Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[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.

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!

Actually StopVT7, I think that I am just one of many who have been trying to tell you that there is a massive wide gulf between your "facts" and the true "facts". Tell me where I went wrong...was it not a quote from your own lawyer that you tried to use as a SC directive? Ripley also saw it, and I am sure that ThaiBob has seen it on many occasions. Add me with them on an intellectual plane, as you must realise that we aer only using clear plain logically reasoning against you - it may get in the way of your propaganda and deliberate attempts to shove the truth under the mat in favour of your own version of it, but I think that it is quite well known that your intellectual plane does not have the highest esteem (and the funny thing is that you are a native English speaker constantly berated for your lack of English (and basic logic from my end)).

So tell where where my exposition went wrong? Did you not try and use a quote from your own lawyer's letter to the SC and use it as if the SC has stated that they have the right to tear this building down. Often these personal attacks upon you StopVT7 have resulted from words that you have yourself used in your posts. That is iften my evidence. Now I know that you will be able to backtrack a few pages on, and deny that you ever said it, but I know that I only need to go back a few pages and find constant examples of such things.

Funnily enough I read some of the earlier posts in this thread. Given how strongly you keep trying to convince us that you are all about the beaches, don't you think it quite odd that all the earlier material only ever talks about Richard Haines defending his sea own view, and quoting him on this point. Funnily enough also, there is no mention of protecting beaches in any of your original posts...it only appears later when you figured you would gain greater support from it. This is not the action of a selfless environmental warrior, but those of a selfish arrogant <deleted> who will assume any defense regardless how far truth needs to be stretched. If I am intellectually challenged, then how do you explain the fact that there are those who confront you with bare logic and evidence from your own posts to show that you are just BS.

I only attack the messenger when they are not delivering the message properly, moreso when I think that they have the knowledge (or should have) to know the difference between fair and reasonable evidence, and pure propaganda BS. You, my friend, are far too long on the latter. This said, I also think that the matter at hand is an important one for Thailand and some of your points deserve deeper consideration for the future...unfortunately, you are just one of the last persons who should have been entrusted with such a task.

If you want to report on the issues, then keep it fair, and do not use the internet as a propaganda tool to vent your misguided frustration that all is not well in the state of StopVT7 world. The main fact however is that this is a complex case with complex issues that will not be determined in the next 3 months. All your talk of the SC support you have seems to lack that all important word we realists call "evidence", as all I see if a Supreme Court rightfully using its power to grant the case its due merit and appeal. Your right to appeal should not have been quashed on a point of law that was incorrect.

The SC corrected this...it is no matter to draw inferences of SC support, as instead I only see where they decided not to do anything, and instead will leave it back to a court that has already ruled against you.

For those not up to speed, please take note that these are the early stages of the legal matter. We are nowhere near an appeal stage yet, because we have not even had a final decision from the Rayong court. Only once Rayong has ruled on the final matter will an appeal be possible. Rayong only responded to the request by VT7 to lift the injunction and decided to do so. The appeal that StopVT7 is on about is the denied appeal notion by the Rayong court verdict against this lifting of the injunction, not the stage that we are commonly associate with Appeals court. That would be years off, at least. In the meantime StopVT7 is praying for a Supreme Court decision to bind the lower court and enforce the injunction back on WHILST RAYONG court IS GIVEN MORE TIME TO COME TO ITS ACTUAL FINAL DECISION ON THE MATTER. Any appeal process would come well after that and would need to follow the due process of lodging an appeal, waiting for it to be granted, having a date set etc.

So placed into perspective, and given my lack of intellectual ability to match Sponge Bob, please tell us StopVT7 where we have this all wrong, and why we can expect that this will be all over in three months. Perhaps, you just do not want your general public to understand the real facts of the matter as to where this court case is in the actual process of the law. I doubt that even your most ardent supporters actually believe that you are 3 months form the victory lap, but go on...continue to act like it. It just makes me think that your head is even further in the sand that it appears up your own behind (which is quite difficult).

The only fact is...you present "facts" as you would like them to read, and to anyone who gives any attention to your supposed arguments, they will discover first that a closer examination will show them to be flawed (I am being nice and not using deliberately misconstrued) usually in the basic logic, or secondly, any actual evidence provided as definitive support to your arguments are usually "tampered with" after passing through your pea-brain. You claim that expert court witnesses are guilty of this, but once again you are the master hypocrite - you tamper with nearly every fact that either comes your way (or else you make-create yourself), and try to make it appear another way as if we should believe that you are winning this fight. Blind Freddy can see that the only thing that you are winning is the right to throw your money at the Thai court system (and apparently they are quite pleased to take it from you), and that would have been fine with me, but now it is no longer "your" money when you have managed to steal it from the pockets of others (your co-owners who refused to support you).

