Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

Wiresok · July 23, 2008

Nothing changed there then Thaibob.

For your argument to be plausible then you have to believe the lawmakers intended issue 9 to allow you to build closer to the sea than issue 8.

Are you really putting your name to that,its the result of your argument, like it or not..

Also do you really believe that the lawmakers intended issue 9 to prohibit these specific buildings 100m out in the sea.

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.

Are you really putting your name to that and believing that was the intention,like it or not its the result of your argument.

Its nonsense, and your argument is very lame when put alongside the stop vt 7 argument, but you are entitled to your view.

Clearly, the SC knows where the mistakes are being made in this matter, and you go ask the Rayong court whether they feel admonished or not ! not once but twice.

The people taking all the risks with this are city hall and vt7, stop vt7 and JCC have nothing to lose, but everything to gain.

ripley · July 24, 2008

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe stopvt7.blogspot.com was at pains to explain that the SC ruling will be only on whether or not JCC can appeal to have the injunction replaced on VT7 until the Rayong Court makes its final decision on the entire case. The SC is not hearing the full case, only this aspect. And what people are waiting for in terms of an answer is the Rayong court decision. What the SC does can give "inklings" of what might happen, but no more at this stage.

ThaiBob · July 24, 2008

Nothing changed there then Thaibob.
For your argument to be plausible then you have to believe the lawmakers intended issue 9 to allow you to build closer to the sea than issue 8.

Are you really putting your name to that,its the result of your argument, like it or not..

Also do you really believe that the lawmakers intended issue 9 to prohibit these specific buildings 100m out in the sea.

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.

Are you really putting your name to that and believing that was the intention,like it or not its the result of your argument.

Its nonsense, and your argument is very lame when put alongside the stop vt 7 argument, but you are entitled to your view.

Clearly, the SC knows where the mistakes are being made in this matter, and you go ask the Rayong court whether they feel admonished or not ! not once but twice.

The people taking all the risks with this are city hall and vt7, stop vt7 and JCC have nothing to lose, but everything to gain.

We just see things differently. You and stopVT7 can try to argue what the "lawmakers intended" all day long (e.g., taking text of meeting minutes of Issue 8 out of context) perhaps that is the latest ploy since the 200 meter measurement battle has been lost. What we do know about "intent" is Issue 9 expanded the 200 meter restricted construction zone as represented by the often referred to "annexed map". StopVT7 lawyers went to great lengths to try and explain the CCL on the map with arguments about prohibiting buildings into the sea (which you mock). There have been also been posts w/pics showing buildings built into the sea. I'll stick with my "lame" argument which is supported by the Issue 9 map, the Bangkok Dept. of Engineering report, expert witness testimony all of which is nicely summarized in the latest Supreme Court document, Thank You.

Admonish to me means to rebuke or reprimand. I don't think the Rayong Court feels "admonished".

lookat · July 24, 2008

Dear ripley

I think you were reading the wrong appeal!

The Appeal to Supreme Court of Administration is below:

"Appeal the order of lifting the injunction

or the protection procedure

Number of Black Type Case: 54 /25 50?

to minimize injurious consequences Number of Red Type Case: /25___

Supreme Court of Administration

Date 15 February 16, 2008.

Mr. Tenblue A. J. Maria #1st, with the associates of 9 Plaintiff

Between

The Pattaya City Hall # 1 and the associates all are 2 persons The Plaint receiver

I, hereby, The Plaintiff: Mr. Tenblue A. J. Maria # 1st with the associates of 9, would like to appeal: the order of the Administrative Court of Rayong province, given on 16 January 2008, with the following statements and matters ( the clarifications of objections of the decision or the order of the Administrative court )

1. This case, On 16 January 2008 The Administrative court of Rayong province ordered to lift the injunction / or cancel the procedure of protection to temporally minimize the injurious consequences, which was the order for the 2nd Plaint Receiver to stop building the construction higher than 14 meters from road surfaces, until final judgment, as in the petition of the 2nd Plaint receiver on 2 January 2008. The Administrative court of Rayong province made its decision by referring to " Section 77 of the Minutes of the Grand Meeting of Administration officers of Supreme Administrative Court, governing the Administrative Procedures of B.E. 2543, stipulated to bring statements which are written as in TYPE 1 - DIVISION 4 under the Civil Procedure Code, to enforce with the standard for consideration the request / the conditions of court's order /and results of the order which enforcing certain protection procedures in order to minimize the injurious consequences before judgment / or the protection procedure for the benefit of petitioners while the case is on trail / or for enforcing to follow the decision, by adapting to the status as possible as it is available and capable in the case, without violating this regulations / and general laws relating to Administrative consideration procedures / and Article 262, Phrase 1 of Civil Procedure Code, which stipulated that "If the fact or circumstance which used by the court as the guidance for considering on granting the requested on the protection procedure has changed, when the court considers that it's suitable / or when the request was submitted by the Defendants or Plaint receivers or the outsiders as clarified in Article 261, to the court where in the course of trial, the court can reconsider / or cancel the former procedure or order. In this case, the court order to set up the protection procedure to minimize the injurious consequences before judgment, granted the request of 10 Plaintiffs, with prior reason which stated that "In For court's consideration, it is necessary for the court to make the inspections carefully in order to determine the starting point of the measurement in accordance with Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) / AND to see if the distance from the dispute building to the spot as mentioned is in violation to the distance stipulated by law. But by the measurement conducted by the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning which ordered by court, the facts appeared in the report, and the testimony of witness that, the dispute building is more than 100 meters from the Mean Sea Level ( MSL ), which the court is of the opinion that, if the measurement was made from the building control area shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 – Controlling over the region of Banglamung / Naklua / Nong Plalai / Nongprue Sub-districts of Chonburi province, which by another 100 meters further away in the sea from the MSL, as shown in the map annexed to the aforesaid Royal Decree and as testified by the witness, the dispute building would also be over 200 meter from the building control area as referred by the aforesaid Ministerial Regulations. Therefore, the fact of which used by the court to order the injunction / or the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment as requested by 10 Litigants of this case has changed / and there is not enough suitable reasons to support the aforesaid protection procedure to be continued placing.

The court ordered to lift the injunction / or the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment, which originally was the order to stop the 2nd Plaint Receiver from building the construction higher than 14 meters from road surfaces, until the final decision / or the different order is made and given."

With respect to the order of Administrative court of Rayong province, 9 Litigants, however are in disagreement with the order which given by the court, because in the state of enquiries/ interpretations / enforcing the law for controlling constructions, in accordance with the law controlling the aforesaid order given by court, however, there still are mistakes and errors in many points of facts and matters of laws, which will be offer to the consideration of the Supreme Court of Administration in this appeal.

9 Litigants understand that, the order given on 16 January 2008, by the Administrative Court of Rayong province, to lift the injunction or the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment IS NOT THE REJECTION or DISMISSAL of the petition of 9 Litigants which requested the court to order for the injunction or the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment which is stipulated to be the supreme order, and this order is not opened for further appeal to be submitted in court, referring to Section 76 of Minutes of the Grand Meeting of Administration officers of Supreme Administrative Court, governing The Administrative Procedures of B.E. 2543. But the aforesaid order is considered as another type of order which is open for an appeal while the case is on trial, referring to Section 100, Phrase 2 of the aforesaid regulations, which 9 Litigants, in the capacities of interested person, hold the right to appeal the aforesaid order within the limitation of 30 days, from the day of receiving the order from Administrative Court of Rayong province, by Section 49 / 1 of the same regulations.

