Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[ZZZ]

Firstly, how could you prove there was an "incentive"?

Secondly, you seem to forget that VT7 would also be obliged to pay back all the people that bought. If you think that they will pay for dismantling and hauling away thousands of tons of concrete and make a huge loss, then I'm afraid you are dreaming, too.

They will go to court. As someone has already mentioned, the 101 businesses on walking street were supposed to have been demolished years ago. Have they been?

Without being able to prove that VT7 offered an incentive, you are left with the fact that VT7 did nothing illegal. the blame will lie at the door of Pattaya City. No way VT7 is going to just start dismantling without exhausting every legal method first, and that will take years.

Seems to be a lot of naivety and wishful thinking by stopVT7 supporters.

As for the majority of the complex owners supporting this legal action, please supply a link to the post, or, thread.

Another very good reason why VT7 won't dismantle if they lose, is that if they can keep the case in court with appeals, they won't have to pay any buyers back.

Why would they tear the place down and take a definite loss when they can keep it in court with a slim chance of coming out with a profit?

As I said before, you stopVT7 supporters just haven't thought this thing out to a logical conclusion should you win (and I don't think you will).

It does not matter if there was an "incentive" involved anymore. The case is now a question of 100m or 200m. If 100m win, VT7 will be built and the case is over. There is no point then for JCC to fight on because of a possible "incentive" as this will not change the 100m verdict.

If the 200m win, VT7/City Hall could maybe fight on, not sure if they have any more appeal options after supreme court though so the next decision could be the final, no more appeals. In any case they would risk a lot if there was any "incentive" involved and lock up their land investment. Maybe someone else knows if there will be any more possibilities for appeals after the next verdict??

To dismantle VT7 would not be very expensive, two weeks with a wrecking crew and any trace of the construction would be gone.

It was posted on this thread that the owners group agreed to pay for the legal fees.

[Sir Burr]

To dismantle VT7 would not be very expensive, two weeks with a wrecking crew and any trace of the construction would be gone.

Really? Two weeks?

A wrecking ball is fine for knocking down houses, but, not a multi-storey building. Would you like to operate the wrecking-ball with the danger of being buried in rubble?

How many truck loads of rubble? Then it's got to be taken somewhere. Lots of man-power lots of machines.

It will not be cheap and it will be a lengthy process.

But, why would VT7 do it? I've already explained that it makes financial sense for VT7 to appeal, if they can't, they'll duck and dive, just like the owners of the 101 businesses on Walking street.

Better yet, declare bancruptcy and walk away.

Keep wearing the rosy-tinted glasses, you're going to need them if stopVT7 win (which they won't).

Edited August 7, 2008 by Sir Burr

[Wiresok]

To dismantle VT7 would not be very expensive, two weeks with a wrecking crew and any trace of the construction would be gone.

Really? Two weeks?

A wrecking ball is fine for knocking down houses, but, not a multi-storey building. Would you like to operate the wrecking-ball with the danger of being buried in rubble?

How many truck loads of rubble? Then it's got to be taken somewhere. Lots of man-power lots of machines.

It will not be cheap and it will be a lengthy process.

But, why would VT7 do it? I've already explained that it makes financial sense for VT7 to appeal, if they can't, they'll duck and dive, just like the owners of the 101 businesses on Walking street.

Better yet, declare bancruptcy and walk away.

Keep wearing the rosy-tinted glasses, you're going to need them if stopVT7 win (which they won't).

As I have said before it is vt7 who are taking all the risks here.

They could have earned some respect by stopping construction at 14m and awaited the clarification from the SC.

They chose not to do so, they had the chioce, they are responsible for their own consequences.

When vt7 permit is declared illegal, as it will be for the reasons I have previously highlighted, there will be no shortage of contractors ready and willing , and only to happy, to take it down.

City hall will have to pay for this as they issued the permit.

City hall and vt will then have to settle things between themselves.

[Wiresok]

Dear ThaiBob

Your statement: "Of course, you do not see that because you read with peripheral vision and disregard conditional words and "if" statements (as pointed out by others). This leads to your convoluted and illogical conclusions"

I read with peripheral vision ? Sorry, I do not ignore statement from the Supreme Administrative Court or the Thai government like you. Example!

1) 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) Which this "order" was revised by Rayong Admin Court on January 18, 2008 !

Ops Rayong!! It is not nice to make SAC judges look bad..

2) The Meeting on the Drafting of Ministerial Regulation which said:"Further amendment was to delete the wording "towards the shore" since the wording was clearly understood,"

3) The wording of the regulation Issue 8 and 9 and the real difference:

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

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

4) a map which has a arrow pointing from the sea toward the land which was used By city hall lawyer to claim you measure into the sea before you measure onto the land. Sponge Bob can understand a arrow on a map is use to point! Nothing more!!