No wonder you are always going on about your upcoming victory. You must be one step away from stabbing yourself in the eyes with the white flag that you refuse to put up. "What courage" some of your supporters remark, but "what blindness and stupidity" I hear others remark... to come on TV and spread libelous charges against all who come in your path (including your own previous legal team, professional experts etc), claim corruption charges against the authorities (when quite plainly this is not the first building permit they have issued within the 200m mark you hold to be so controversial - in fact it has been quite common practice of these building permits to be issued so that there is no reason to hold out a corrupt agenda), and then when everything has gone against you (which should have told you something), you try and find some small victory in a SC decision to uphold your right to appeal. Problem is... you had to put yor own lawyers words in their mouths.

So where exactly is the real evidence of any REAL support by Thai authorities for your case - all I see is what you know acknowledge and accept as worthy of being introduced as evidence... Your own rumour mill. The only thing that matters to date is that the Administration Court ignored your attempt to keep the building injunction imposed. The early posts in thsi whole topic actually spoke about how good this was when it was placed in the hands of the Rayong court because apparently they meant business against alleged Thai corruption. Now however, having passed this point, and having the Rayong Court rule against you, we are meant to believe that the Rayong court is apt to corruption (and a full blown conspiracy with your own lawyers). Doesn't this sound like a plot for a movie of paranoic proportions? And so now, we have you contradicting your original charges against the Thai court system (for fear of having your visas revoked perhaps?) and telling us to expect the good guy to be the SC. Does anyone else see the next twist in this dramatic thriller? (No, you are completely correct, there is no twist...not when you take into account all of StopVT7 argument for Sc support and attribute it back to its source...

1. a ruling by a court that states "IF" this building permission is found to be illegal (which StopVT7 uses as evidence for the illegality of VT7 (despite common sense prevailing in most posters who realise that it cannot be illegal if it was approved and has never been declared as illegal by a court)...StopVT7 error - failing to present the document in context and refusing to acknowledge that the word "IF" is really quite a big word after all.

2. A letter of appeal from his own lawyer requesting that "based upon the facts, determinations etc"..."the SC revoke the building permit". This StopVT7 presents as evidence to the nature of the SC acknowledging that it has the power to revoke the permit. But he goes further in stating constantly that the SC is actually on his side, even though they of course, they did not revoke the building permit as requested in the letter.

3. A SC decision overturning Rayong's wish to point blank get rid of StopVT7 without following the due process. One could argue that they were merely saving StopVT7 the time (courts are usually quite busy) and money of drawing it out for months, years longer before they rule again the same way that they did after actually reviewing the evidence (and finding it to be nowhere near as clear as what StopVT7 would have you believe). As I have pointed out earlier, this is no more than a show of power from the SC that despite the annoyance of someone like StopVT7, due legal process still needs to be followed. So much for StopVT7's big calls of victory at the Supreme Court level - they merely upheld the Thai legal system of what needs to be followed before a right to appeal can be ruled out. Still, no definitive decision by the SC for any show of support whatsoever for him. One could argue...quite the opposite - more money for Thailand lawyers (haha).

Now that we have those facts straight, who is interested in a Sportstab betting game. Let's introduce the following.

How long it is before this all this legal wrangling gets sorted out properly - we have StopVT7's bet. He has it pinned on 3 months. Everyone else has more like 5 years pinned.

How long before JCC condo owners decide to sue Richard and the JCC owner committee for administering Richard's legal charges against all the onwers of teh JCC building?

How much VT7 are going to countersue StopVT7 for interrupting their legal building process? (I'll hand them a few of Richard's posts as evidence of just how malicious and untrue his slanders are against the VT empire and Thai court system just to get the bidding started)

How much longer StopVT7 has before his visa gets revoked for the constant slanders against the Thai system (though now he of course has the utmost respect for the Thai courts and their system) and his allegations of corruption?

And whether StopVT7 will plead with the Thai authorities to revoke his visa and extradite him back to California when the fallout of all this finally comes around and he learns about how these above parties will go after him for all of his BS and slander being spread over the internet?

Sure, he had every right to question whether in fact Issue 9 had not been broken, and to take these matters up by the law. But you cannot do what he has done and expect to get away with it. And then he wants to talk about being attacked as a messenger (after attacking the repuation and character of nearly everyone who either opposed him or started on his side)??? If you are the messenger (of what else but pure propaganda), I got the message thanks Richard - nothing but BS and more BS. You have nothing but a wing and a prayer and a huge awakening to come to! Then, and only then, will Richard actually see the facts AS THEY ARE, free from delusion of his own importance (a beach defender hahahaha), and wake up to smell the coffee of the impending eventuality of the outcome. A revelation to none, but Richard, and perhaps those who continue to overlook StopVT7's blinding self-interest and refuse to acknowledge the great rock'n'roll swindle.