2. 9 Litigants need to appeal the order of lifting the injunction / or the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment given on 16 January 2008 to the Supreme Court of Administration, with reasons, facts and matters of laws as follow;

By the order of Administrative Court of Rayong province, to lift the injunction / or the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment given on 16 January 2008, by using the facts from the report of the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning / and the testimony of the witness, summarized that The Construction Control Line shown in the annexed map of the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 – Controlling over the region of Banglamung / Naklua / Nong Plalai / Nongprue Sub-districts of Chonburi province, The B.E. 2521 is the distance of 100 meters further into the sea from the MSL, and when the measurement conducted as ordered from court from the MSL onto the land for another 100 meters, the fact of the result of measurement appealed in the report of the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning / and the testimony of the witness, stated that, the dispute building is more than 100 meters from the MSL, and the court considered that, if the measurement is made from the Construction Control Area, as shown in the map annexed to the aforesaid Royal Decree, which is at the furthest end of 100 meters in the sea, from the shoreline at MSL as shown in the annexed map and as testified by the witness, the dispute building would also be over 200 meter from the building control area as referred by the Section 3 of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ), which buildings over 14 meters from road surfaces are also not permitted to be constructed as mentioned. Therefore, the facts of which used by court to order the injunction / or the protection procedure to temporally minimize injurious consequences before judgment as requested by 10 Litigants of this case have changed / and there were not enough suitable reasons to support the aforesaid protection procedure to be further on. The Administrative Court of Rayong province, however, had finally ordered to revoke / lift the injunction or / the protection procedure to temporally minimize injurious consequences before judgment as mentioned.

9 Litigants need to point out to The Supreme Court of Administration that, the aforesaid decision given by the Administrative Court of Rayong province, based on the enquiry of facts/ interpretation and enforcing law in order to control the involved constructions, in the way to be contrary to the intentions / or purposes of law………………., and it has impact /negative effects to the benefit of 10 Litigants and public in order to maintain the qualities of environment, as the following clarifications;

2.1 To interpret for enforcing the law for controlling constructions, in accordance with The Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521), must considerer the intentions and purposes of laws which are involved with one another. The law using to control over the regions of Banglamung / Naklua / Nong Plalai / Nongprue Sub-districts of Chonburi province, had been stipulated in order to mark the construction control area for the first time, which was The Ministerial Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ) by using the reasons /or another words / it's the intention of promulgating the aforesaid regulations, it states that, The intention of promulgating the aforesaid Regulations was " as the Royal Decree promulgating The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, controlling over some areas of Banglamung / Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district of Chonburi province B.E. 2499, and the area as mentioned are public attractions for taking an airing, it's suitable to prohibit certain types of constructions which may cause troubles / disturbance and create waste / and ruin the environment, therefore, this Regulations was in need to be issued.

Later on 31 December 2521, the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9( B.E. 2521 ) had been promulgated, with reasons that "Because there was the adjustment of the construction control area in the regions of Banglamung / Naklua / and Nongprue Sub-districts of Chonburi province, by expanding the area, as shown in the annexed map of the Royal Decree Promulgating The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, controlling over the areas of Banglamung / Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district of Chonburi province B.E. 2521, it is suitable to make an amendment to the Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), prescribed in accordance with The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, governing the certain types of buildings which are prohibited to be constructed within the construction control area, referring to the aforesaid Royal Decree, in order to be more suitable, therefore, this Regulations was in needed to be issued.

The reason for promulgating the Royal Decree, stipulated to use the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, to control over the regions of Banglamung / Naklua / Nong Plalai / Nongprue Sub-districts of Chonburi province, had been "in according to the expansion of constructions in the areas of Banglamung / Naklua / Nong Plalai / Nongprue Sub-districts of Chonburi province, and some constructions were not controlled by the Construction Control Acts, because the construction control area, as shown in the annexed map of the Royal Decree promulgating the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479 to control over the regions of Banglamung / Naklua / and Nongprue Sub-districts of Chonburi province B.E. 2499, did not cover the aforesaid areas of construction, it's needed to make the amendment to the aforesaid Royal Decree, by expanding the area, especially the areas by the beaches, in order for the local officers to be able to proceed by the law, therefore, this Royal Decree is in need to be stipulated."

The way of drafting the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), the drafter must analyze the reasons of law, this is counted to be the priority in enforcing the law, because it is the searching procedure to find the reason of the law, which stipulated to find the fact why the Ministerial Regulation of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ) was issued in such a way and what reason it was for, whether it was appropriate and how appropriate it was. For the law to be enforced, following the intention of law that empowered to be used, therefore, when there was the meeting to draft the Ministerial Regulation of Issue 8( B.E. 2519 ), from the office of Royal Decree stated that " The area of 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map, from the sea onto the land shall not be permitted to construct the following types of buildings"

………(8) Buildings with the height of 14 meters

Later on, there was the further amendment to cut out the phrase "onto the land" since the wording was clearly understood, then the following phrase 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 to be constructed". The meeting approved the aforesaid draft of the Ministerial Regulation, because of the reason to protect the area by the shore, by controlling the constructions which may impact the seas and beaches: details as shown in the attachment of the appeal No:1 – The Meeting of Drafting of the Ministerial Regulation of Issue8 ( B.E. 2519 )

Therefore, the intention or purpose of The Ministerial Regulation of Issue 8 is "to fix the 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore onto the land that the type of building of No. 3 ( 1 ) – ( 8 ) are not permitted to be con-structed, in accordance with the Ministerial Regulation of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), which stated that….Because the aforesaid areas are public attractions for taking an airing, it's suitable to prohibit certain types of constructions which may cause troubles and disturbance and create waste and may destroy the environment.

Leter on, there was the adjustment of the construction control area in the regions of Banglamung / Naklua / and Nongprue Sub-districts of Chonburi province, by expanding the area, as shown in the annexed map of the Royal Decree Promulgating The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, controlling over the areas of Banglamung / Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district of Chonburi province B.E. 2521, it is suitable to make an amendment to the Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), to be more suitable, therefore, The Ministerial Regulation of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) was promulgated, shown in the remark section, on the attached map of Ministerial Regulation of Issue 9, and therefore, the provision of both Ministerial Regulations are in accordance with one another, / or the procedures are connect with one another, so they were always mentioned of / or used as references in parts of their regulations.

The intention or purpose to promulgate the Ministerial Regulation of Issue 9 (B.E. 2521)

is to expand the control area for constructions in Banglamung / Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district, Bang-lamung District of Chonburi Province, which are the public attractions for taking an airing or holiday, by in the Regulations of Issue 9 fixes the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map of the Royal Degree of B.E. 2521, at the sea shore that types of buildings of NO. 3 ( 1 ) – ( 8 ) shall not be permitted to be constructed. When it is needed to ?? interpreted to be in accord with the intention or purpose of the Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), the expansion made from 100 to 200 meters must be expanded the distance at the sea shore onto the land, in order to protect those areas from the prohibited constructions, in accordance with the provisions of Issue 8 and 9, to be more suitable and appropriate. Plus the reason of promulgating of the Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ) is Because some areas of Banglamung / Naklua and Nongprue sub-district of Banglamung District of Chonburi province are public attractions for taking an airing or holiday, it's suitable to prohibit certain types of constructions which may cause troubles and disturbance and create waste and may destroy the environment, therefore, this regulations was needed to be issued, by No. 3 stated to fix 100 meters from the

construction control line, shown on the annexed map of the Royal Decree Promulgating The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, control over the regions of Banglamung / Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district of Banglamung district of Chonburi province of B.E. 2499, at the sea shore, to be the prohibited areas for the following types of constructions:

1. Oil, Gasoline storage and distribution area

2. Entertainment Halls

3. Shop houses

4. Shop buildings

5. Fresh food market6.Cars or motorcycles garage of fixing or air compressing spray

7. Products storage

8. Tall building with the height over 14 meters

According to the Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) on section 3. (1 ) – ( 8 ) stipulated To prohibid all 8 types of constructions as same as the Regulation of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ) with the reason of The promulgation of the Regulation of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) was " because there was the adjustment on the construction control area in Banglamung/ Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district by expand out of the area / making an expansion to be wider…."

The word " wide " means by the meaning marked in the dictionary of B.E. 2542 that to

expand / spread / stretch i.e. the wide area The word " out " means movement that move to outside, starting or happening i.e. the transportations departure.

The word " off / go " means movement that move from the place, use this word in opposite with " in / come "

9 Litigants need to explain to the court the meaning of the words "wide", "out" and "off" which stipulated in the remark section of the Regulation of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) to be the words to fix the true meanings of hose words, by covering the meaning of expanding the area or space out to expand the construction control area. If these words are used to interpret the regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ),

therefore the meaning will be the expansion of the construction control area, refer to section 3. ( 1 ) – ( 8 ), from 100 meters to be 200 meters, so the expansion must have been made from the sea shore onto the land , details shown in the attachment No.2: The copy of the meaning of these words written in the dictionary of B.E. 2542.