5) The facts that city hall, VT7 or the so-called expert witness report brought nothing new to the Rayong Admin Court on January 15, 2008. They only restated a old argument which had been rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court in their August 2007 decision!

Some think some how someone will buy the ASC? If they could? It would of been over last August (2007).

Thailand is a country of laws and honorable judges.

After reading this I don't know whether to laugh or cry. In deference to Tammi I will keep this brief and try not to repeat myself in replying to the latest dribble and propaganda.

1. Your latest quote in a classic example of ignoring conditional phrases ("if") and conveniently omits the last sentence of the Order, "On a temporary basis until the Court has ordered otherwise." Well the Court has ruled otherwise which is summarized by the SC in their latest June 19 document. All this makes the ASC judges look bad? Right, only by your convoluted logic.

2. The point is? Everybody is in agreement here. The Court wants to measure toward the shore but from the restricted construction border line on the Issue 9 map.

3. Besides the increase from 100 meters to 200 meters the "real difference" understands that Issue 8 and Issue 9 maps are not same. I see you have also tried to change the meaning by inserting "(at MSL)"

4. Arrows are the not issue here but the "restricted construction border line" on the Issue 9 map (see attached). Your lawyers understood the significance better than you so perhaps they can it explain it to you (and try listening for a change).

5. Very funny, the SC has not rejected any argument, yours or the Court's. I suggest you read the latest SC document again.

StopVT7 have you considered hiring a good public relations spokesperson? I think it would be very helpful.

Thaibob, I dont understand much of the "Thai script" on the map but in your theory, which of the script on there specifies the position the CCL at the left hand border of the construction restricted area ?

I cannot see a reference to CCL.

[Tammi]

As I've said before, if stopVT7 wins the case, VT7 will promptly announce banckruptcy, then sue Pattaya City for wrongfully issuing a building permit. VT7 hasn't done anything wrong, the case is about Pattaya City issuing a building permit illegally.

Pattaya City doesn't have the money to pay for dismantling and hauling away VT7, or, reimbursing VT7 for the construction costs. The court case will be strung out for years and years as VT7 slowly rots away.

--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,"

[prospero]

<br />

To dismantle VT7 would not be very expensive, two weeks with a wrecking crew and any trace of the construction would be gone.

<br />Really? Two weeks?<br /><br />A wrecking ball is fine for knocking down houses, but, not a multi-storey building. Would you like to operate the wrecking-ball with the danger of being buried in rubble?<br /><br />How many truck loads of rubble? Then it's got to be taken somewhere. Lots of man-power lots of machines.<br />It will not be cheap and it will be a lengthy process.<br /><br />But, why would VT7 do it? I've already explained that it makes financial sense for VT7 to appeal, if they can't, they'll duck and dive, just like the owners of the 101 businesses on Walking street.<br />Better yet, declare bancruptcy and walk away.<br /><br />Keep wearing the rosy-tinted glasses, you're going to need them if stopVT7 win (which they won't).<br />

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

I have seen wrecking balls operate in Thailand -- to knock down multi-story buildings. I have never seen a wrecking ball take down a house. As far as I know, only a few people have been buried in the rubble.

I would think that the number of truck loads of rubble would roughly equal the number of truckloads of cement they used to build up the structure.

Perhaps the rubble can be taken to the Thai-Cambodian border where it can be used for fortification.

There is no appeal from the Supreme Administrative Court. That is why it is called Supreme.

As I said previously, declaring bankruptcy is an option only if View Talay wants to fold its cereal boxes and never again build another ugly white tower. Even rosy-tinted-glasses-wearing farangs such as you would think twice about throwing hard-earned cash at a developer who declares bankruptcy. Think of all the VT7 investors who would be marching on City Hall (Just like good old Stop VT7) to protest. It would be great copy for the Bangkok papers, and, maybe, the international media.

[stopvt7]

Compare the Issue 8 and 9 map below. The "Construction Control Line" CCL is represented by the yellow line on both maps. On Issue 9 map the Construction Control Line CCL is found at the seaside (yellow line) at MSL.

The "Borderline of the Control Construction Area" on Issue 9 map is found in the sea 100 meters from the "Construction Control Line" CCL. But this "Borderline of the Control Construction Area" has nothing to do with the 200 meter measurement onto the land.

You measure from "Construction Control Line" CCL at the seaside found at "MSL" on the Issue 9 map. You measure from MSL at the seaside 200 meters onto the land.

Reference to CCL is only found in the written regulation and is on the map is the yellow lines.

We had meetings with map expert and Lawyers and the Thai maps were translate for the farangs.

