up the good work!

I see you now have a third screen name. I guess you are the only one who support Issue 9 so you keep adding screen names? OhdLover get a life!

Back to my vacation.

????? You agree with me and the say "get a life"?????? Please explain how you can contradict yourself in 1 post.....