Yes, he has a good case for his interpretation, but so do the other side in maintaining that they followed Thai process and gained the proper permits etc and did nothing that was counter to the common practice of building within this 200m zone. The common practice should be enough to laugh off all the corruption claims and uphold that the law was not clearly understood well enough for VT7 to be smacked with a very damaging verdict against them. Once StopVT7 realises this, then he will realise that the courts will use this opportunity only to clarify these areas for future use (because the courts cannot punish VT7 for breaking a law that was so blatantly already broken (allegedly)). The differences between the VT case and the Bangkok cases are very apparent!!!

Also, the irony of this scenario is (for those who did not read some of the early posts) that JCC actually spitefully built in front of VT2 apparently and blocked the views of this building, and yet JCC still sold the land to VT empire. It was alleged (but not by VT) there that JCC was actually inside the 200m construction zone at the time. I cannot substantiate this other than direct readers to the early posts where it is stated there, but doesn't this whole case start to smack of a feud between JCC and VT. Who will win? When JCC condo owners arm themselves with such facts, they have a very good case for suing JCC for initial false claims about always being unobstructed views (something quite commonly claimed back in the day), but mostly for imposing StopVT7's legal levies on the new JCC owners in the hope of winning this case so that they will not face a legal backlash against their own owners. I have written at length about the abuse implications of this move and the irony there, so will not repost it.

Anyway, I hope that those who still foresee a StopVT7 win in this case should actually go back over Richard's evidence and check what is factual and what is fabricated, because he does not have a whole amount of credibility to cling to. Also, i wonder how many are aware of the increasing incidence of what is called judicial activism in the first world, because if Thailand happen to exercise some of this, it may be another thing that the StopVT7 crew need to think about (especially if Thai system follows the word of the law rather than the spirit of the law application). That would be virtually end game for StopVT7 since the benefits must surely weigh upon the economic development of Thailand rather than defending the application of a unclear law.

[Tammi]

I don't understand why people are still writing so much about this topic - for the most part far too long diatribes that probably very few bother to read.

The case is with the Court and it and the Laws of Thailand will decide who is right and who is wrong.

But I do appreciate StopVT7 bringing to our attention anything new and germane to the topic.

[stopvt7]

Dear jpm76

Your statement “was it not a quote from your own lawyer that you tried to use as a SC directive?” NO!

Your statement “Did you not try and use a quote from your own lawyer's letter to the SC and use it as if the SC has stated that they have the right to tear this building down. “NO! Which letter do you not understand? The “N” or the “O”?

Your statement “So tell where where my exposition went wrong?' You not able to understand the English translation of Issue 9! So read it and explain where it said to measure into the sea?

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”

Your statement “we aer (<your spelling) only using clear plain logically reasoning against you”. In your "clear plain logically reasoning" please explain this Quotation from 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” What is it of the words “the wording “towards the shore” since the wording was clearly understood” do you not understand?

Your statement “For those not up to speed, please take note that these are the early stages of the legal matter. We are nowhere near an appeal stage yet, because we have not even had a final decision from the Rayong court. Only once Rayong has ruled on the final matter will an appeal be possible.”

Your are wrong in your above thinking!! The next court hearing will be when the Rayong Court judge reads the Admin Supreme Court decision concerning our February 15, 2008 appeal in court. Then the ASC court could take away VT7 building premit and order the Rayong court to restore the building to a 14 meter height!!

But let wait and see that this honorable Admin Supreme Court will order.

And maybe you should check out and watch some of the Sponge Bob movies and lighten up a little?

[Wiresok]

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.

I presume you refer to "American English" there Thaibob, and not the real thing !

[ripley]

Mind you, I shed not a tear when stopvt7 gets a good bop on the bean. He deserves that and more. Just that kinda guy. Thanks, incidentally, for the newspaper info. Interesting.

Still, I'm getting tired of the argument over whether he is or isn't an “environmental warrior. How does it matter, except as a minor postscript to the list of his prevarications and occasional treachery? Yeah, it's important to keep those in mind - reminds us to sift his info and approach w/ caution. Like it or not (and I don't) he's the public face of the only people actively fighting VT7. A pretty funky weapon, as likely to shoot us in the foot or explode in our faces as to fight a winning case. If he loses, the JCC owners may decide to re-examine his manner of financing and other tactics and then let the games begin...