You may go to and print a Thai copy of Issue 9 with Thai Map: http://www.asa.or.th/download/03media/04law/cba/mr/mr21-09.pdf

You may go to and print a Thai copy of Issue 8 with Thai Map: http://www.asa.or.th/download/03media/04law/cba/mr/mr19-08.pdf

The Stopvt7 group has nothing to hide and we make part of our action to keep anyone interested informed. So please if you do not believe us print copies of the Thai Issue 8 and 9 regulation and find you own experts.

Edited August 7, 2008 by stopvt7

[Wiresok]

"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."

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).

I know that most people on here have given up trying to follow your confused rants JPM76, but being a seeker of truth and justice I just bite the bullet and get on with it.

However in amongst the usual intoxicated drivel there are a couple of nuggets which I cannot let go by,

1.Your comment about the vt7 side "making it appear" is so apt.

We all know that is precisely what the expert witness did, he took issue 9 and the map, and "made his theory appear".

2.On a more serious note your comment about the "unintended consequences" is very disturbing.

Are you really saying that the army of legislators, together with their vast support of technical,administrative and engineering expertise, allowed the writing, passing and application of a regulation, on an important subject like this, with a hole in it you could drive a row of tuk-tuks through !.

Then have to pass it off as an "unintended consequence"

Are you really making such an assertion of what could only be described as gross incompetance, total departmental failure?

3.You may not be able to understand the simple mathematics and measurements involved here, but don't tar the rest of us with the same brush.You insult the intelligence of the Nation, a Nation whose SC has already showed a grasp of the technical matters better than you will ever have.

[Tammi]

<br />

To dismantle VT7 would not be very expensive, two weeks with a wrecking crew and any trace of the construction would be gone.

<br />Really? Two weeks?<br /><br />A wrecking ball is fine for knocking down houses, but, not a multi-storey building. Would you like to operate the wrecking-ball with the danger of being buried in rubble?<br /><br />How many truck loads of rubble? Then it's got to be taken somewhere. Lots of man-power lots of machines.<br />It will not be cheap and it will be a lengthy process.<br /><br />But, why would VT7 do it? I've already explained that it makes financial sense for VT7 to appeal, if they can't, they'll duck and dive, just like the owners of the 101 businesses on Walking street.<br />Better yet, declare bancruptcy and walk away.<br /><br />Keep wearing the rosy-tinted glasses, you're going to need them if stopVT7 win (which they won't).<br />

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

I have seen wrecking balls operate in Thailand -- to knock down multi-story buildings. I have never seen a wrecking ball take down a house. As far as I know, only a few people have been buried in the rubble.

I would think that the number of truck loads of rubble would roughly equal the number of truckloads of cement they used to build up the structure.

Perhaps the rubble can be taken to the Thai-Cambodian border where it can be used for fortification.

There is no appeal from the Supreme Administrative Court. That is why it is called Supreme.

As I said previously, declaring bankruptcy is an option only if View Talay wants to fold its cereal boxes and never again build another ugly white tower. Even rosy-tinted-glasses-wearing farangs such as you would think twice about throwing hard-earned cash at a developer who declares bankruptcy. Think of all the VT7 investors who would be marching on City Hall (Just like good old Stop VT7) to protest. It would be great copy for the Bangkok papers, and, maybe, the international media.

Probably very many fewer people have been buried in wreacking ball rubble than have fallen off hi-rises under construction that have not followed safety rules.

Rubble usually gets buried in areas designed for gardens. Small projects just remove it and dump at roadsides.

BTW, have heard that land at Jomthien Condotel on which Regatta was to be built has been sold to another developer. Rumor or fact??

[prospero]

Typically, the actual implosion only takes a few seconds. To many onlookers, the speed of destruction is the most incredible aspect of an implosion. How can a building that took months and months to build, and stood up to the elements for a hundred years or more, collapse into a pile of rubble as if it were a sand castle?

Following the blast, a cloud of dust billows out around the wreckage, enveloping nearby spectators. This cloud can be a nuisance to anyone living near the blast site, but blasters point out that it is actually less intrusive than the dust kicked up by non-explosive demolition. When workers take down buildings using sledgehammers and wrecking balls, the demolition process may take weeks or months. In this time, a significant amount of dust is being kicked up into the air every day. When the building is leveled in one moment, on the other hand, all the dust is concentrated in one cloud, which lingers for a relatively short period of time. Nearby residents with allergies can leave the area for that one day and avoid the dust entirely.

-- "How Stuff Works" website.

[redman]

<br />

To dismantle VT7 would not be very expensive, two weeks with a wrecking crew and any trace of the construction would be gone.