And with the consideration of the types of building which are under control of the section 3 . ( 1 ) – ( 8 ) of the Regulations of Issue 8 and 9 as mentioned, it shown that all types of buildings are the types of building that needed to be built on land , certainly NOT in the sea, therefore, there is no reason to interpret the phrase "expand wider ", shown in the remark section of the Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) that to expand the construction control area in to the sea. Because it will make the construction control area become the non-operative, refer to the intention or purpose of the aforesaid Regulations. So the interpretation of the Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ), section 3, which stipulated to fix 200 meters…….. would be the expansion of the construction control area, section 3. ( 1 ) – ( 8 ) from the sea shore on to the land for 100 meters wider to be 200 meters. The distance of 100 meters which expanding the construction control area in to the sea has not been stipulated in any Regulations, in order to control the constructions which is needed to be built specially in the sea, which the Ministry of the Interior will further stipulate this

matters in order to control certain types of constructions within 100 meters out in to the sea in the future, to be suitable and appropriate to the future situation.

Therefore, the decision agreed with the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning of the Administrative Court of Rayong province, which interpreted that " The Construction Control Area at the sea shore" is the line measured from the sea shore at the MSL out in to the sea for 100 meters, therefore, the Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ), stipulated following The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, section 3, fixes the area within 200 meters, by measuring from the construction control area, shown on the annexed map of the Royal Decree of B.E. 2479 at the sea shore, to be the prohibit area for the building with the height over 14 meters, therefore, the measurement is made from the aforesaid Construction Control Line at the sea shore ONTO the land for 200 meters, will be the MSL + 0.00 and carry on ONTO the land for another 100 meters.

Therefore, it was contrary to the intentions and purposes of laws effected by the result from the inquiry for hearing of facts / interpretation and enforcing law which verify and protect, for controlling involving constructions, and the law is unable to be used in reality for the protection of public benefit, as pointing out to the consideration of the Supreme Court of Administration as above.

2.2 Plus the interpretation of The Construction Control Area of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) which taken by the court from the report of the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning, including the testimony of the witness, which said that the dispute building is more than 100 meters from the MSL, and which was the reason for the cancellation of the injunction / or the order to have the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment, which was the order for the 2nd Plaint Receiver to stop its construction of the building over 14 meters high until the final decision is made, made the Construction Control Area of Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) narrower for 11 meters than the Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), and it allowed the constructions over 14 meters high to be built closer to the sea, against the intention of the law, as the following details:

9 Litigants would like to explain to the court that, " the point to start measuring,

referring to the Ministerial of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), stated in accordance with the The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, Section 3., which stated that " To fix the area of 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map of the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, to control the areas of Banglamung / Naklua and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District of Chonburi Province of B.E. 2499, at the sea shore, to be the prohibited areas for the following descriptions of constructions……(8) Buildings with the height of 14 meters "

And by the Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ), stated in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, Section 3., which stated that " To fix the area of 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map of the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, to control the areas of Banglamung / NONG PLALAI / Naklua and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District of Chonburi Province of B.E. 2499, at the sea shore, to be the prohibited areas for the following descriptions of constructions……(8) Buildings with the height of 14 meters "

The measurement points stipulated in both Regulations were not the same point, by the letter which made by MR. SUPOHN PONGTHATPAT, who was sent on behalf of the Director – General of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning, submitted to the Administrative Court of Rayong Province, written that " 2. The distance of 100 meters, by Section 3 of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), stipulated in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, and the distance of 200 meters by Section 3 of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ), stipulated in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479 ARE NOT THE SAME LINE, because the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ) did not stipulate to measure at the MSL, but the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) stipulated to measure at the MSL, details as shown in the attachment NO. 3: The letter which was "Most Urgent" Report Ref. Mor Tor 0710/9634 dated 19 December 2007 of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning, Subject: Requesting for the testimonyThe aforesaid explanation of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning showed that The Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), meant to measure from the coast line, means at high tide, but Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) is to measure at the MSL. This means the measurement points of both Regulations are not the same point.

The Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), meant to measure from the coast line as mentioned to the Administrative Court as Rayong Province, which the 1st Plaint Receiver had inspected the dispute building of the 2nd Plaint Receiver, it showed that the coast line ( High Tide ) was 39 meters from the land, details as shown in the letter of Pattaya City Hall, by the Mayor to Secretary of the Environmental and Surroundings Planning Office, Dated on 5 April 2007, which was used by the 1st Plaintiff as the attachment for its testimonial dated on 19 July 2007, No 13 in order, which 9 Litigants need to appoint this document to be the attachment NO. 4.

The report of the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning, dated on 18 December 2007 wrote that "…. The coast line at the MSL must be measured at the Mean Sea Level of 0.00 meters, and when measure out 100 meters into the sea will be the construction control are, referring to the annexed map of the Royal Decree of B.E. 2479, to control the areas of Banglamung / Nong Plalai / Nongprue Sub-Districts of Banglamung District of Chonburi Province of B.E. 2521, and the measurement is made from the aforesaid point ONTO the land to reach the beginning of the building for another 100 meter, it will be the distance of The Construction Control Area of 200 Meters, referring to Section 3 of The Regulations of Issue 8, which was amended and added by the Issue 9 of B.E. 2521, stipulated in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, which prohibit the constructions over 14 meters high…."

And from the report of procedure following the court's order, which was the attachment of the MOST URGENT LETTER of the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning: Report Ref. Mor Tor 0710/9634 dated 19 December 2007. It showed that:

( 1 ) The measurement from the coast line at the MSL ( + 0.00 ) on the NORTH point of the dispute land until reaching the Bench Mark, would be 50.15 meter. Then measure onto the dispute land for another 49.85 meters would be 100 meters measured from the coast line at the MSL ( + 0.00 ) ON THIS SIDE

( 2 ) The measurement from the coast line at the MSL ( + 0.00 ) on the SOUTH point of the dispute land until reaching the Bench Mark, would be 49.60 meter. Then measure onto the dispute land for another 50.40 meters would be 100 meters measured from the coast line at the MSL ( + 0.00 ) ON THIS SIDE

Details as shown in the petition of the 2nd Plaint Receiver, Dated on 2 January 2008, together with the witness's testimonial of 15 January 2008, by Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul, 7th Class Lawyer of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning, testified as the Witness, that … "if measure from the construction control line, as referred in The Royal Decree B.E. 2521, it would be the distance of the building as same as measuring from the MSL onto the land for 100 meter. From the facts which explained to the Supreme Court of Administration as above, if the interpretation of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) is made as written in the report and the testimony of the witness, the measurement from the coast line at the MSL ( +0.00 ) on the NORTH and SOUTH point of the dispute land until reaching the Bench Mark of the 2nd Plaint Receiver would be 50.15 and 49.60 meters in order. The Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ) is compared at the coast line until reaching the land mark of the 2nd Plaint Receiver, it would be 39 meters. It shows that the coast line as the MSL and the coast line ( High Tide ) is approximately the distance of 11 meters. The aforesaid interpretation of Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) would make the Construction Control Area referring to Section 3.(8), which is the prohibited area for the buildings over 14 meters high, narrower that the Construction Control Line of Section 3.(8) of the Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), which allowing the constructions over 14 meters high to be constructed 11 meters closer to the sea, which is contrary to the intention and purpose of the Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) which intended to expand the area as mentioned, and intended

to expand the Construction Control Area by the shore line. If the intention was nterpreted that the expansion of the Construction Control Area of the Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) is to expand the distance at the seaside onto the land, then it will be in accord with the intention and purpose of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521), as mentioned to the Supreme Court of Administration as above.

So the testimony of Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul, said that the dispute building is 103 and 102 meters onto the land from the MSL", if this phrase was interpreted that the starting point of the Construction Control Area was 200 meters onto the land from the MSL, then the dispute building would be within 200 meters, which was the Construction Control Area, stipulated in the Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ), section 3.(8 ), which is the prohibited area for the building over 14 meters high, as the aforesaid reasons explained to the Supreme Court of Administration as above.