But letting VT7 build under the current circumstances is setting a dangerous precedent in more ways than one. VT7 itself will have a great impact on Jomtien Beach & the ocean. But their winning the case sets a precedent which allows other developers to follow suit, then it's goodbye to beaches, clean water, open space and hello to overdevelopment by the greedos with its attendant strain on infrastructure all over Thailand's sea coast.

The whole VT7 story from start to finish stinks to high heaven. They are arrogant bullies, greedy and exploitative beyond all bounds (the company of course, not the buyers who just want a nice place to live.). Rapacious is the word that springs to mind. They're just begging to be brought down by people fed to the teeth with having their rights bought off. Yes, there is corruption in Thailand, in case anyone wants to argue that point, (and the VT empire could give college courses on the subject). Why should Thailand be different from any other country?

Another thing I'm tired of hearing is why didn't JCC buy the land? Well, for one reason the owners had no reason to believe it was for sale. It was a part of the package they purchased which included a lowrise hotel & sports facility. Suddenly there were lots of "suits" prowling the building. Owners scampered about for information and were fed rumours and given red herrings to chase. Before they knew what was up & were still asking "Hey! Where's our lowrise hotel, sports facility and private beach access? The company that built JCC had sold the land along with some of the owners' mapped out common property! And what if they had known the land was for sale? They, along with most other condos around here - have trouble getting a quorum for an AGM and collecting basic maintenance from absentee owners, how were they supposed to come up with a few hundred million baht? (And will any part of this serve as a lesson to us all about what can happen if you don't pay close attention? I think not, judging from the underwhelming input to the Thai condo law thread.)

Finally, why do we all come to this site and argue the various points to death? Well, first of all, it's a provocative and interesting subject and a story which is unfolding. But most of all I think we're just a bunch of geezers who sit in the local all day, or around a cracker barrel at the small town general store (this site) and shoot the breeze!

Edited August 4, 2008 by ripley

[ripley]

Incidentally, typos & grammatical mistakes always crack me up. I thought I'd found the best one ever on this site with "roomer" instead of rumour (or rumor), and then moments later along comes "attack the massager"!! Absolutely the best one so far!

[NEHandMJ]

Ripley.

What a refreshing, and well informed narration on this thread. I do understand that everything you had to say, and had to encompass all the issues in this case. so it was a little verbose, but not a jot more than was needed! I bow to your intellect and realise that there are so many very clever people out there. You being one of them.

I hope that at sometime this whole issue will be resolved. I know and understand that some people will be subjected to a loss from this problem, and ultimately some will make a gain. That is not my issue nor my problem. But is very interesting to see what is actually happening. And how the Thai Law and customs work.

Thanks Ripley

All my best

Nigel

[Tammi]

From the archives:

--The Nation 2007-03-27

Haines alleged View Talay 7 was illegal because it is more than 14 metres in height and within 200 metres of the sea. Buildings of this height are prohibited within 200 metres of the shore by planning law, he said. Pattaya Mayor Niran Wattana-sartsathorn said the city correctly issued building permission. "I'm not worried that some foreigners are suing the city in the Administrative Court because we are just an agent to mediate this problem. "If the foreigners succeed it will be a precedent for others and maybe developers will think before getting into problems like this," Niran added. The court will hold a preliminary hearing tomorrow.

Edited August 4, 2008 by Tammi

[stopvt7]

Dear jpm76

Your statement “I doubt that even your most ardent supporters actually believe that you are 3 months form the victory lap”?

We should not guest that the Admin Supreme Court will do. But I do think they given use a answer of what they are thinking. Please read this quotation from the Supreme Administrative Court decisions which was read at the Rayon court on August 1, 2007.

The decision said “Nevertheless, where No. 3 (8) under the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 prescribed that the 200 meter line measured from the construction control line shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree. .......................... promulgating the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 governing ........................................on the seaside shall be restricted from constructing of any building exceeding 14 meter high from road surface. Therefore, if the Construction Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2006 granted by the Defendant No. 1 to the Defendant No. 2 should appear to be unlawful against the Ministerial Regulation thereto as being claimed by the ten plaintiffs, the Court of First Instance should have sentenced this point of being unlawful, i.e. the judgment shall be focused on the permission of construction the building exceeding height limit by the Defendant No. 2. 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”

This order was on a “On a temporary basis until the Court has ordered otherwise” because they did not have a survey to identify the Construction Control Line at MSL. Now we have the survey and the Supreme Administrative Court can make a final decision. Then revoke VT7 building permit. I’m “using clear plain logically reasoning” to draw the conclusion that we could receive a final decision!

Why does the VT7 investor group keep referencing "corruption" ? Are they hopping it will win the court case? Issue 9 is clearly written regulation and Thailand is a country of laws and we wait for the honorable Supreme Administrative Court to make a ruling.