<br />Really? Two weeks?<br /><br />A wrecking ball is fine for knocking down houses, but, not a multi-storey building. Would you like to operate the wrecking-ball with the danger of being buried in rubble?<br /><br />How many truck loads of rubble? Then it's got to be taken somewhere. Lots of man-power lots of machines.<br />It will not be cheap and it will be a lengthy process.<br /><br />But, why would VT7 do it? I've already explained that it makes financial sense for VT7 to appeal, if they can't, they'll duck and dive, just like the owners of the 101 businesses on Walking street.<br />Better yet, declare bancruptcy and walk away.<br /><br />Keep wearing the rosy-tinted glasses, you're going to need them if stopVT7 win (which they won't).<br />

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

I have seen wrecking balls operate in Thailand -- to knock down multi-story buildings. I have never seen a wrecking ball take down a house. As far as I know, only a few people have been buried in the rubble.

I would think that the number of truck loads of rubble would roughly equal the number of truckloads of cement they used to build up the structure.

Perhaps the rubble can be taken to the Thai-Cambodian border where it can be used for fortification.

There is no appeal from the Supreme Administrative Court. That is why it is called Supreme.

As I said previously, declaring bankruptcy is an option only if View Talay wants to fold its cereal boxes and never again build another ugly white tower. Even rosy-tinted-glasses-wearing farangs such as you would think twice about throwing hard-earned cash at a developer who declares bankruptcy. Think of all the VT7 investors who would be marching on City Hall (Just like good old Stop VT7) to protest. It would be great copy for the Bangkok papers, and, maybe, the international media.

Probably very many fewer people have been buried in wreacking ball rubble than have fallen off hi-rises under construction that have not followed safety rules.

Rubble usually gets buried in areas designed for gardens. Small projects just remove it and dump at roadsides.

BTW, have heard that land at Jomthien Condotel on which Regatta was to be built has been sold to another developer. Rumor or fact??

I am sure someone in the land office can put you right on that titbit.

[ThaiBob]

Dear ThaiBob

Have you been drinking tonight?

I inserted (at MSL) because on the map at the "sea shore" or "seaside", depending on who did the translation, is found at "MSL". So you measure from the "Construction Control Line" at the "sea shore" or "seaside" which you fine on the map at "MSL". Please get some help reading the map.

All three points

1) "Construction Control Line"

2) at the "sea shore" or "seaside"

3) "MSL" you fine on the map.

are found at the same place on the map. Now measure 200 meters onto the land!

You do not measure from the "Borderline of the construction restricted area" which is one of the map borderlines. You find this "Borderline of the construction restricted area" 100 meters into the sea measuring from: 1) "Construction Control Line"

2) at the "sea shore" or "seaside"

3) "MSL"

Their no where in the written regulation, Issue 9, it tell you to measure into the sea.

“Have you been drinking tonight?” Sorry, I don’t drink; alcohol is not a part of my life.

But to the point, adding “(at MSL)” only confuses people because it is not part of the original quote. You continually repeat your discredited argument (see latest SC document) that the Construction Control Line (CCL) = MSL. Perhaps you think if you continually repeat it people will think it is true (Hey, remember Bush and his Weapons of Mass Destruction). Your argument that MSL = CCL is simply not supported by the Issue 9 map. Please look at the map again. It shows both the MSL and the Borderline of Restricted Construction. We all know the problems in translating Thai to English and especially technical Thai. I think most people can see the similarities and easily make the transition from Construction Control Line (CCL) to Borderline of Restricted Construction. However, to argue that CCL = MSL requires a leap of faith and is simply not true. Don’t make things complicated, simply measure 200 meters landward from the clearly marked borderline. This creates the restricted construction zone. Measuring 200 meters landward from the MSL to mark the other borderline creates a 300 meter restricted construction zone. Where does Issue 9 say anything about 300 meters? No where does Issue 9 say to measure from the MSL. The Court has ruled correctly.

“Their no where in the written regulation, Issue 9, it tell you to measure into the sea.” (Beautiful English I might add.) True, but somewhat misleading. It sounds like you’re implying a surveyor would make a measurement using a boat or go for a swim. Issue 9 refers to the annexed Map and the Map refers to borderline of restricted construction.

You are litigants and want to change a regulation that has been in effect for 30 years. Please give us some new evidence not your copy and paste efforts from your fired lawyer’s legal filings. Where are your witnesses? They were not at hearings. Where were your sworn depositions from experts? Increasing the measurement from 100 to 200 meters from MSL like you claim has huge implications for everyone. Such a change would be well documented. Planners, government agencies, realtors, etc. would all be aware of such a change. Show us policy letters, letters of instruction, newspaper clippings, magazine articles, show us something new.

[ThaiBob]

Dear ThaiBob

Your statement: "Of course, you do not see that because you read with peripheral vision and disregard conditional words and "if" statements (as pointed out by others). This leads to your convoluted and illogical conclusions"

I read with peripheral vision ? Sorry, I do not ignore statement from the Supreme Administrative Court or the Thai government like you. Example!

