Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[ZZZ]

How about an up market shopping mall. Jomtien is overdue for one.

Good idea, perfect location for a good supermarket, bowling alley, Cinema and shops. Walking distance to several big condos and easy access from Sukhumvit.

[NEHandMJ]

I love this, It just bounces from pillar to post. I do feel for stopvt7 and their sentiments. and I understand their argument. I also feel for the investors in VT7. They want to protect their investment. They also have an argument. Both have their own views of the situation. The "SC or Rayong Court will determine if it is right or wrong. But in the end, the building is still going up !! I have to say Sir Burr has a valid point, which I would like to point out, this situation would not just occur in Thailand, I have seen this all over the world. Also in many developed countries. It will be very interesting to see what the outcome will be.

[Wiresok]

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!

We all know the antics that occurred in the Rayong court hearing Thaibob, and as such the court did the obvious.

As the issue 9 words did not lend themselves to the vt7 agenda, the expert witness reverted to the map, and inserted the CCL arbitrarily at the seaward side of the restricted zone.He then introduced a manipulation of the issue 9 words to concoct a case.Very creative.

Unfortunately for him it falls down because it specifically prohibits just the stated building types 100m out to sea, and means you can now build closer to the sea under issue 9 than issue 8.

You really have got to provide answers to this, this is against the public interest.

The stop vt7 case is in sharp contrast because it starts by drawing fair and reasonable meaning from the issue 9 words and this then sits comfortably alongside , and does not contradict the map, and is also very much in the public interest.

The only meaningful,coherent,sensible location for the CCL ,that retains issue 9 in the public interest, and which does not introduce retrograde and detrimental planning legislation , is at MSL.

The SC have quite rightly admonished Rayong for considering this matter in the context of whose version makes vt7 legal or not.The SC are taking the view that the lawmakers would not introduce detrimental legislation, but improved legislation, and so are asking the question "which reading of issue 9 is best in keeping with the public interest and improves peoples day to day lives".

That would clearly have been the lawmakers intention,...wouldn't it?.

The answer to this question will then determine the illegality of vt7.

I cannot answer why 200m from MSL wasn't written in issue 9, but you are certainly right to ask why not; maybe the SC can ascertain the motives of the people involved as part of its remit for being.

[Wiresok]

How about an up market shopping mall. Jomtien is overdue for one.

Good idea, perfect location for a good supermarket, bowling alley, Cinema and shops. Walking distance to several big condos and easy access from Sukhumvit.

I have read on a blog somewhere that the land between JCC and vt5 is to have an amusement park on there.vt7 could become a car park for it.

[stopvt7]

Has any one else heard the roomer going around Bangkok. I was first called about it on Wednesday.

The roomer is reported as been from the Ministry of Interior office? The Ministry on the Interior been reported to be very angry about the VT7 building construction! Because he believes Pattaya City Hall will lose the appeal in the Admin Supreme Court. He upset that VT7 has not waited until the SAC court decision before restarting construction of the VT7 building. He wants VT7 to stop their work.

He knows the upcoming court decision will be very large news for Thailand. He understands that there could be accusation of the corruption his office could face? This decision news will not be as big if their not large illegal building!

I can verify some facts! The Ministry on the Interior was personal givenq a copy of our February appeal to the Admin Supreme Court. He did send a person from his office to Pattaya.

So could their be some truth to this roomer? Because he must read the newspaper and understand what be happening in the courts..

[OhdLover]

Has any one else heard the roomer going around Bangkok. I was first called about it on Wednesday.

The roomer is reported as been from the Ministry of Interior office? The Ministry on the Interior been reported to be very angry about the VT7 building construction! Because he believes Pattaya City Hall will lose the appeal in the Admin Supreme Court. He upset that VT7 has not waited until the SAC court decision before restarting construction of the VT7 building. He wants VT7 to stop their work.

He knows the upcoming court decision will be very large news for Thailand. He understands that there could be accusation of the corruption his office could face? This decision news will not be as big if their not large illegal building!