2?3 The Plaintiff would like to add on the explanation to the Supreme Court of Administration that, by Article 79 of the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2522, stipulated that …. "All Ministerial Regulations / Local provisions / Provincial provisions / Rules and Regulations / Notices / or Other Orders, which stipulated by referring to The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2579, / or the Construction Control for the burning areas of B.E. 2476, they will be used to enforce by law as long as there is no contrary to this Acts ". 9 Plaintiffs see that, not just " All Ministerial Regulations / Local provisions / Provincial provisions / Rules and Regulations / Notices / or Other Orders, which stipulated by referring to both of The Construction Control Acts as mentioned, , they will be used to enforce by law as long as there is no contrary to the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2522, HOWEVER, the interpretation for enforcing the Ministerial Regulations / Local Provisions /Or Orders as above, must be interpreted to be in accord with the intention for enforcing the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2522, and also the involve laws. This is to be in agreement with the intention of the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2522, in Article 5 of this Acts, which stipulated that The Minister of the Ministry of the Interior has power to enforce the Ministerial Regulations to enforce in different circumstances, referring to Article 8, " For the safety and security / Fire Protection / Public Health / Environmental Quality Control / City Planning / Architectural and Traffic Serving / including other fields which are involved with the procedures to be in accord with this Acts, stipulated the Minister with the assistance of the Construction Control Committee, to be the in power to create the Regulations to stipulate: ( 10 ) The Prohibited Area for certain types / kinds of constructions to be contructed / modified / demolished / Moved and used / or changed the purposes of buildings. ETC.

Since the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2522 was enforced until now, there have been 12 Ministerial Regulations which are still active, following Article 8(10 ), in the part that involving the area by the sea, which are the public attractions and tourist destinations , by stipulating the prohibition for certain types of buildings which may cause the disturbance and waste, in the same way of the stipulation of Regulations of Issue 8 and 9, which stipulated in accordance with The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, by in each issue stipulates the matters in the points that involve the stipulation of Construction Control Area of the building over 12 meters high as follow:

( 1 ) Ministerial Regulation Issue 15 (B.E. 2529 ) Phu-ket Province (Pha-thong beach) - Within 150 meters from the 1st area ( according to the map, the 1st area is 50 meters onto the land from the shore ) the restricted area in which the Building of 12 meters shall not be permitted to be constructed.

( 2 ) Ministerial Regulation Issue 20 (B.E. 2532 ) Phu-ket Province (Western shorelines)

- Within 200 meters from the shore shall be the restricted area in which the Building of 12 meters shall not be permitted to be constructed.

( 3 )Ministerial Regulation Issue 22 (B.E. 2532) Suratthani Province ( Samui Island )

- Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line onto the land in which the Building with the height more than 12 meters shall not be permitted.

( 4 ) Ministerial Regulation Issue 30 (B.E. 2534 ) Phetchaburi Province ( Cha-um )

- Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line in which the Building of 12 meters shall not be built.

(5) Ministerial Regulation Issue 31 (B.E. 2534 ) Chanthaburi Province

- Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line in which the Building of 12 meters shall not be built.

(6) Ministerial Regulation Issue 36(B.E. 2535) Prachuap-Kirikhun Province (Hua-Hin)

- Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line in which the Building of 12 meters shall not be built.

( 7 ) The Ministerial Regulations fixes the prohibited area for certain kinds or types of constructions / or modification or changing purposes of building of Pang-Nga Province of B.E. 2544

- Setting of 225 meters measured from coast line in which the Building of 12 meters shall not be built.

( 8 ) Ministerial Regulation (B.E. 2546) Trad Province

- Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line in which the Building with the height more than 12 meters shall not be permitted.

( 9 ) Ministerial Regulation (B.E. 2547) Khabi Province

Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line in which the Building of 12 meters shall not be built?

( 10 ) Ministerial Regulation (B.E. 2543) Trang Province ( accepted Lee-pea island )

3- Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line in which the building of 12 meters shall not be built.

( 11 ) Ministerial Regulation (B.E. 2549 ) Ranong Province

- Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line in which the Building of 12 meters shall not be built.

( 12 ) Ministerial Regulation (B.E. 2549) Sa-toon Province ( accepted Lee-peh island )

- Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line in which the building of 12 meters shall not be built?

Apart from the aforesaid stipulations, The Ministerial Regulations also marked the meaning of The Coast Line that, it's where water reaches the highest level which causes by nature. Details as shown in the attachment No. 5: The copies of 12 Ministerial Regulations.

It shows that the intention of The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2522 and the involved Regulations which have been using to control all beaches in the kingdom is to save the environment and the ecological system all around the coast line for the area of 200 meters from the shore line, marked at the high tide, to prohibit the types of constructions which may cause the impact, including the buildings with over 12 meters high as mentioned. So the Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) stipulated to fix 200 meters from "the Construction Control Line", which is 100 meters away into the sea from the coast line at the MSL, to be the prohibited area for the building over 14 meters high IS ALSO CONTRARY to the intention of enforcing the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2522.

3. The facts seen from the order of lifting the injunction / or the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Administrative Court of Rayong province, given the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment given on 16 January 2008 , by using facts from the report of the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning / and the testimony of the witness, summarized that The Construction Control Line shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 – Controlling over the region of Banglamung / Naklua / Nong Plalai / Nongprue Sub-districts of Chonburi province, The B.E. 2521 is the distance of 100 meters further into the sea from the MSL, the dispute building would be over 200 meter from the building control area as referred by the Section 3 of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ), which buildings over 14 meters from road surfaces are also not permitted to be constructed.

The aforesaid decision of the Administrative Court of Rayong province shown many points of mistakes and errors of the inquiry for hearing/ interpretation and enforcing law in order to control the constructions by law, in the way of which is contrary to the intentions / or purposes of law which stipulated to verify and protect? The result of the aforesaid interpretation is the construction control area referring to the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B. E. 2519 ) becomes 11 meters which is in opposite with the intentions and purposes of law. As for the interpretation of intentions and purposes of the Ministerial Regulation of Issue 9, referring to the annexed remark of the aforesaid regulations which stated that, the area of construction control is expanded. The expansion of construction control stipulated in Section 3. ( 1 )- ( 8 ), the construction control area must be measured from the MSL, onto the land for 200 meters, then it will fulfill the intentions of the regulations of Issue 9 and it will beoperative , and truly useful for public. This case has no cause to lift the aforesaid injunction / or revoke the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment. With all reasons, facts and matters of laws submitting in this appeal to the Supreme Court of Administration, 9 Litigants need to request for court's kind consideration to give court's decision or order to revoke the order of lifting injunction or protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Administrative Court of Rayong province, as requested by 9 Litigants and with the operative result further on.

Yours Faithfully,

Signed: The Approved Person of 9 Litigants

Mr. Surachai Trong-ngam"

Edited July 24, 2008 by lookat

OhdLover · July 25, 2008

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.

1. Oil, Gasoline storage and distribution area

2. Entertainment Halls

3. Shop houses

4. Shop buildings

5. Fresh food market

6. Cars or motorcycles garage of fixing or air compressing spray

7. Products storage

8. Tall building with the height over 14 meters

Which one is right?

stopvt7 · July 25, 2008

Dear OhdLover

I was told this translation below came from a Thai government agency. The other came from the Thai. Admin Supreme Court appeal translation.

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.

What important is our appeal. The following is the closing argument of our appeal which the court is now considering.

“ .............. The aforesaid decision of the Administrative Court of Rayong province shown many points of mistakes and errors of the inquiry for hearing/ interpretation and enforcing law in order to control the constructions by law, in the way of which is contrary to the intentions / or purposes of law which stipulated to verify and protect? The result of the aforesaid interpretation is the construction control area referring to the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B. E. 2519 ) becomes 11 meters which is in opposite with the intentions and purposes of law. As for the interpretation of intentions and purposes of the Ministerial Regulation of Issue 9, referring to the annexed remark of the aforesaid regulations which stated that, the area of construction control is expanded. The expansion of construction control stipulated in Section 3. ( 1 )- ( 8 ), the construction control area must be measured from the MSL, onto the land for 200 meters, then it will fulfill the intentions of the regulations of Issue 9 and it will beoperative , and truly useful for public. This case has no cause to lift the aforesaid injunction / or revoke the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment.

With all reasons, facts and matters of laws submitting in this appeal to the Supreme Court of Administration, 9 Litigants need to request for court's kind consideration to give court's decision or order to revoke the order of lifting injunction or protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Administrative Court of Rayong province, as requested by 9 Litigants and with the operative result further on.