Then the tear down will start. . We wish no harm. But if there is financial harm? Blame VT and yourself for ignoring the Supreme Administrative Court.

[ripley]

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.

Now I'm probably gonna make NEHandMJ reassess notions of my intelligence, but I've got to ask this:

Yeah. But which court?

[redman]

maybe a little off topic, but one wonders how many of the units in VT7 are actually going to be sold now. With all the present woes in the market, it just might be that stopvt7 could win his case and VT7 would lose twice. Once in court and once due to lack of sales.

[stopvt7]

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.

Now I'm probably gonna make NEHandMJ reassess notions of my intelligence, but I've got to ask this:

Yeah. But which court?

The Admin Supreme Court of Bangkok amend the order of the Administrative Court of First Instance is the Rayong Admin Court.

It is not nice to make the Admin Supreme Court of Bangkok look bad. The Rayong Admin Court revising the August 2007 Admin Supreme Court decision!

[OhdLover]

So, stopvt7, when can we expect the final decision? Is there any planning beyond the numerous copy/paste-art in this thread?

It seems to me that there is no progress at all (except of course by the VT7-workers) and you fill your time with re-re-repeating

all your re-re-repeats.

Are you able to bring some news or will it be the old song for the next few months?

There must be some kind of schedule, right?

[Wiresok]

....

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".

In a word Thaibob "sad"

[Wiresok]

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

Still wrong Thaibob, the flaws in the vt7 case are obvious,

1.Prohibiting only certain types of buildings 100m out to sea.

2.Allowing building closer to the sea under issue 9 than issue 8.

This is bad planning law, and you have so far failed to answer the big questions.

The stopvt7 case is good planning law, and you cannot find fault with it.

Better luck next time.

[ThaiBob]

Wiresok,

I tried to answer your questions or "flaws" using arguments from stopVT7's own lawyers but you are unconvinced. That's Ok because nobody has to convince you but more importantly the stopVT7 arguments did not convince the Courts either. I see nothing in the stopVt7 case to overturn Issue 9 and the way it has been interpreted for about the last 30 years.

In an earlier post (#1226) you said you were a VT5 owner. Frankly, your position on VT7 seems a little "strange" considering there are some posters (Tammi) that advocate demolishing VT5 if stopVT7 wins his case. I personally feel the Avalon Resort and VT5 were nice additions to Dongtarn Beach and would not refer to your unit as you do as a "low cost rental".

[stopvt7]

Dear ThaiBob

“using arguments from stopVT7's own lawyers” ( Asia LawWorks ) who stabs them in the back at a Rayong January 15 court hearing?

Asia LawWorks file paper which were contrary to the meaning of Issue9! Why?

Asia LawWorks was fired!

[stopvt7]

Bangkok Post Today's Top Stories

Waiting for Thaksin

By Veera Prateepchaikul

http://www.bangkokpost.com/topstories/tops...s.php?id=129295

With the odds seemingly piling up against him, the question most people want answered is what Thaksin Shinawatra will do next - throw in the towel and quit politics for good, or fight on like a cornered animal?

By now, everyone should have heard about the shocking prison sentence handed down by the Criminal Court against Potjaman Shinawatra, her stepbrother Bannapot Damapong and her secretary Kanchana Honghern after they were found guilty of tax evasion.

The sentence itself, three years for Khunying Potjaman and Bannapot and two for Kanchana, was not as hard-hitting and embarrassing as was the court's written reproach against the former first lady and Bannapot.

It reads: "The second defendant [Potjaman] was the wife of a holder of the top national political office who aside from being bound to behave like a decent citizen was expected to set a good example befitting her economic and social status... The amount of taxes to be paid by the first defendant [bannapot] in accordance with the law and was finally paid by the second defendant [Potjaman] on his behalf could not be compared with the amount of assets held by the second defendant and her family at the time."

Although the case is not final and will definitely drag on up to the Supreme Court, all I can say about the case and its key players is that it is just the Buddhist law of karma.

But the karma does not end there for the Shinawatra family. Khunying Potjaman and her husband, former prime minister Thaksin, are being tried in the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions for alleged wrongdoing in the Ratchadaphisek land scandal. Two other cases against Mr Thaksin, namely the lottery case and the Exim Bank's Burma loan case, are still pending in the same court. Five additional cases, all involving alleged abuse of authority, are pending with the Office of the Attorney-General against Mr Thaksin and his cronies.

With the odds seemingly piling up against Mr Thaksin - including the conviction of his wife, the recent imprisonment of three members of his legal staff in connection with 2.2 million baht in bribe money stuffed in a lunch box, plus a series of legal cases against him - the questions that most people want to know are: What will Thaksin do next? Will he, this time, throw in the towel and quit politics for good? Or will he fight on like a cornered animal?