I can verify some facts! The Ministry on the Interior was personal givenq a copy of our February appeal to the Admin Supreme Court. He did send a person from his office to Pattaya.

So could their be some truth to this roomer? Because he must read the newspaper and understand what be happening in the courts..

Sorry, I spoke to the roomer, but she said she left the room already, so she is an ex-roomer.

OMG.... how dare you pretend to understand english.....

Let's start a new game: how manny gramar/zpelling miztakez are their inn stopVT7 poztz????

I counted 12... (but I am dutch, so I am bad at english )

[Tammi]

Has any one else heard the roomer going around Bangkok. I was first called about it on Wednesday.

The roomer is reported as been from the Ministry of Interior office? The Ministry on the Interior been reported to be very angry about the VT7 building construction! Because he believes Pattaya City Hall will lose the appeal in the Admin Supreme Court. He upset that VT7 has not waited until the SAC court decision before restarting construction of the VT7 building. He wants VT7 to stop their work.

He knows the upcoming court decision will be very large news for Thailand. He understands that there could be accusation of the corruption his office could face? This decision news will not be as big if their not large illegal building!

I can verify some facts! The Ministry on the Interior was personal givenq a copy of our February appeal to the Admin Supreme Court. He did send a person from his office to Pattaya.

So could their be some truth to this roomer? Because he must read the newspaper and understand what be happening in the courts..

Sorry, I spoke to the roomer, but she said she left the room already, so she is an ex-roomer.

OMG.... how dare you pretend to understand english.....

Let's start a new game: how manny gramar/zpelling miztakez are their inn stopVT7 poztz????

I counted 12... (but I am dutch, so I am bad at english )

OhdLover, please don't be ridiculous. Obviously StopVT7 is not a native English speaker. If I jumped on all the spelling mistakes by native English speakers on this forum I would do nothing else all day. So please can it. The main thing is that the sense is there in what StopVT7 writes.

[stopvt7]

Dear OhdLover

roomer = rumor

Thanks for making a point. That VT7 investors always attack the massager!! They never talk about the message or the facts!

My beat was it would be ThaiBob!

[Sir Burr]

Since when is a rumour a fact?

[wpcoe]

Since when is a rumour a fact?

When one dares to cross the threshold of the Twilight Zone and enter this thread.

[Sir Burr]

Of course. I forgot.

Bit like "protection of sea-views" as per the thread title, transmutes to "protecting Thai beaches".

Or, even "all VT7 investors will have blood on their hands if a worker's child is hurt".

Edited August 2, 2008 by Sir Burr

[OhdLover]

Has any one else heard the roomer going around Bangkok. I was first called about it on Wednesday.

The roomer is reported as been from the Ministry of Interior office? The Ministry on the Interior been reported to be very angry about the VT7 building construction! Because he believes Pattaya City Hall will lose the appeal in the Admin Supreme Court. He upset that VT7 has not waited until the SAC court decision before restarting construction of the VT7 building. He wants VT7 to stop their work.

He knows the upcoming court decision will be very large news for Thailand. He understands that there could be accusation of the corruption his office could face? This decision news will not be as big if their not large illegal building!

I can verify some facts! The Ministry on the Interior was personal givenq a copy of our February appeal to the Admin Supreme Court. He did send a person from his office to Pattaya.

So could their be some truth to this roomer? Because he must read the newspaper and understand what be happening in the courts..

Massager = messenger??

Ok... here's some facts about your rumor: It's a rumor, not a fact, that's a fact.

Your 'rumor' is full of if's and then's and things you presume.

And then... you can verify some facts. Well, verify them. You say he was PERSONALLY giving a copy and next line you say he was SENDING SOMEBODY. And... how can this be a verification?? Give us a copy of a newspaper that states it, or a photo of him handing over the document. Verifying is not repeating what people told you, it's got to do something with PROVE IT TO US.