Yours Faithfully,

Signed: The Approved Person of 9 Litigants

Mr. Surachai Trong-ngam"

We trust the Supreme Court of Administration will make a favorable decision!

Wiresok · July 25, 2008

Nothing changed there then Thaibob.
For your argument to be plausible then you have to believe the lawmakers intended issue 9 to allow you to build closer to the sea than issue 8.

Are you really putting your name to that,its the result of your argument, like it or not..

Also do you really believe that the lawmakers intended issue 9 to prohibit these specific buildings 100m out in the sea.

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.

Are you really putting your name to that and believing that was the intention,like it or not its the result of your argument.

Its nonsense, and your argument is very lame when put alongside the stop vt 7 argument, but you are entitled to your view.

Clearly, the SC knows where the mistakes are being made in this matter, and you go ask the Rayong court whether they feel admonished or not ! not once but twice.

The people taking all the risks with this are city hall and vt7, stop vt7 and JCC have nothing to lose, but everything to gain.

We just see things differently. You and stopVT7 can try to argue what the "lawmakers intended" all day long (e.g., taking text of meeting minutes of Issue 8 out of context) perhaps that is the latest ploy since the 200 meter measurement battle has been lost. What we do know about "intent" is Issue 9 expanded the 200 meter restricted construction zone as represented by the often referred to "annexed map". StopVT7 lawyers went to great lengths to try and explain the CCL on the map with arguments about prohibiting buildings into the sea (which you mock). There have been also been posts w/pics showing buildings built into the sea. I'll stick with my "lame" argument which is supported by the Issue 9 map, the Bangkok Dept. of Engineering report, expert witness testimony all of which is nicely summarized in the latest Supreme Court document, Thank You.

Admonish to me means to rebuke or reprimand. I don't think the Rayong Court feels "admonished".

Nothing new to offer there then Thaibob.

Instead of just repeating your theory all the time, why don’t you give us some practical,substantial, meaningfull,plausible evidence that we should believe it.

See if you can get any from your associates you refer to there.

We are all aware of the “nod through” in Rayong, but the SC now wants to see real evidence.

You are asking people to accept that issue 9 was written to

1.Allow building closer to the sea than issue 8.

2.To specifically prohibit only these buildings 100m out into the sea.

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.

Give us some solid reasons to demonstrate your theory is correct.

Please tell us why prohibiting this small selection of buildings 100m out in the sea is of benefit to the general public, in conducting their day to day lives .

Let us know the great benefits you see in allowing building closer to the sea than before.

My comment is not intended to “mock” , I just explain to people what your theory means in the real world.You mock yourself, and so you should.

You have to remember that issue 9 is all about the interaction of people,buildings, and infrastructure along the coastline.That is the reason for its being.

Now the SC has yours and stop vt versions of issue 9 before it.

Does it consider a landward extension of the restricted zone to 200m as more relevant to people’s day to day lives;

Or does it consider that allowing buildings closer to the sea, and prohibiting certain buildings 100m out in the sea is more relevant to people’s day to day lives.

It has to consider which version is most relevant and meaningfull to people’s day to day lives and in the public interest.

Your theory looks lamer by the minute,and watch out the tide is coming in.

You see how many careers are finished as a result of the Rayong episode.

beginner · July 25, 2008

With all reasons, facts and matters of laws submitting in this appeal to the Supreme Court of Administration, 9 Litigants need to request for court's kind consideration to give court's decision or order to revoke the order of lifting injunction or protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Administrative Court of Rayong province, as requested by 9 Litigants and with the operative result further on.

It seems that some people do not understand what is being considered by the Supreme Court.

As you can read above, they are being requested to 'revoke the order of lifting injunction or protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Aministrative Court of Rayong province, as requested by 9 litigants and with the operative result further on'.

That is all. If they do as requested by the litigants then building will stop until Rayong make a final decision.

If that happens soon then no doubt there will be appeals should the City lose.

If there are the more usual legal delays......say several months. Then VT7 will be virtually built.

To believe it will then be demolished requires a very limited understanding of how Thailand actually works.

If the Rayong court finally decides against the litigants then it will be up to them to decide whether to try and continue their fight for their sea views.

Meanwhile several tall buildings are being constructed nearer than 200 meters from the control line all along the Pattaya Bay shoreline.

Tammi · July 26, 2008

With all reasons, facts and matters of laws submitting in this appeal to the Supreme Court of Administration, 9 Litigants need to request for court's kind consideration to give court's decision or order to revoke the order of lifting injunction or protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Administrative Court of Rayong province, as requested by 9 Litigants and with the operative result further on.

It seems that some people do not understand what is being considered by the Supreme Court.

As you can read above, they are being requested to 'revoke the order of lifting injunction or protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Aministrative Court of Rayong province, as requested by 9 litigants and with the operative result further on'.

That is all. If they do as requested by the litigants then building will stop until Rayong make a final decision.

If that happens soon then no doubt there will be appeals should the City lose.

If there are the more usual legal delays......say several months. Then VT7 will be virtually built.

To believe it will then be demolished requires a very limited understanding of how Thailand actually works.

If the Rayong court finally decides against the litigants then it will be up to them to decide whether to try and continue their fight for their sea views.

Meanwhile several tall buildings are being constructed nearer than 200 meters from the control line all along the Pattaya Bay shoreline.

Are you saying that Thailand does not heed it's Laws?

beginner · July 26, 2008

Are you saying that Thailand does not heed it's Laws?

We'll see Tammi, we'll see.

I can do no better than quote Homer in the City of New York versus Homer Simpson episode.

Lisa: Can we come back next year dad?

Homer: We'll see honey…

(bag of medical waste hits him in the face)

Homer: …We'll see.

ThaiBob · July 26, 2008

Nothing changed there then Thaibob.
For your argument to be plausible then you have to believe the lawmakers intended issue 9 to allow you to build closer to the sea than issue 8.

Are you really putting your name to that,its the result of your argument, like it or not..

Also do you really believe that the lawmakers intended issue 9 to prohibit these specific buildings 100m out in the sea.

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.

Are you really putting your name to that and believing that was the intention,like it or not its the result of your argument.

Its nonsense, and your argument is very lame when put alongside the stop vt 7 argument, but you are entitled to your view.

Clearly, the SC knows where the mistakes are being made in this matter, and you go ask the Rayong court whether they feel admonished or not ! not once but twice.

The people taking all the risks with this are city hall and vt7, stop vt7 and JCC have nothing to lose, but everything to gain.

We just see things differently. You and stopVT7 can try to argue what the "lawmakers intended" all day long (e.g., taking text of meeting minutes of Issue 8 out of context) perhaps that is the latest ploy since the 200 meter measurement battle has been lost. What we do know about "intent" is Issue 9 expanded the 200 meter restricted construction zone as represented by the often referred to "annexed map". StopVT7 lawyers went to great lengths to try and explain the CCL on the map with arguments about prohibiting buildings into the sea (which you mock). There have been also been posts w/pics showing buildings built into the sea. I'll stick with my "lame" argument which is supported by the Issue 9 map, the Bangkok Dept. of Engineering report, expert witness testimony all of which is nicely summarized in the latest Supreme Court document, Thank You.

Admonish to me means to rebuke or reprimand. I don't think the Rayong Court feels "admonished".

Nothing new to offer there then Thaibob.

Instead of just repeating your theory all the time, why don’t you give us some practical,substantial, meaningfull,plausible evidence that we should believe it.

See if you can get any from your associates you refer to there.

We are all aware of the “nod through” in Rayong, but the SC now wants to see real evidence.

You are asking people to accept that issue 9 was written to

1.Allow building closer to the sea than issue 8.

2.To specifically prohibit only these buildings 100m out into the sea.

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.

Give us some solid reasons to demonstrate your theory is correct.

Please tell us why prohibiting this small selection of buildings 100m out in the sea is of benefit to the general public, in conducting their day to day lives .

Let us know the great benefits you see in allowing building closer to the sea than before.

My comment is not intended to “mock” , I just explain to people what your theory means in the real world.You mock yourself, and so you should.

You have to remember that issue 9 is all about the interaction of people,buildings, and infrastructure along the coastline.That is the reason for its being.

Now the SC has yours and stop vt versions of issue 9 before it.