Some analysts believe Thaksin is discouraged by the legal odds against him and may really want to wash his hands of politics to save his own skin and that of his family. They cite the latest cabinet shakeup, almost completely handled by the so-called Gang of Four - Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, his secretary-general Theerapol Nopparampa, Finance Minister Surapong Suebwonglee and Newin Chidchob - with scarcely any interference from the real boss.

It will be a blessing for the country if Thaksin really quits politics and doesn't continue to pull the strings.

It will also be much better if he takes a long leave of absence from the country to let the political situation settle peacefully and the political divide gradually heal.

Like it or not, Thaksin himself is the only real problem with our political predicament.

So will the legal mess change Thaksin?

Despite his earlier pledges to leave politics, that now ring hollow, and his occasional sweet words for the country, there have been no concrete actions to back up the rhetoric.

Political manoeuvring, both in the open and underground, have been fiercely waged by his cronies and followers to discredit independent organisations such as the National Counter Corruption Commission and the Election Commission which were blamed for all the troubles befalling Thaksin and Co.

And they have moved to seize control of certain independent agencies which have persistently defied political interference. Such a move on the Bank of Thailand was manifested by the government's appointment of a new bank board which is heavily infiltrated with Thaksin cronies.

The self-serving bid to rewrite the constitution which was primarily intended to exonerate the former Thai Rak Thai executives exiled into the political wilderness has been postponed for now. But once launched, it will amount to pouring fuel on the fire and the People's Alliance for Democracy will step up its protest against the government with the potential that, this time, violence may be inevitable if the pro-government force opts for a showdown.

Again, if Thaksin really wants to quit politics and to see national reconciliation, our country would not have descended to the brink and we would not have to so hopelessly ask: When will blood be spilled again?"

The VT7 investors must be worrying of the Thai court decisions!

Because do they not think corruption to going the win a decision for them?

Thailand is a country of laws and honorable judges.

[ripley]

"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."

The question was: Until which court "has ordered otherwise"? The SC or the Rayong Court?

Edited August 5, 2008 by ripley

[prospero]

Wiresok,

I tried to answer your questions or "flaws" using arguments from stopVT7's own lawyers but you are unconvinced. That's Ok because nobody has to convince you but more importantly the stopVT7 arguments did not convince the Courts either. I see nothing in the stopVt7 case to overturn Issue 9 and the way it has been interpreted for about the last 30 years.

In an earlier post (#1226) you said you were a VT5 owner. Frankly, your position on VT7 seems a little "strange" considering there are some posters (Tammi) that advocate demolishing VT5 if stopVT7 wins his case. I personally feel the Avalon Resort and VT5 were nice additions to Dongtarn Beach and would not refer to your unit as you do as a "low cost rental".

You don't seem to "get it", ThaiBob. AsiaLawWorks, the attorney for the Stop VT7 group, submitted a brief to the Rayong court that agreed with the so-called "expert" witness hired by the defendants -- that is, City Hall and the View Talay developer. This was contrary to what they told their clients they would do.

Now, what would motivate a lawyer to betray the interests of his client? Let's see. . .

Perhaps Amnat and Markus deeply and sincerely believed that the "expert" witness was correct. Could that be it?

Or maybe Amnat and Markus want to see a beautiful building like View Talay 7 grace Dongtarn beach, their clients be damned. Could that be it?

Another possible conclusion is that they were "persuaded" -- either by carrot or stick -- to deceive their clients and throw the case to their opponents. This is only a possiblity, I grant, but, here in Thailand, it is, at the very least, conceivable. Khun Amnat's later election to the City Council is certainly an interesting coincidence, don't you agree?

Now . . . the Supreme Administrative Court was founded by the Monarch to counter corruption. That would include bribery, intimidation, and a host of other tactics used to get around the law. If, by some outside chance, it were to become obvious to the judges that some of those tactics were used to secure the building permit for VT7, then it would be incumbant upon the court to abrogate the permit and force the developer to obey the legal limits stated in Issue 9.

In case you missed it, ThaiBob, what I am saying is that the very argument you use, that AsiaLawWorks agreed with City Hall, is a sign that something is rotten. Let us hope that the stench makes its way to Bangkok.

Edited August 5, 2008 by prospero

[stopvt7]

Dear ripley

"The question was: until which court "has ordered otherwise"? Either! But, if there is a "order otherwise" you need show or introduce evidence that Issue 9 is not the governing regulation. Not try to rewrite Issue 9 to make it fit City Hall claims (you measure into the sea 100 meters) which the Supreme Administrative Court had already rejected!