1) 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) Which this "order" was revised by Rayong Admin Court on January 18, 2008 !

Ops Rayong!! It is not nice to make SAC judges look bad..

2) The Meeting on the Drafting of Ministerial Regulation which said:"Further amendment was to delete the wording "towards the shore" since the wording was clearly understood,"

3) The wording of the regulation Issue 8 and 9 and the real difference:

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

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

4) a map which has a arrow pointing from the sea toward the land which was used By city hall lawyer to claim you measure into the sea before you measure onto the land. Sponge Bob can understand a arrow on a map is use to point! Nothing more!!

5) The facts that city hall, VT7 or the so-called expert witness report brought nothing new to the Rayong Admin Court on January 15, 2008. They only restated a old argument which had been rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court in their August 2007 decision!

Some think some how someone will buy the ASC? If they could? It would of been over last August (2007).

Thailand is a country of laws and honorable judges.

After reading this I don't know whether to laugh or cry. In deference to Tammi I will keep this brief and try not to repeat myself in replying to the latest dribble and propaganda.

1. Your latest quote in a classic example of ignoring conditional phrases ("if") and conveniently omits the last sentence of the Order, "On a temporary basis until the Court has ordered otherwise." Well the Court has ruled otherwise which is summarized by the SC in their latest June 19 document. All this makes the ASC judges look bad? Right, only by your convoluted logic.

2. The point is? Everybody is in agreement here. The Court wants to measure toward the shore but from the restricted construction border line on the Issue 9 map.

3. Besides the increase from 100 meters to 200 meters the "real difference" understands that Issue 8 and Issue 9 maps are not same. I see you have also tried to change the meaning by inserting "(at MSL)"

4. Arrows are the not issue here but the "restricted construction border line" on the Issue 9 map (see attached). Your lawyers understood the significance better than you so perhaps they can it explain it to you (and try listening for a change).

5. Very funny, the SC has not rejected any argument, yours or the Court's. I suggest you read the latest SC document again.

StopVT7 have you considered hiring a good public relations spokesperson? I think it would be very helpful.

Thaibob, I dont understand much of the "Thai script" on the map but in your theory, which of the script on there specifies the position the CCL at the left hand border of the construction restricted area ?

I cannot see a reference to CCL.

Coincidentally I responded to this question in another post to stopVT7. Please look at the map.

"Your argument that MSL = CCL is simply not supported by the Issue 9 map. Please look at the map again. It shows both the MSL and the Borderline of Restricted Construction. We all know the problems in translating Thai to English and especially technical Thai. I think most people can see the similarities and easily make the transition from Construction Control Line (CCL) to Borderline of Restricted Construction. However, to argue that CCL = MSL requires a leap of faith and is simply not true."

[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?

[Tammi]

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?

There will be re-re-re-repeating until anti-stopVT7 stop posting. Why do you bother? The case is with the Courts and they will make decision.

[ripley]

Just picked this up on a related thread on condo act amendments. There is to be a seminar on the repercussions and meanings of the new amendments. Should be useful as, amongst other experts, reps from Tillek & Gibbons law firm will be there to speak.

Venue: Novotel Hotel (Siam), Bangkok

Date: Aug. 20

Time: 09:00 - 17:00

Also, ZZZ, the owners were NOT informed they were funding the case until an announcement at a gen. mtg. that maintenance funds were being used for this purpose. They were not asked until this year's AGM, where a second call meeting carried the vote. At that time, whoever was present or had proxied was able to pass the funding. Not the majority of co-owners. If it hadn't been done that way, there would be no resistance to VT7 at all, so there are some who think it was a good thing. But not kosher.

[stopvt7]

Your posting: "Your argument that MSL = CCL is simply not supported by the Issue 9 map. Please look at the map again. It shows both the MSL and the Borderline of Restricted Construction. We all know the problems in translating Thai to English and especially technical Thai. I think most people can see the similarities and easily make the transition from Construction Control Line (CCL) to Borderline of Restricted Construction. However, to argue that CCL = MSL requires a leap of faith and is simply not true."

Please read the regulation and I explain why MSL = CCL :

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

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

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

Building of 14 meters higher than road level."

Now compare with Issue 8

"Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (B.E. 2519)

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

3. To specify the area within the 100 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map. Annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2479 at the seaside in which the following constructions shall not be built:

Building of 14 meters higher than road level"

What does this regulation say on the matter of the construction control line? It defines from where we make measurements! Issue 8 have you measure 100 meter. Issue 9 was amended to change 100 meters to 200 metersmeasurement.

Where is the construction control line? It is at the seaside on the map !