Does it consider a landward extension of the restricted zone to 200m as more relevant to people’s day to day lives;

Or does it consider that allowing buildings closer to the sea, and prohibiting certain buildings 100m out in the sea is more relevant to people’s day to day lives.

It has to consider which version is most relevant and meaningfull to people’s day to day lives and in the public interest.

Your theory looks lamer by the minute,and watch out the tide is coming in.

You see how many careers are finished as a result of the Rayong episode.

When this saga started others including myself asked many of the same questions you ask. The Rayong Court wanted answers to these questions too and therefore issued it's first order to stop construction in April 2007 until further notice. There of course were great cheers in the plaintiff's camp. That same Court then held hearings, collected evidence, listened to arguments by both sides, ordered measurements to be taken (witnessed and signed-off by the plaintiffs) and concluded there was no compelling reason why construction should not resume since VT7 met the legal requirements of Issue 9. All of this, which you call the “Rayong nod”, is summarized in the latest Supreme Court document. As for "my theory" I have none, but I do accept the Court's explanation of the evidence and in particular the Issue 9 map with the clearly shown CCL boundary marker. Your questions about building into the sea can be better explained by the plaintiff's own lawyers because they knew they had to explain the CCL marker on the map. I suggest you read the explanations on the stopvt7.blog. But just a few highlights, "One reason to include the sea in the "construction restricted area" is for example Walking Street at Pattaya Beach Road which still to this day has non-maritime constructions entering the sea. "Border line of the construction restricted area" set 100 meters into the sea was also to prevent further violations of this nature.” Also, "As another example to strengthen the legal purpose of why the “borderline of the construction restricted area” was extended can serve the Naklua Market, which also shows construction built into the sea." So you see restricting buildings into the sea is a reality of Issue 9 and is not "my theory" or the Court's. On the issue of "intent", we can discuss all day and not agree. Whose idea of "intent"? Yours, mine, stopVT7's, or the publics? Who is the public? The tourist, the resident, the beach vendor, the sunbather, the shopkeeper, a businessman or a builder? I suggest all of the above. Measuring 200 meters landward from the CCL boundary, which “expands” the restricted construction zone, meets the "intent" of Issue 9. Again, not "my theory".

Since you like to ask questions please answer a few of mine. Do you understand the significance of the CCL border on the Issue 9 map? If so, and since we all agree Issue 9 clarified that the "seashore" as being the MSL and is referred to constantly in Issue 9, why doesn't Issue 9 say explicitly to measure 200 meters landward from the MSL? Thanks!

ThaiBob · July 26, 2008

With all reasons, facts and matters of laws submitting in this appeal to the Supreme Court of Administration, 9 Litigants need to request for court's kind consideration to give court's decision or order to revoke the order of lifting injunction or protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Administrative Court of Rayong province, as requested by 9 Litigants and with the operative result further on.

It seems that some people do not understand what is being considered by the Supreme Court.

As you can read above, they are being requested to 'revoke the order of lifting injunction or protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Aministrative Court of Rayong province, as requested by 9 litigants and with the operative result further on'.

That is all. If they do as requested by the litigants then building will stop until Rayong make a final decision.

If that happens soon then no doubt there will be appeals should the City lose.

If there are the more usual legal delays......say several months. Then VT7 will be virtually built.

To believe it will then be demolished requires a very limited understanding of how Thailand actually works.

If the Rayong court finally decides against the litigants then it will be up to them to decide whether to try and continue their fight for their sea views.

Meanwhile several tall buildings are being constructed nearer than 200 meters from the control line all along the Pattaya Bay shoreline.

Are you saying that Thailand does not heed it's Laws?

Let me help you answer the question with a question. Are you aware prostitution is illegal in Thailand?

Edited July 26, 2008 by ThaiBob

Tammi · July 26, 2008

With all reasons, facts and matters of laws submitting in this appeal to the Supreme Court of Administration, 9 Litigants need to request for court's kind consideration to give court's decision or order to revoke the order of lifting injunction or protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Administrative Court of Rayong province, as requested by 9 Litigants and with the operative result further on.

It seems that some people do not understand what is being considered by the Supreme Court.

As you can read above, they are being requested to 'revoke the order of lifting injunction or protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Aministrative Court of Rayong province, as requested by 9 litigants and with the operative result further on'.

That is all. If they do as requested by the litigants then building will stop until Rayong make a final decision.

If that happens soon then no doubt there will be appeals should the City lose.

If there are the more usual legal delays......say several months. Then VT7 will be virtually built.

To believe it will then be demolished requires a very limited understanding of how Thailand actually works.

If the Rayong court finally decides against the litigants then it will be up to them to decide whether to try and continue their fight for their sea views.

Meanwhile several tall buildings are being constructed nearer than 200 meters from the control line all along the Pattaya Bay shoreline.

Are you saying that Thailand does not heed it's Laws?

Let me help you answer the question with a question. Are you aware prostitution is illegal in Thailand?

Are you saying that because Thailand does not enforce the Law on prostitution that it should then not enforce any Law?

ThaiBob · July 26, 2008

With all reasons, facts and matters of laws submitting in this appeal to the Supreme Court of Administration, 9 Litigants need to request for court's kind consideration to give court's decision or order to revoke the order of lifting injunction or protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Administrative Court of Rayong province, as requested by 9 Litigants and with the operative result further on.

It seems that some people do not understand what is being considered by the Supreme Court.

As you can read above, they are being requested to 'revoke the order of lifting injunction or protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Aministrative Court of Rayong province, as requested by 9 litigants and with the operative result further on'.

That is all. If they do as requested by the litigants then building will stop until Rayong make a final decision.

If that happens soon then no doubt there will be appeals should the City lose.

If there are the more usual legal delays......say several months. Then VT7 will be virtually built.

To believe it will then be demolished requires a very limited understanding of how Thailand actually works.

If the Rayong court finally decides against the litigants then it will be up to them to decide whether to try and continue their fight for their sea views.

Meanwhile several tall buildings are being constructed nearer than 200 meters from the control line all along the Pattaya Bay shoreline.

Are you saying that Thailand does not heed it's Laws?

Let me help you answer the question with a question. Are you aware prostitution is illegal in Thailand?

Are you saying that because Thailand does not enforce the Law on prostitution that it should then not enforce any Law?

No. However, if the building continues and is then stopped permanently by Court order I think it would remain "as is" indefinitely. Courts (and here in America, Congress) are known for giving unfunded orders or mandates no matter how well intentioned. The City of Pattaya simply does not have the money. The building would remain an unfinished shell much like the high-rises in Bangkok after the 1997 economic crisis. Remember the unsuccessful and on-going effort by the City to remove the illegal structures on Walking Street.

Tammi · July 26, 2008

With all reasons, facts and matters of laws submitting in this appeal to the Supreme Court of Administration, 9 Litigants need to request for court's kind consideration to give court's decision or order to revoke the order of lifting injunction or protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Administrative Court of Rayong province, as requested by 9 Litigants and with the operative result further on.

It seems that some people do not understand what is being considered by the Supreme Court.

As you can read above, they are being requested to 'revoke the order of lifting injunction or protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Aministrative Court of Rayong province, as requested by 9 litigants and with the operative result further on'.

That is all. If they do as requested by the litigants then building will stop until Rayong make a final decision.

If that happens soon then no doubt there will be appeals should the City lose.

If there are the more usual legal delays......say several months. Then VT7 will be virtually built.

To believe it will then be demolished requires a very limited understanding of how Thailand actually works.

If the Rayong court finally decides against the litigants then it will be up to them to decide whether to try and continue their fight for their sea views.

Meanwhile several tall buildings are being constructed nearer than 200 meters from the control line all along the Pattaya Bay shoreline.

Are you saying that Thailand does not heed it's Laws?

Let me help you answer the question with a question. Are you aware prostitution is illegal in Thailand?

Are you saying that because Thailand does not enforce the Law on prostitution that it should then not enforce any Law?

No. However, if the building continues and is then stopped permanently by Court order I think it would remain "as is" indefinitely. Courts (and here in America, Congress) are known for giving unfunded orders or mandates no matter how well intentioned. The City of Pattaya simply does not have the money. The building would remain an unfinished shell much like the high-rises in Bangkok after the 1997 economic crisis. Remember the unsuccessful and on-going effort by the City to remove the illegal structures on Walking Street.