The Rayong Admin Court action was to revising the Supreme Administrative Court August 2007 "order" which said: "Therefore, if the Construction Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2006 granted by the Defendant No. 1 (Pattaya City Hall) to the Defendant No. 2 (VT7) should appear to be unlawful against the Ministerial Regulation (Issue 9) thereto as being claimed by the ten plaintiffs, the Court of First Instance ( Rayong Admin Court) 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 "(VT7)

"The Supreme Court, therefore, gives an order to amend the order of the Administrative Court of First Instance( Rayong Admin Court). That the Defendant No. 2 (VT7) 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."

Does the additional words help make it more clear?

Do you understand why we fell confident about the upcoming Supreme Administrative Court decision?

Does VT7 and their investors understand they are standing on very thin ice?

Edited August 5, 2008 by stopvt7

[fredKroket]

maybe a little off topic, but one wonders how many of the units in VT7 are actually going to be sold now. With all the present woes in the market, it just might be that stopvt7 could win his case and VT7 would lose twice. Once in court and once due to lack of sales.

Not really off topic, a valid point. However if you take a look at VT5 & VT6 it don't seem like many in there sold either. VT is big company with lots of money and power, they build there condos unlike other companies who have to sometimes sell large percentage before they start. They probably know that if they build it even if they not sell all, the price of the building go up in value anyway.

My English is not so great, but please stopVT7 with the money you take from the co-owners buy a dictionary. This website should only take post in English, but your posting is very difficult to understand because you spell so many things wrong. I think you mean you FEEL confident, not FELL confident. Sorry I am a massager of this to you

[ThaiBob]

Wiresok,

I tried to answer your questions or "flaws" using arguments from stopVT7's own lawyers but you are unconvinced. That's Ok because nobody has to convince you but more importantly the stopVT7 arguments did not convince the Courts either. I see nothing in the stopVt7 case to overturn Issue 9 and the way it has been interpreted for about the last 30 years.

In an earlier post (#1226) you said you were a VT5 owner. Frankly, your position on VT7 seems a little "strange" considering there are some posters (Tammi) that advocate demolishing VT5 if stopVT7 wins his case. I personally feel the Avalon Resort and VT5 were nice additions to Dongtarn Beach and would not refer to your unit as you do as a "low cost rental".

You don't seem to "get it", ThaiBob. AsiaLawWorks, the attorney for the Stop VT7 group, submitted a brief to the Rayong court that agreed with the so-called "expert" witness hired by the defendants -- that is, City Hall and the View Talay developer. This was contrary to what they told their clients they would do.

Now, what would motivate a lawyer to betray the interests of his client? Let's see. . .

Perhaps Amnat and Markus deeply and sincerely believed that the "expert" witness was correct. Could that be it?

Or maybe Amnat and Markus want to see a beautiful building like View Talay 7 grace Dongtarn beach, their clients be damned. Could that be it?

Another possible conclusion is that they were "persuaded" -- either by carrot or stick -- to deceive their clients and throw the case to their opponents. This is only a possiblity, I grant, but, here in Thailand, it is, at the very least, conceivable. Khun Amnat's later election to the City Council is certainly an interesting coincidence, don't you agree?

Now . . . the Supreme Administrative Court was founded by the Monarch to counter corruption. That would include bribery, intimidation, and a host of other tactics used to get around the law. If, by some outside chance, it were to become obvious to the judges that some of those tactics were used to secure the building permit for VT7, then it would be incumbant upon the court to abrogate the permit and force the developer to obey the legal limits stated in Issue 9.

In case you missed it, ThaiBob, what I am saying is that the very argument you use, that AsiaLawWorks agreed with City Hall, is a sign that something is rotten. Let us hope that the stench makes its way to Bangkok.

I agree with many of your comments and I have never condoned the actions of AsiaLaw Works. The litigants should have and did fire them. But, my comments were directed specifically to the stopVT7's "Explanations" (see stopVT7 blog) filed with Court when they attempted to explain the CCL on the Issue 9 map. This was month's prior to Rayong Court ruling on Jan.. 16.

[ThaiBob]

maybe a little off topic, but one wonders how many of the units in VT7 are actually going to be sold now. With all the present woes in the market, it just might be that stopvt7 could win his case and VT7 would lose twice. Once in court and once due to lack of sales.

Not really off topic, a valid point. However if you take a look at VT5 & VT6 it don't seem like many in there sold either. VT is big company with lots of money and power, they build there condos unlike other companies who have to sometimes sell large percentage before they start. They probably know that if they build it even if they not sell all, the price of the building go up in value anyway.