Do you fine the words construction control line on the map? NO! But you fine the words seaside on the map. With the words seaside on the map is written Mean Sea Level (MSL) on the map,

So the seaside ( or sea shore ) is located at the Mean Sea Level (MSL) on the map, So using good logic I'm able to determine the construction control line is at MSL. Or MSL = CCL

The "Construction Control Line" CCL is represented by the yellow line on both maps where from you measure onto the land.

Can you remember where I concluded you measure onto the land? The Minutes from "Meeting on the Drafting of Ministerial Regulation No. 8. See below:

"Meeting on the Drafting of Ministerial Regulation No. 8" Which is part of Issue 9

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

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

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

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

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

Now read reread the differance between Issue 8 and 9

[/color]Issue 8 "To specify the area within the 100 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction"

Issue 9 "To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction"

Issue 9 has a reason attached: "Note: "The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation due to the updating of the construction control areas .....................................by extending the construction restriction areas as appeared in the map annexed to the Royal Decree"

Do you understand the word "extend"?

extend >verb 1. make larger in area. 2. cause to last longer. 3. occupy a specified area or continue for a specified distance.

The Issue 9 map specify construction restriction areas "borderline" is 100 meter into the sea from MSL at the CCL construction control line.

By extending the measurement at MSL or the CCL from 100 meters to 200 meters onto the land!

Please read this quotation from the Supreme Administrative Court decisions which says: "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”

q

Edited August 8, 2008 by stopvt7

[ZZZ]

Just picked this up on a related thread on condo act amendments. There is to be a seminar on the repercussions and meanings of the new amendments. Should be useful as, amongst other experts, reps from Tillek & Gibbons law firm will be there to speak.

Venue: Novotel Hotel (Siam), Bangkok

Date: Aug. 20

Time: 09:00 - 17:00

Also, ZZZ, the owners were NOT informed they were funding the case until an announcement at a gen. mtg. that maintenance funds were being used for this purpose. They were not asked until this year's AGM, where a second call meeting carried the vote. At that time, whoever was present or had proxied was able to pass the funding. Not the majority of co-owners. If it hadn't been done that way, there would be no resistance to VT7 at all, so there are some who think it was a good thing. But not kosher.

Thanks for the info regarding the seminar.

Regarding the legal fee I'm still to find any JCC co-owner that are against paying the legal fees, Silence is Consent.

The only people I have seen complaining about how all the JCC co-owners had to pay for the legal fees are people invested in VT7

[ripley]

"....Silence is Consent."

Absolutely. In all situations. Something to think on.

[Tammi]

Just picked this up on a related thread on condo act amendments. There is to be a seminar on the repercussions and meanings of the new amendments. Should be useful as, amongst other experts, reps from Tillek & Gibbons law firm will be there to speak.

Venue: Novotel Hotel (Siam), Bangkok

Date: Aug. 20

Time: 09:00 - 17:00

Also, ZZZ, the owners were NOT informed they were funding the case until an announcement at a gen. mtg. that maintenance funds were being used for this purpose. They were not asked until this year's AGM, where a second call meeting carried the vote. At that time, whoever was present or had proxied was able to pass the funding. Not the majority of co-owners. If it hadn't been done that way, there would be no resistance to VT7 at all, so there are some who think it was a good thing. But not kosher.

2nd called AGMs have never been kosher. But now we have a new condo act which specifically says that quorum is not required at 2nd called meeting. So one person can attend and speak to himself and pass resolutions - not that co-owner resolutions are allowed by many committees and if co-owners do manage to pass a resolution the committee will just ignore it if it doesn't suit them.

[JaiDeeFarang]

Oh I do like to be beside the seaside, oh I do like to be beside the sea. Hardly an accurate point of measurement I would say, Construction Control Line seems to be more fitting and more obvioulsy a point of measurement rather than the ambiguity of 'seaside'.

Face it stopVT7, your ship is sinking fast and the Supreme Administrative Court will soon make you well aware of that, time to bail out I would say before VT7 comes looking for you for damages or worse. You have offered absolutely no new evidence since I asked you if you could produce anything, months ago. No new evidence, why do you think the decision will be any different to before?

[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?

There will be re-re-re-repeating until anti-stopVT7 stop posting. Why do you bother? The case is with the Courts and they will make decision.

Does he pay you to be his private secretary or did you mix up your nick's again?

I am not asking you, I am asking stopvt7, but I can understand why he doesnt answer.

It's probably out of his comprehension box.

[OhdLover]

Your posting: "Your argument that MSL = CCL is simply not supported by the Issue 9 map. Please look at the map again. It shows both the MSL and the Borderline of Restricted Construction. We all know the problems in translating Thai to English and especially technical Thai. I think most people can see the similarities and easily make the transition from Construction Control Line (CCL) to Borderline of Restricted Construction. However, to argue that CCL = MSL requires a leap of faith and is simply not true."