By saying that VT7 is "stopped permanently" you mean that the Court will have found it to be illegal? If that's what you mean I see no reason that it would remain standing. VT7 would be ordered to bring in a wrecking ball and have it down in a few hours. The City of Pattaya (the taxpayers) is not responsible for removing illegal buildings. The hi-rises in BKK were not illegal - the developers couldn't get them sold. If Pattaya City Hall wanted to close down and remove the illegal buildings on Walking Street it could do so very easily.

marekm1 · July 26, 2008

So Tammi you are saying that the law only applies to one building and not the others.

If VT7 is found illegal, it has to be destroyed, but the other buildings in the same distance are O.K. And the new projects even closer to MSL than VT7, like shopping centre in Pattaya can still continue?

No doubt that if your interpretation of the law is applied by the court, you find copy cat people who take legal action against another 50 or so buildings and demand to destroy them as well.

That would probably made you happy but a lot of people would suffer and that will never happen.

prospero · July 26, 2008

So Tammi you are saying that the law only applies to one building and not the others. If VT7 is found illegal, it has to be destroyed, but the other buildings in the same distance are O.K. And the new projects even closer to MSL than VT7, like shopping centre in Pattaya can still continue? No doubt that if your interpretation of the law is applied by the court, you find copy cat people who take legal action against another 50 or so buildings and demand to destroy them as well. That would probably made you happy but a lot of people would suffer and that will never happen.

The lawsuit is against the building permit for View Talay 7. If the court finds that that permit is illegal, then the building has to come down. Since both City Hall and the View Talay developer are co-defendants, it would seem to me that they should split the costs. After all, the VT7 developer took a calculated risk in building above the 14 meter limit. He could have waited until there was a final settlement, but he chose not to, probably because he feels that if he loses, he can present the court with a fait accompli.

Buildings have come down in Bangkok, so there is a precedent.

As for other buildings, a judgement that Issue 9 means 200 meters in from MSL would certainly have an effect on other developments that are being built now or are planned. North Point would be in trouble, as would a certain building that is planned for Dong Tarn Beach. It also is conceivable that people could take action against buildings that have been built within the past five years. It wouldn't be the worst thing to see a few of them demolished, particularly one which is a neigbor of Tammi.

ThaiBob · July 26, 2008

With all reasons, facts and matters of laws submitting in this appeal to the Supreme Court of Administration, 9 Litigants need to request for court's kind consideration to give court's decision or order to revoke the order of lifting injunction or protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Administrative Court of Rayong province, as requested by 9 Litigants and with the operative result further on.

It seems that some people do not understand what is being considered by the Supreme Court.

As you can read above, they are being requested to 'revoke the order of lifting injunction or protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Aministrative Court of Rayong province, as requested by 9 litigants and with the operative result further on'.

That is all. If they do as requested by the litigants then building will stop until Rayong make a final decision.

If that happens soon then no doubt there will be appeals should the City lose.

If there are the more usual legal delays......say several months. Then VT7 will be virtually built.

To believe it will then be demolished requires a very limited understanding of how Thailand actually works.

If the Rayong court finally decides against the litigants then it will be up to them to decide whether to try and continue their fight for their sea views.

Meanwhile several tall buildings are being constructed nearer than 200 meters from the control line all along the Pattaya Bay shoreline.

Are you saying that Thailand does not heed it's Laws?

Let me help you answer the question with a question. Are you aware prostitution is illegal in Thailand?

Are you saying that because Thailand does not enforce the Law on prostitution that it should then not enforce any Law?

No. However, if the building continues and is then stopped permanently by Court order I think it would remain "as is" indefinitely. Courts (and here in America, Congress) are known for giving unfunded orders or mandates no matter how well intentioned. The City of Pattaya simply does not have the money. The building would remain an unfinished shell much like the high-rises in Bangkok after the 1997 economic crisis. Remember the unsuccessful and on-going effort by the City to remove the illegal structures on Walking Street.

By saying that VT7 is "stopped permanently" you mean that the Court will have found it to be illegal? If that's what you mean I see no reason that it would remain standing. VT7 would be ordered to bring in a wrecking ball and have it down in a few hours. The City of Pattaya (the taxpayers) is not responsible for removing illegal buildings. The hi-rises in BKK were not illegal - the developers couldn't get them sold. If Pattaya City Hall wanted to close down and remove the illegal buildings on Walking Street it could do so very easily.

Tammi you live in a dream world. For the sake of discussion let's just suppose the SC court grants the litigant's Appeal and the project is then suspended. Then let's suppose the Rayong Court takes the unlikely step and reverses itself and says the project is illegal. There of course would be costly appeals perhaps takings years. Then let's suppose the all Appeals are exhausted and the Court rules the building must be demolished. VT would simply declare bankruptcy and it's creditors would get in line. Don't forget that VT would probably then sue the City for issuing an illegal building permit; more time and money. Ultimately the burden of removing the building becomes the City's (and taxpayers) problem and cost. You can see how unlikely this scenerio is. Buildings have been demolished in Bangkok been because they were not to code or did not follow their permits. Remember all construction to date is legal and ordered by the Court. Never have buildings been demolished under this situation.

"If Pattaya City Hall wanted to close down and remove the illegal buildings on Walking Street it could do so very easily." The City has been trying to do this for many years now with no success.

As marekm1 says "....but a lot of people would suffer and that will never happen".

stopvt7 · July 27, 2008

Dear ThaiBob

You statement “Remember all construction to date is legal and ordered by the Court. Never have buildings been demolished under this situation.”

Do you remember what the Supreme Administrative Court has already said? Let me refresh your memory.

”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”

The court has NOT ordered any construction on the VT7 building. VT7 decided to start construction after they read the above Supreme Administrative Court order.

VT7 Decide to ignore the Supreme Administrative Court because of a foolish so-called expert witness report which said you measure at the seashore into the sea 100 meters from the control construction line at MSL to a maps borderline . Before you measure onto the land 100 meters from MSL. You can not fine this claim in Issue 8 or 9 or on the map!

It doesn’t matter if VT7 has a building permit. What matters if the build was built in a legal area! Of course the build will be returned to a 14 meter height!

VT7 investors will never get ownership papers for condos that a court order is illegal.

Also:

You statement “Are you aware prostitution is illegal in Thailand?”

Yes! If you want the law enforces file a legal action in Admin Court for the police to enforce the law! You could win and the police will be forced to enforce the law or they could be jailed.

That why our group stood up against city hall to enforce Issue 9. We expect to win. Then the VT7 building will have to restore the building to 14 meters. Or their management can be arrested and jailed until VT7 building meets the law!

I would not be willing to joint such a action against prostitution because it would do nothing to protect Thailand beaches!!

Tammi · July 27, 2008

So Tammi you are saying that the law only applies to one building and not the others.
If VT7 is found illegal, it has to be destroyed, but the other buildings in the same distance are O.K. And the new projects even closer to MSL than VT7, like shopping centre in Pattaya can still continue?

No doubt that if your interpretation of the law is applied by the court, you find copy cat people who take legal action against another 50 or so buildings and demand to destroy them as well.

That would probably made you happy but a lot of people would suffer and that will never happen.

I have been told by a lawyer that the 'public' have 5 years to complain about a building over 14 meters that has been built in the 200 metre zone. After 5 years the building stays. So, as I have said before, there is still time for VT5 to be taken down. And, as I have said before, the co-owners at Grand Condotel were told by its Juristic Person Manager that "VT5 is legal because the Law can be changed every 5 years and it has been changed so VT5 can be built nearer the sea". As we all now know the JPM was talking BS. And what was the Committee doing?

ThaiBob · July 27, 2008

Dear ThaiBob
You statement “Remember all construction to date is legal and ordered by the Court. Never have buildings been demolished under this situation.”

Do you remember what the Supreme Administrative Court has already said? Let me refresh your memory.

”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”

The court has NOT ordered any construction on the VT7 building. VT7 decided to start construction after they read the above Supreme Administrative Court order.

VT7 Decide to ignore the Supreme Administrative Court because of a foolish so-called expert witness report which said you measure at the seashore into the sea 100 meters from the control construction line at MSL to a maps borderline . Before you measure onto the land 100 meters from MSL. You can not fine this claim in Issue 8 or 9 or on the map!