If you want me to fight your facts, give me facts, don't give me BS.

I like stopvt7, he makes me laugh.

[glyph]

" I can verify some facts! "

That's right: cast iron sinks, fresh oil floats on water, and Donald Trump has more money that all of us put together. Unfortunately, none of those facts can resolve the questions at hand.

[ThaiBob]

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!

We all know the antics that occurred in the Rayong court hearing Thaibob, and as such the court did the obvious.

As the issue 9 words did not lend themselves to the vt7 agenda, the expert witness reverted to the map, and inserted the CCL arbitrarily at the seaward side of the restricted zone.He then introduced a manipulation of the issue 9 words to concoct a case.Very creative.

Unfortunately for him it falls down because it specifically prohibits just the stated building types 100m out to sea, and means you can now build closer to the sea under issue 9 than issue 8.

You really have got to provide answers to this, this is against the public interest.

The stop vt7 case is in sharp contrast because it starts by drawing fair and reasonable meaning from the issue 9 words and this then sits comfortably alongside , and does not contradict the map, and is also very much in the public interest.

The only meaningful,coherent,sensible location for the CCL ,that retains issue 9 in the public interest, and which does not introduce retrograde and detrimental planning legislation , is at MSL.

The SC have quite rightly admonished Rayong for considering this matter in the context of whose version makes vt7 legal or not.The SC are taking the view that the lawmakers would not introduce detrimental legislation, but improved legislation, and so are asking the question "which reading of issue 9 is best in keeping with the public interest and improves peoples day to day lives".

That would clearly have been the lawmakers intention,...wouldn't it?.

The answer to this question will then determine the illegality of vt7.

I cannot answer why 200m from MSL wasn't written in issue 9, but you are certainly right to ask why not; maybe the SC can ascertain the motives of the people involved as part of its remit for being.

One thing I have learned about Thai courts as this case progresses is they do not tolerate "antics" or "theatrics". The Bangkok Dept. of Engineering and the expert witness did not "insert" anything. Issue 9 always refers to "per the annexed map", a major problem for the litigants in this case because the map does not support their concept of "measurement" or "intentions". It will be interesting to know what additional information was provided to the SC as requested within their 30 day deadline. I am sure they now have about 2 years worth of reading and analysis.

[ThaiBob]

OhdLover, please don't be ridiculous. Obviously StopVT7 is not a native English speaker. If I jumped on all the spelling mistakes by native English speakers on this forum I would do nothing else all day. So please can it. The main thing is that the sense is there in what StopVT7 writes.

Tammi, I believe stopVT7 is a retired American from Southern California. I am from California too, but the school I went to taught English grammar and spelling. There are many tools on the Internet and simple software applications (MS Word) to help people with grammar and spelling. Obviously, stopVT7 just doesn't care. Personally I think it is a reflection on him and his case.

[ThaiBob]

....

I have read on a blog somewhere that the land between JCC and vt5 is to have an amusement park on there.vt7 could become a car park for it.

I too have read on a blog somewhere that the land between JCC and vt5 will become low-rise expensive villas or another VT project (VT99?).

I also have read on a blog somewhere that:

Khun Amnat (fired lawyer) and Khun Surachai (new lawyer) are cousins and worked on Kun Itthiphol's (Mayor) campaign.

That a JCC litigant has bought a unit(s) in VT7.

That SC Justice Wichai has purchased a VT7 unit for his son-in-law and knows Khun Vichai (Mrs. VT) well.

That VT lawyers have prepared lawsuit againt JCC and are waiting for the right time to file.

Whoops.....only 3 of the 4 above are "facts".

[prospero]

No word yet that City Hall has submitted anything.

[marekm1]

Do you believe for the moment that somebody gonna stop the multimillion dollar project just to protect one farang see view . If that project is stopped, many others have to be stopped as well. As far as I know Pattaya City Hall is still issuing the permit for the buildings within 200 m. as they have for the last 30 or so years.