My English is not so great, but please stopVT7 with the money you take from the co-owners buy a dictionary. This website should only take post in English, but your posting is very difficult to understand because you spell so many things wrong. I think you mean you FEEL confident, not FELL confident. Sorry I am a massager of this to you

VT5C and VT6 are basically all sold. There are still many units available in VT5D since it was recently completed and not beachfront property. VT7 sales are typical for this stage of construction. Sales pick up as a project nears completion. I am told that the 115 sqm units (the Y section of the building) are readily available on all floors. All corner units were sold within a week of the sales release date. By "all sold" I am referring to VT sales only as there is a "glut" of resales on the market because of many factors including the economic slump.

[ThaiBob]

....

Your are wrong in your above thinking!! The next court hearing will be when the Rayong Court judge reads the Admin Supreme Court decision concerning our February 15, 2008 appeal in court. Then the ASC court could take away VT7 building premit and order the Rayong court to restore the building to a 14 meter height!!

...

Let's suppose the Rayong Court completes it's investigation and concludes that VT7 is in fact illegal. Are you saying that the Rayong Court could not then make a ruling prior to the Supreme Court decision on your Appeal?

Edited August 5, 2008 by ThaiBob

[fredKroket]

maybe a little off topic, but one wonders how many of the units in VT7 are actually going to be sold now. With all the present woes in the market, it just might be that stopvt7 could win his case and VT7 would lose twice. Once in court and once due to lack of sales.

Not really off topic, a valid point. However if you take a look at VT5 & VT6 it don't seem like many in there sold either. VT is big company with lots of money and power, they build there condos unlike other companies who have to sometimes sell large percentage before they start. They probably know that if they build it even if they not sell all, the price of the building go up in value anyway.

My English is not so great, but please stopVT7 with the money you take from the co-owners buy a dictionary. This website should only take post in English, but your posting is very difficult to understand because you spell so many things wrong. I think you mean you FEEL confident, not FELL confident. Sorry I am a massager of this to you

VT5C and VT6 are basically all sold. There are still many units available in VT5D since it was recently completed and not beachfront property. VT7 sales are typical for this stage of construction. Sales pick up as a project nears completion. I am told that the 115 sqm units (the Y section of the building) are readily available on all floors. All corner units were sold within a week of the sales release date. By "all sold" I am referring to VT sales only as there is a "glut" of resales on the market because of many factors including the economic slump.

VT6 only 39% sold, go and look at the floor plans and ask. I apologise I see you say resales, but why doesn't VT class them as sold rather than unsold?

Edited August 5, 2008 by fredKroket

[redman]

one guy says VT6 is basically all sold, another says 39% is sold.

The 39% figure appears to have appeared after some kind of calculation, which requires data or it would say 40%, or 35% or 45% etc. You get my drift.

The "basically all sold" figure seems very high. but maybe Thaibob is using the language estate agents use, which is gobbledegook to any other person.

Who do we believe? And if the 39% figure is correct, then should be believe all the other posts from Thaibob?

[stopvt7]

Dear ThaiBob

You statement “Are you saying that the Rayong Court could not then make a ruling prior to the Supreme Court decision on your Appeal?"

No! But this will never happen!

Because the court reacts to case filing and their no case papers filed at the moment which has requested or needs a hearing. The Rayong court will now wait to read the answer about our appeal which is at the Supreme Administrative Court.

[prospero]

<br /><font color="#000080"><b>Dear ThaiBob<br /><br />You statement</b></font> "Are you saying that the Rayong Court could not then make a ruling prior to the Supreme Court decision on your Appeal?"<br /><br /><b><font color="#000080">No! But this will never happen!<br /><br />Because the court reacts to case filing and their no case papers filed at the moment which has requested or needs a hearing. The Rayong court will now wait to read the answer about our appeal which is at the Supreme Administrative Court.</font></b><br />

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

So are you saying that the City Hall Lawyer has not filed the statement on public benefit demanded by the SAC? If that is so, what does it mean?

[ThaiBob]

one guy says VT6 is basically all sold, another says 39% is sold.

The 39% figure appears to have appeared after some kind of calculation, which requires data or it would say 40%, or 35% or 45% etc. You get my drift.

The "basically all sold" figure seems very high. but maybe Thaibob is using the language estate agents use, which is gobbledegook to any other person.

Who do we believe? And if the 39% figure is correct, then should be believe all the other posts from Thaibob?

My "facts" came from the VT office. I asked for a friend if there were VT6 units available and was told all that were left were some undesireable units that they were trying to peddle. There were commercial units available but my friend has no interest. Again, I am only speaking of VT sales and not re-sales. You can buy any unit of your choice from a realtor or "flipper" but VT already has their money. VT7: All corner and non-studio units are sold except for the 115 sqm units (non-corner) in the Y section. All studios are sold on the JomTien side above floor #4. There are studios available on many floors on the Pattaya side.