Please read the regulation and I explain why MSL = CCL :

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

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

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

Building of 14 meters higher than road level."

Now compare with Issue 8

"Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (B.E. 2519)

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

3. To specify the area within the 100 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map. Annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2479 at the seaside in which the following constructions shall not be built:

Building of 14 meters higher than road level"

What does this regulation say on the matter of the construction control line? It defines from where we make measurements! Issue 8 have you measure 100 meter. Issue 9 was amended to change 100 meters to 200 metersmeasurement.

Where is the construction control line? It is at the seaside on the map !

Do you fine the words construction control line on the map? NO! But you fine the words seaside on the map. With the words seaside on the map is written Mean Sea Level (MSL) on the map,

So the seaside ( or sea shore ) is located at the Mean Sea Level (MSL) on the map, So using good logic I'm able to determine the construction control line is at MSL. Or MSL = CCL

The "Construction Control Line" CCL is represented by the yellow line on both maps where from you measure onto the land.

Can you remember where I concluded you measure onto the land? The Minutes from "Meeting on the Drafting of Ministerial Regulation No. 8. See below:

"Meeting on the Drafting of Ministerial Regulation No. 8" Which is part of Issue 9

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

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

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

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

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

Now read reread the differance between Issue 8 and 9

[/color]Issue 8 "To specify the area within the 100 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction"

Issue 9 "To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction"

Issue 9 has a reason attached: "Note: "The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation due to the updating of the construction control areas .....................................by extending the construction restriction areas as appeared in the map annexed to the Royal Decree"

Do you understand the word "extend"?

extend >verb 1. make larger in area. 2. cause to last longer. 3. occupy a specified area or continue for a specified distance.

The Issue 9 map specify construction restriction areas "borderline" is 100 meter into the sea from MSL at the CCL construction control line.

By extending the measurement at MSL or the CCL from 100 meters to 200 meters onto the land!

Please read this quotation from the Supreme Administrative Court decisions which says: "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"

q

Can you please explain once more????

[stopvt7]

Dear JaiDeeFarang

City hall and VT7 brought nothing new to the January 15, 2008 court hearing. The expert witness report has NO importance or concern except if identify MSL for the Supreme Administrative Court. Now The Supreme Administrative Court can make a ruling. Then the tear down may start!!

Thailand is a country of laws! You will find this fact out after the ASC decision!

Edited August 8, 2008 by stopvt7

[stopvt7]

Dear OhdLover

Your statement "Can you please explain once more????"

I would but you not able to understand such legal matters!

I like this little guy. Doe he make you laugh?

Edited August 8, 2008 by stopvt7

[Wiresok]

Dear ThaiBob

Your statement: "Of course, you do not see that because you read with peripheral vision and disregard conditional words and "if" statements (as pointed out by others). This leads to your convoluted and illogical conclusions"

I read with peripheral vision ? Sorry, I do not ignore statement from the Supreme Administrative Court or the Thai government like you. Example!

1) 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) Which this "order" was revised by Rayong Admin Court on January 18, 2008 !

Ops Rayong!! It is not nice to make SAC judges look bad..

2) The Meeting on the Drafting of Ministerial Regulation which said:"Further amendment was to delete the wording "towards the shore" since the wording was clearly understood,"

3) The wording of the regulation Issue 8 and 9 and the real difference:

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

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

4) a map which has a arrow pointing from the sea toward the land which was used By city hall lawyer to claim you measure into the sea before you measure onto the land. Sponge Bob can understand a arrow on a map is use to point! Nothing more!!

5) The facts that city hall, VT7 or the so-called expert witness report brought nothing new to the Rayong Admin Court on January 15, 2008. They only restated a old argument which had been rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court in their August 2007 decision!

Some think some how someone will buy the ASC? If they could? It would of been over last August (2007).

Thailand is a country of laws and honorable judges.

After reading this I don't know whether to laugh or cry. In deference to Tammi I will keep this brief and try not to repeat myself in replying to the latest dribble and propaganda.

1. Your latest quote in a classic example of ignoring conditional phrases ("if") and conveniently omits the last sentence of the Order, "On a temporary basis until the Court has ordered otherwise." Well the Court has ruled otherwise which is summarized by the SC in their latest June 19 document. All this makes the ASC judges look bad? Right, only by your convoluted logic.

2. The point is? Everybody is in agreement here. The Court wants to measure toward the shore but from the restricted construction border line on the Issue 9 map.