Even Tammy’s beloved half rounded building next to JCC build around 30 years ago is within 200 m. Just look around and you can see. Just because JCC complex is build outside 200m. it doesn’t make it a law. Even on the project you can see that 9 floor building was planned to be build in front of JCC. Obviously stopVT7 lives on the high floor and he hasn’t care about it than.

This case is so ridiculous that I don’t believe that happens. The court in Rayong was supposed to be uncorrupted until it ruled against the litigants. Just look around and you can see what’s gonna happened. You people live in the dream world. Nobody gonna stop progress in Thailand just to protect one’s see view. And to be fair stopV7 still gonna have a view but not 180 but 90 angle.

[stopvt7]

Dear marekm1

You need to go to the beginning of our Blog! http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/ Read our original filing and tell me where we sued for a sea view? That claim was a headline for a Bangkok newspaper.

We suited using Issue 9 which I been told it was the first time a case was brought in court using this regulation. Thailand in a country of law and people may ask the courts to enforce the law.

Because a local government many have chose to ignore the Issue 9 regulation or do not have competent employee to understand the regulation? The Admin Supreme Court will restore the VT7 land to the required use in Issue 9 regulation.

Why would you imply the court in Rayong was corrupt? With a lawyers from Asia LawWorks how need a questionable court??

[Tammi]

OhdLover, please don't be ridiculous. Obviously StopVT7 is not a native English speaker. If I jumped on all the spelling mistakes by native English speakers on this forum I would do nothing else all day. So please can it. The main thing is that the sense is there in what StopVT7 writes.

Tammi, I believe stopVT7 is a retired American from Southern California. I am from California too, but the school I went to taught English grammar and spelling. There are many tools on the Internet and simple software applications (MS Word) to help people with grammar and spelling. Obviously, stopVT7 just doesn't care. Personally I think it is a reflection on him and his case.

You are being ridiculous again. StopTV7 may be a retired American and you say should be able to construct sentences and spell. We all know that everyone's circumstances are different and that there are good schools and bad schools. And often it doesn't matter how rich some people are and how good the school is some people just cannot get to grips with the written English language. I am sure that if I had the time to do the research I would find many influential and educated people in that category. George Bush?

Maybe stopVT7 cares, maybe he doesn't. He is to be admired for not letting his 'failing' stop him from communicating with us. Personally I like his determination.

Perhaps you could ask ThaiVisa to include a spell and sentence construction tool since the failing seems to exasperate you so much.

[beginner]

You need to go to the beginning of our Blog! http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/ Read our original filing and tell me where we sued for a sea view? That claim was a headline for a Bangkok newspaper.

Sorry to repeat a previous post...BUT.

For once, the journalists reported what they saw.

Why didn't you correct them?

[plasticpig]

I will move into my apartment in under two years time.

think all this will be finished by then.

i will also invite Stopvt7 around for a runners-up beer.

Have a nice day

[stopvt7]

Dear beginner

Your picture is a good example of that what you sometimes see is not the necessary the Truth! Go read our court document. http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

I did not write that sign in your picture.

We files a court action using Issue 9 to protect the Thailand beaches!!

[jpm76]

Stopvt7

Give up on ThaiBob. You keep confused him with the facts!

Some people are not on the same intellectual plain as Sponge Bob.

Actually, I think that ThaiBob understands far better than StopVT7 not just the issues at play here, but also the exact position of where we lie in this court battle at the moment - it is Rayong who this issue will go back to, and no decision by the Supreme court will provide the win that StopVt7 thinks he will get from them - he just shows again that ThaiBob trumps his logic by continually showing StopVT7 where he has flaws in his grey matter.

I can no longer be bothered with StopVT7 and trying to show him the other side...he is only interested in making himself heard, and is not worth a debate with. I would just love to see the smile wiped off his icons when he finally understands that VT7 will be built right in front of him. He thinks that he has something to laugh about when he lets his arrogance fly...but he just does not understand the situation like many (including many who may think that he may have a good argument, but yet know the reality of this VT7 project ever getting pulled down to ground).