It doesn’t matter if VT7 has a building permit. What matters if the build was built in a legal area! Of course the build will be returned to a 14 meter height!

VT7 investors will never get ownership papers for condos that a court order is illegal.

Also:

You statement “Are you aware prostitution is illegal in Thailand?”

Yes! If you want the law enforces file a legal action in Admin Court for the police to enforce the law! You could win and the police will be forced to enforce the law or they could be jailed.

That why our group stood up against city hall to enforce Issue 9. We expect to win. Then the VT7 building will have to restore the building to 14 meters. Or their management can be arrested and jailed until VT7 building meets the law!

I would not be willing to joint such a action against prostitution because it would do nothing to protect Thailand beaches!!

Well I read this post and I am actually concerned about our old antagonist friend. I do believe the stress and pressure has finally caught up with the old boy and he has gone off the deep-end. But to the point, his time line is all wrong. The year is 2008 and he quotes again from the superceded 2007 SC order. He even conveniently overlooks what's most important, "On a temporary basis until the Court has ordered otherwise." Of course, on January 16 (this year) the Court ordered that construction can resume again so "the Court has ordered otherwise". Please read the latest SC document which you have so graciously posted on your blog.

"Yes! If you want the law enforces file a legal action in Admin Court for the police to enforce the law! You could win and the police will be forced to enforce the law or they could be jailed." Dear stopVT7, I think a rest or long vacation is in order.

prospero · July 27, 2008

Tammi you live in a dream world. For the sake of discussion let's just suppose the SC court grants the litigant's Appeal and the project is then suspended. Then let's suppose the Rayong Court takes the unlikely step and reverses itself and says the project is illegal. There of course would be costly appeals perhaps takings years. Then let's suppose the all Appeals are exhausted and the Court rules the building must be demolished. VT would simply declare bankruptcy and it's creditors would get in line. Don't forget that VT would probably then sue the City for issuing an illegal building permit; more time and money. Ultimately the burden of removing the building becomes the City's (and taxpayers) problem and cost. You can see how unlikely this scenerio is. Buildings have been demolished in Bangkok been because they were not to code or did not follow their permits. Remember all construction to date is legal and ordered by the Court. Never have buildings been demolished under this situation.

"If Pattaya City Hall wanted to close down and remove the illegal buildings on Walking Street it could do so very easily." The City has been trying to do this for many years now with no success.

As marekm1 says "....but a lot of people would suffer and that will never happen".

Years of appeal . . .

View Talay suing the city . . .

Bankruptcy . . .

Creditors getting in line . . .

View Talay 7 investors getting in line . . .

stopvt7 · July 27, 2008

ThaiBob, I understand the statement "the Court has ordered otherwise". That why the Supreme Administrative Court asked to hear our appeal. They clearly understand who to read Issue 9 and the minutes from drafting the building regulation. Which said “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”

Which later Issue 8 was changed:

“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”.

To 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”

So please tell use where it in Issue 9 it said to measure “at the seashore” into the sea 100 meters from the “control construction line” at MSL to a maps “borderline”as claimed by the so-called expert witness? Now the Supreme Administrative Court knows where MSL is located in relation to the VT7 building they will make a clear order they to revoke Work Permit No. 162/2007.

Now the Supreme Administrative Court will make a new order after reading the minutes of the Meeting on the Drafting of Ministerial Regulation and our appeal!

After that order I might take a vacation after the !!

Gary A · July 27, 2008

I like many others am interested in the outcome of this situation. I click on the thread several time a week to see if there is anything new. About all I see are SUPER long re-posts that take forever to scroll through and sometimes have only a one line comment. What's wrong with copying and pasting just the comment you agree or disagree with?

Edited July 27, 2008 by Gary A

Tammi · July 27, 2008

Tammi you live in a dream world. For the sake of discussion let's just suppose the SC court grants the litigant's Appeal and the project is then suspended. Then let's suppose the Rayong Court takes the unlikely step and reverses itself and says the project is illegal. There of course would be costly appeals perhaps takings years. Then let's suppose the all Appeals are exhausted and the Court rules the building must be demolished. VT would simply declare bankruptcy and it's creditors would get in line. Don't forget that VT would probably then sue the City for issuing an illegal building permit; more time and money. Ultimately the burden of removing the building becomes the City's (and taxpayers) problem and cost. You can see how unlikely this scenerio is. Buildings have been demolished in Bangkok been because they were not to code or did not follow their permits. Remember all construction to date is legal and ordered by the Court. Never have buildings been demolished under this situation.
"If Pattaya City Hall wanted to close down and remove the illegal buildings on Walking Street it could do so very easily." The City has been trying to do this for many years now with no success.

As marekm1 says "....but a lot of people would suffer and that will never happen".

Years of appeal . . .

View Talay suing the city . . .

Bankruptcy . . .

Creditors getting in line . . .

View Talay 7 investors getting in line . . .

Why "unlikely". We all make mistakes - even lawyers and courts.

Yes, probably appeals lasting for years.

Yes, probably. Maybe JCC would pay for the demolishment. Can't cost tooo much to bring in a wrecking ball for a few hours.

What do you think is stopping Pattaya City from demolishing the buildings on Walking Street?

Some folks will suffer if VT7 is found to be illegal and other will benefit. It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good.

stopvt7 · July 27, 2008

Dear Tammi

The statement “Yes, probably appeals lasting for years.”

A appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court only takes months. When the court agrees with our appeal and revokes VT7 building permit. That's it! No one can appeal the legal question any higher!

We expect a decision within 2 to 3more mouths.

ripley · July 27, 2008

To GaryA - THANK YOU!! AT LAST!

PLEASE EVERYBODY READ HIS COMMENT. THIS THREAD IS ABOUT INTERESTING STUFF BUT IS BECOMING VERY TEDIOUS TO SCROLL THRU. ALSO, IF YOU TROUBLE TO SELECT AND PASTE THE PART OF A TEXT YOU ARE ADDRESSING IT SAVES THE REST OF US THE BOREDOM OF GOING BACK THRU THE ENTIRE MESSAGE TO REMEMBER WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

Tammi · July 27, 2008

Dear Tammi
The statement “Yes, probably appeals lasting for years.”

A appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court only takes months. When the court agrees with our appeal and revokes VT7 building permit. That's it! No one can appeal the legal question any higher!

We expect a decision within 2 to 3more mouths.

Of course you are quite right. The buck stops at the Supreme Admin Court.

Good Luck to the StopVT7 group.

Tammi · July 27, 2008

To GaryA - THANK YOU!! AT LAST!
PLEASE EVERYBODY READ HIS COMMENT. THIS THREAD IS ABOUT INTERESTING STUFF BUT IS BECOMING VERY TEDIOUS TO SCROLL THRU. ALSO, IF YOU TROUBLE TO SELECT AND PASTE THE PART OF A TEXT YOU ARE ADDRESSING IT SAVES THE REST OF US THE BOREDOM OF GOING BACK THRU THE ENTIRE MESSAGE TO REMEMBER WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

Problem is that it is a tedious business to delete the pieces one wants to delete. Often the answer from ThaiVisa is that the

don't match and then one has to copy one's reply to Word and go back and try to do it correctly again and maybe again.
So it's tough for you having to read (scan) everything again and it's equally tough for posters trying to abbreviate.

I suggest GaryA, since he finds the topic so interesting, opens it more than "several times a week".

beginner · July 27, 2008

To GaryA - THANK YOU!! AT LAST!
PLEASE EVERYBODY READ HIS COMMENT. THIS THREAD IS ABOUT INTERESTING STUFF BUT IS BECOMING VERY TEDIOUS TO SCROLL THRU. ALSO, IF YOU TROUBLE TO SELECT AND PASTE THE PART OF A TEXT YOU ARE ADDRESSING IT SAVES THE REST OF US THE BOREDOM OF GOING BACK THRU THE ENTIRE MESSAGE TO REMEMBER WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

Seconded.

Its more than tedious. Its a total waste of time. I doubt whether many people actually read through those long posts.

Empty vessels make most noise. Clear thought doesn't need long convoluted explanations.

Isn't it rather inconsiderate/rude to expect other people to read through masses of irrelevant material rather than spend ones own time editing it to address the point at issue?

Sign In

Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

raro

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Popular Now