3. Besides the increase from 100 meters to 200 meters the "real difference" understands that Issue 8 and Issue 9 maps are not same. I see you have also tried to change the meaning by inserting "(at MSL)"

4. Arrows are the not issue here but the "restricted construction border line" on the Issue 9 map (see attached). Your lawyers understood the significance better than you so perhaps they can it explain it to you (and try listening for a change).

5. Very funny, the SC has not rejected any argument, yours or the Court's. I suggest you read the latest SC document again.

StopVT7 have you considered hiring a good public relations spokesperson? I think it would be very helpful.

Thaibob, I dont understand much of the "Thai script" on the map but in your theory, which of the script on there specifies the position the CCL at the left hand border of the construction restricted area ?

I cannot see a reference to CCL.

Coincidentally I responded to this question in another post to stopVT7. Please look at the map.

"Your argument that MSL = CCL is simply not supported by the Issue 9 map. Please look at the map again. It shows both the MSL and the Borderline of Restricted Construction. We all know the problems in translating Thai to English and especially technical Thai. I think most people can see the similarities and easily make the transition from Construction Control Line (CCL) to Borderline of Restricted Construction. However, to argue that CCL = MSL requires a leap of faith and is simply not true."

I did look at your map Thaibob, and I remember you have always made your case about looking at the map to explain the position of CCL and your theory.

However I do not see any explicit reference to CCL on the map.

Therefore you need to read what issue 9 says.

When you read the words the stop vt7 reading is plausible, co-herent, and good planning in the public interest.

Your theory fails these tests and is bad planning , not in the public interest.

The SC have made this a public interest matter , and will decide this along public interest lines.

Thats why you lose,..

[OhdLover]

Dear OhdLover

Your statement "Can you please explain once more????"

I would but you not able to understand such legal matters!

I like this little guy. Doe he make you laugh?

Yes .. mee not now howe too reed engklisj. Pleese teech mee.

[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?

[stopvt7]

Dear OhdLover and JaiDeeFarang

I figure it out! You do not understand the meaning of the word area! And you want to measure from the "borderline of the construction control area" . No you measure from MSL on the map. MSL is at the seaside which locates the CCL "construction control line". You measure from this "line" on the map. You can fine this line on the maps which is in yellow color.

area >noun 1 a part of an expanse or surface. 2 the extent or measurement of a surface. 3 a space allocated for a specific use. 4 a subject or range of activity.

Latin, 'piece of level ground'.

line >noun 1 a long, narrow mark or band. 2 a length of cord, wire, etc. serving a purpose. 3 a row or connected series of people or things. 4 a row of written or printed words. 5 a direction, course, or channel. 6 a telephone connection. 7 a railway track or route. 8 a notional limit or boundary. 9 a connected series of military defenses facing an enemy force. 10 an arrangement of soldiers or ships in a column or line formation. 11 a wrinkle in the skin. 12 a contour or outline considered as a feature of design or composition.

-ORIGIN Old English, from Latin linum 'flax'; later influenced by Old French ligne, from Latin linea.

The "borderline of the construction control area" is outlined by blue color line on the second map.

Edited August 8, 2008 by stopvt7

[redman]

Dear OhdLover and JaiDeeFarang

I figure it out! You do not understand the meaning of the word area! And you want to measure from the "borderline of the construction control area" . No you measure from MSL on the map. MSL is at the seaside which locates the CCL "construction control line". You measure from this "line" on the map. You can fine this line on the maps which is in yellow color.

area >noun 1 a part of an expanse or surface. 2 the extent or measurement of a surface. 3 a space allocated for a specific use. 4 a subject or range of activity.

Latin, 'piece of level ground'.

line >noun 1 a long, narrow mark or band. 2 a length of cord, wire, etc. serving a purpose. 3 a row or connected series of people or things. 4 a row of written or printed words. 5 a direction, course, or channel. 6 a telephone connection. 7 a railway track or route. 8 a notional limit or boundary. 9 a connected series of military defenses facing an enemy force. 10 an arrangement of soldiers or ships in a column or line formation. 11 a wrinkle in the skin. 12 a contour or outline considered as a feature of design or composition.

-ORIGIN Old English, from Latin linum 'flax'; later influenced by Old French ligne, from Latin linea.

The "borderline of the construction control area" is outlined by blue color line on the second map.

stopVT7,

there are many people out here who respect you for organising the fight against VT7 and their puppets.

There are many people out here who also think you have a good case.

There are VERY many people out here who hope you win, and, after years of appeals, will keep winning till the battle is finally over.

However, you are being drawn into personal attacks on every person who opposes your fight and this will ultimately lose you all your support. Also, your constant "cut and paste defence" does you no favours and leaves your opponents with opportunities to criticise your English language and written skills, which most fair people think is disgraceful.

YOU would be well advised to cool it a little until some sort of information comes from the courts. The time for crowing may well be then, but try and calm down for now