VT7 may well be built well before any solution is found, and the solution will take into account that VT7 is already built.

[plasticpig]

Thats the best post on this thread for the last year.

well said that man

[jpm76]

"If I've read the posts right. The court has already made the decision. the supreme court has only ruled that you are allowed to make an appeal."

The Rayong court made the decision to lift the injunction against VT7 building above 14 mtrs. It has still to make a ruling on whether the building is legal at 27 floors. As I understand it, until Rayong makes its decision, the SC doesn't accept an appeal on whether or not the bldg can be built. They can only overturn the Rayong judgement to lift the injunction.

Rayong's loooong deliberation on the case, while VT7 builds to the sky, is - I think - the Thai face-saving tactic which was expected by us all. Unless the SC restores the injunction, I don't think there is any way to bring pressure to bear on the Rayong court to finalize its decision. If the SC restores & Rayong decides in favor of VT7, there is a possibility of appeal to the SC, and they can sit on it for quite some time. That being the case, we can take it as read that the building will be completed and inhabited.

I find it sad. The fight started for a private sea view & then everyone got aware of the ramifications of letting VT7 have its way. The mega corporations have the connections, the money, share the culture and know the ropes. A concrete seacoast and even more polluted environment loom in the future.

"They pave paradise & put up a parking lot..."

Dear ripley

No! Now the Admin Supreme Court is considering our original appeal of February 2008.

To read the whole appeal.

Go to http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

Below you can find the ending of our appeal. The Admin Supreme Court can revoke the building permit!

"Appeal the order of lifting the injunction

or the protection procedure" - Date 15 February 16, 2008.

"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 be operative , 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"

How do I explain this to you in the light of the lack of the possession of standard English and basic logic (not that I want to attack him for this Tammi, but it is a factor very important to his representations)...and to explain to our audience how you have built this whole case to date.

Example 1000000999989 of when a StopVT7 "fact" is not an actual fact - when your own lawyer, a representative of yourself writes something as a request to a court, you cannot state that it is with the authority of the SC's own power...it is your appeal letter WRITTEN BY YOUR OWN LAWYER that has the nature of a request, not an order that binds the SC and hence can be used as an argument by you that states what the SC can do (as if it were their own deliberation).

Whilst we are on the subject of "order", did you not understand that the above paragraph was written so that "order" was a noun (being decision or order, two similes in a sentence), not a verb as in to order the SC to act - revoke was the verb. Now, constant errors of English like this cause you to misunderstand the plain English written, and hence, in the lack of deliberation, they soon become the leaps of reason (faulty) of making things say what you want them to. And surely, your next post you will go back and quote this error as a fact.

As ThaiBob is often correct, in this case, you are again wrong on the legal process and Ripley is correct (even though you reply with a big NO, sorry does not make it so.)

I wonder if you also note whilst wavering your banners of SC support that they chose to ignore this request to do anything, and as ThaiBob has stated and others before him, they were merely bound by a technicality of law to inform the Rayong Court that you had not the right to deny you an appeal.

In fact, I have seen nothing in any of the evidence that shows any support for you, when you take into account how often you seem to miss the underlying of words such as "IF" (which you should know are there to allow a certain condition where they have not determined the truth or stated their viewpoint upon a particular point). Even if you were correct in assuming that the SC will wave your banner in 3 months time (and I hold that you must ignore all legal process and everything written by the SC to admit this to your side), you must understand that they have clearly set out the VERY LENGTHY process that this court case would assume, and as everyone else clearly understands it, would detain your victory (as you would have it) for a whole while longer yet.

And so, to avoid you embarrasing yourself again in the next 3 months time when they do not rule VT7 to be torn down and you start throwing accusations at the SC or your current legal team or whoever is next, why don't you just listen for just this once, and understand that nothing will have substantially changed for you in the next 3 months at all. Instead, use the next three months to go back over all the things that have been said to you, consider them, and them come back with some new angles on evidence. That way, you won't have to start spreading rumours for facts (yes, I did not think you could go any lower on the credibility scale, but you proved me wrong again) in hiding from the fact that you are going to have to come up with more huge wads of cash to cover yourself for the next few years at least (I'll assume that this is going to come from the JCC condo owners who told you to go away the first time before you suprised them by still getting at their pockets).

As a long time reader (an avid fan of yours...I love you StopVT7), it is far too numerous the number of circumstances that I have personally come across after reading your evidence whereby the facts get completely twisted and misconstrued by your lack of recognising the subleties of the English language and the workings of a human brain (despite all that grey matter you brag you have) when it so desperately wants to believe something. So let those who say it has nothing to do with the case realise that it has everything to do with the case when so many are relying upon your English translation/presentation of the "facts".

The irony is, whilst bloggers such as our kind, can pick the flaws in your reasoning, why should we believe you that you above all the experts are correct.

In response to the blogger who stated that Issue 9 could not be interpreted in the way that the VT investors side make it appear because it make the construction go closer to the beach, I question whether you are relying upon StopVT7's lawyers "facts" that caused the measurement to move closer to shore by 11-12m. Given that the meeasurements used were 100m or 200m, don't you think that the 11-12m was actually an unintended consequence by legislators who did not understand the technicalities of surveying and engineering. As our side interprets it, they were not trying to move the point of Issue 8 at all, but rather needed to account for new issues brought by the actual physical evidence of constructions that were being built in the sea (seems that they wanted to prohibit the activities of some that could build within the 100m zone from MSL (not the 200m from MSL, but the CCL). The bringing it closer to the sea was an unintended consequence that the lawyer StopVT7 uses as one of his main arguments why it must be read as StopVT7 reads it, but I think it was unintentional by those not educated in engineering measurements (which we must all admit are difficult to understand if the courts cannot make easy determinations upon them).

Also, there is nothing wrong with having the Pattay beach area's construction lines not agreeing with the rest of Thailand, as a closer look shows that none of them really agreed with one another ie they all used their own individual boundaries with very little correlation to one another. StopVT7 would have you believe that Pattaya area is a rogue province if the 200m is not as he interprets it, but once again the plain facts demonstrate something differen tto how they are being presented. There is no standard in these boundaries, and no reason to assume that Pattaya is bound by it.

He has also placed great weight upon the "intention" of the Issue 9 writers, but he should be aware that there are different legal systems out there in the world. Whilst some obey the "spirit" of the law (and would factor in intentions), others obey only the strict written letter of the law (and completely disregard what the intentions would have been or not been). If StopVT7 is relying upon the courts to read into minutes etc, it may be that Thai law makes it completely irrelevant anything said there if they also adhere to a more literal approach in the interpretation of laws. It would pretty much destroy the whole StopVT7 argument because the courts would be free to act in the favour of a practical solution ie VT7 would not be found to be in violation of a law that was not well written enough to be completely clear. I am not sure what system Thailand follows - perhaps even a mix???.

On that note, I'll try and refrain from reading here too often, because i cannot help but write at length against StopVT7 to expose the sort of tricks he employs in trying to convince others of his case, which is heavily reliant upon some big assumptions and some favourable interpretations. Just thought that I would point out some facts that I think are not just rehashes of old evidence.

[ripley]

...it is your appeal letter WRITTEN BY YOUR OWN LAWYER that has the nature of a request, not an order that binds the SC and hence can be used as an argument by you that states what the SC can do (as if it were their own deliberation).

yes, I did not think you could go any lower on the credibility scale, but you proved me wrong again) in hiding from the fact that you are going to have to come up with more huge wads of cash to cover yourself for the next few years at least (I'll assume that this is going to come from the JCC condo owners who told you to go away the first time before you suprised them by still getting at their pockets).

THANK YOU. Nobody else was picking up on it, so I was beginning to doubt my own reason & the evidence of my own eyes. I mean, I know "legalese" can be misleading, but this seemed over the top.

It's incidents such as these that make me feel stopvt7 is trying to sell me a used car...

Another thing which has been baffling me. If you read the stopvt7 blogspot & his earlier posts here, he reads like an English speaker - with poor spelling and grammar skills, but an English speaker - probably American. Of late his posts read as tho written by a Thai speaker making a quite good attempt to express himself in English. Check out the mistakes - then go read an English translation of a Thai message. The kinds of mistakes are the same. Strange.

[stopvt7]

Stopvt7

Give up on ThaiBob. You keep confused him with the facts!

Some people are not on the same intellectual plain as Sponge Bob.

Dear jpm76

I think you need to be add with ThaiBob as not being on the same intellectual plain as Sponge Bob!

Thanks for your personal attacks! When you not able to understand the facts, attack the messenger!

[stopvt7]

They was a shakeup of interior minister now he doesn’t need to weary anymore about what the press will think when city hall loses in the Admin Supreme Court.

Bangkok Post

August 3, 2008

Today's Top Stories

http://www.bangkokpost.com/topstories/tops...s.php?id=129238

• New cabinet
  national police chief Pol Gen Kowit Wattana replaces Chalerm Yubamruang as interior minister - and Chalerm is out.
  
• Mingkwan Saengsuwan has to give up his post as deputy prime minister, and moves from commerce minister to industry.
  
• Ex-health minister Chaiya Sasomsab, forced to resign last month, returns as commerce minister.
  
• Finance Minister Surapong Suebwonglee kept his position.
  

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej removed five ministers and announced six new appointments including several key members of the cabinet.

The major reshuffle was announced Saturday evening after His Majesty the King gave his royal endorsement.

Mr Samak said earlier that the shake-up was necessary to get the government back on track after some ministers were forced to resign - by losing legal battles involving qualifications or other reasons.

To rub salt in the wound of turncoat Puea Pandin party leader Suvit Khunkitti - who of course lost his cabinet posts - Mr Samak elevated Minister of Information and Communication Technology Mun Pattanothai to the additional post of deputy prime minister.

Mingkwan Saengsuwan was removed as deputy prime minister and commerce minister but took over the ministry of industry portfolio, replacing Mr Suvit, who announced earlier that he decided to pull his Puea Pandin Party out of the coalition government. Former Health Minister Chaiya Sasomsab, who flubbed reporting his family's assets, came back as Commerce Minister.

Former national police chief Pol Gen Kowit Wattana was named interior minister and as a deputy prime minister to replace outspoken Pol Capt Chalerm Yubamruang who said earlier that he would lost his post as interior minister. Chalerm is out of the cabinet entirely.

Prasong Kositanond was appointed deputy interior minister.

New faces include Phichet Tancharoen as appointed to be deputy commerce minister; Suchart Thadadamrongwej and Pichai Nariptapand, now deputy finance ministers, and deputy parliamentary speaker Somsak Kiatsuranond, who is culture minister.

Chavarat Charnvirakul left the social development and human security ministry to become health minister and Culture Minister Anusorn Wongwan moves to the social development and human security ministry.

 Ministers who lost their portfolios included Deputy Commerce Minister Wiroon Techapaiboon; Deputy Finance Minister Ranongrak Suwanchawee, and Deputy Interior Minister Sithichai Kohsurat.

These court decisions have been well thought out! The VT7 investors must be worrying.

[Tammi]

VT7 may well be built well before any solution is found, and the solution will take into account that VT7 is already built.

Apparently there is a Law that buildings can be taken down within 5 years of being built. That information came from a lawyer. So those people interested in getting their rights under Thai Law (Be it enacted by the King, by and with the advice and consent of the National Legislative Body in the capacity of the National Assembly, as follows:" ) just have to keep on going for it.