Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[ThaiBob]

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

“So using good logic I'm able to determine the construction control line is at MSL. Or MSL = CCL”….Thank you for your detailed explanation and I believe I understand your logic. You had also previously posted:

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"

You added the “(at MSL)” to make your point that the MSL = CCL. But this is where we disagree; I think you are confusing the concepts of CCL and MSL. As we know Issue 8 was vague about the “seashore” and where to measure from. Issue 9 increased (extended, expanded) the restricted construction zone to 200 meters and but also introduced the MSL as a reference point, a marker, or a measuring point at the “seashore”. Using equations to represent your logic, if we let,

A = CCL for Issue 8

B = CCL for Issue 9

C = MSL

Then, your hypothesis is A = B = C (that is, MSL and CCL are the same)

(Hope people aren’t falling asleep)

However, looking at your own Issue 8 map, you identify correctly the “CCL at High Tide” with the yellow line. IF we were to draw the MSL on this map, clearly the CCL at High Tide and MSL (Mean Sea Level) by definition are not same and these lines on the map would be different. Consequently,

A <> B <> C (where <> means not equal to)

So the conclusion is the CCL and MSL are not same on these maps. MSL is a permanent marker and does not change. The CCL on the other hand can or could be changed by governmental regulation. For Issue 8 it was at High Tide as stopVT7’s map shows. For Issue 9 it is marked incorrectly on the map. Some future new Ministerial Regulation (Issue 10) might read, “to fix the 300 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". Then, the MSL would be used as a reference point to determine this CCL (or Borderline of Restricted Construction or Construction Control Boundary as the SC refers to it.) based on the new annexed map. This is a reason why Issue 9 does NOT read “to fix the 200 meters measured from the MSL according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction".

“Can you remember where I concluded you measure onto the land?”…..No one is disputing that.

“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.”……

Thank you for this definition, there were some posters here that were concerned you didn’t know to use a dictionary but you have proven them wrong.

“The Issue 9 map specify construction restriction areas "borderline" is 100 meter into the sea from MSL at the CCL construction control line.”….As I have shown the MSL and CCL are not the same. The Court has accepted that you measure 200 meters landward from the borderline of restricted construction or the Construction Control Boundary (as the SC refers to it) or the CCL and thus create the restricted construction zone (twice the width of Issue 8).

[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."

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,..

Wiresok, this not my map. It is stopVT7's. The translations for everything we read on this thread can be attributed to him and we Thank him for that. If he paid to have this particular map translated or had a friend do it I don't know. I have studied Thai and I am sure others here have also, but one thing you learn quickly is literal translations of Thai words or phrases are difficult and even more challenging when we deal with technical and legal language. Then you can through cultural differences into the equation. If we had all translations on this thread done again I can guarantee you there would be slight differences. The Court has accepted that you measure 200 meters landward from the "borderline of restricted construction". The SC calls it Construction Control Boundary. I am sure you see the similarities with Construction Control Line. If you ever study Thai, my message is do not get hung up on literal translations or exact wording because it will drive you crazy.

[stopvt7]

VT7 and their inventors must be worried about the appeal at the Bangkok Supreme Admin Court?

From the Bangkok Post:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/topstories/tops...s.php?id=129458

"Today's Top Stories

Asylum for Thaksin?

By Pradit Ruangdit and Wichit Chantanusornsiri

Speculation is rife that ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra and Khunying Potjaman will not return to Thailand on Sunday after all, but instead stay abroad and seek asylum.

On Friday, they attended the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics.

It was reported that the couple may go into exile overseas to escape the legal proceedings awaiting them at home.

The couple are being tried at the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions for alleged wrongdoing in the Ratchadaphisek land deal.

Two other cases against Mr Thaksin — the lottery case and the Exim Bank loan to Burma — are pending in the same court.

Five other cases against Mr Thaksin and his cronies are with the Office of the Attorney-General.

On July 31, the Criminal Court found Khunying Potjaman guilty of conspiring to evade tax totalling 546 million baht in the transfer of shares in the Shinawatra Computer and Communication company. She was sentenced to three years in jail and was later released on bail.

Finance Minister Surapong Suebwonglee, one of the couple's closest aides, said he talked with people in close contact with Mr Thaksin about rumours the couple would seek political asylum, but the truth has yet to be established.

"Some denied the rumour, others confirmed it," Mr Surapong said.

Arisman Pongruangrong, a former Thai Rak Thai MP, said Mr Thaksin and Khunying Potjaman will definitely return to Thailand after the opening ceremony of the Olympics Games.

They have booked seats on a flight from Beijing to Bangkok tomorrow, Mr Arisman said.

"His return will go according to schedule. Mr Thaksin confirmed that he will come back to fight all the cases in Thailand. He has never thought of seeking asylum as has been rumoured," said Mr Arisman.

A source at the Supreme Court said if the couple fail to turn up on Monday to report to a panel of judges handling the Ratchadaphisek land case, the judges may issue arrest warrants for them and may conduct the trial of the couple in absentia.

"Actually, the defendants' testimonies have no bearing on the trial. The defendants have denied the allegations all along. It depends on the evidence," the source said.

Meanwhile, Sakda Khongphet, a leader of the Isan Pattana faction of the People Power party (PPP), said he will give evidence showing misconduct by top people in the party to the National Counter Corruption Commission.

The Isan Pattana group has exposed the rise of the so-called "gang of four" within the PPP, whom it has accused of trying to dominate the party and cashing in on state projects to prepare for the next election.

The gang is believed to comprise Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, his secretary-general Theerapol Nopparampa, Dr Surapong and Newin Chidchob, a veteran MP who controls a large PPP faction of northeastern MPs.

The Isan Pattana faction claims the gang of four, guided by Mr Newin, is planning to form a coalition government with the Democrats if the PPP is dissolved.

"He [Mr Thaksin] told me that he has been aware of the movements of the gang of four and he said he felt hurt," Mr Sakda said.

However, Democrat secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban denied any knowledge of the plan.

A PPP source said Mr Thaksin sent his younger sister, Yingluck, to talk to Mr Newin and his group of MPs during a meeting of the party's northeastern MPs led by Mr Newin on Thursday. The group is called "Newin's friends". Maha Sarakham MP Suthin Klangsaeng, a member of the group, said Ms Yingluck explained that Mr Thaksin had nothing to do with the moves of the Isan Pattana group."

Thailand is a country of laws and the VT7 inventors are worried the court will tear down an illegal building.

It is question if VT7 investors will go into exile at Disneyland to escape the legal proceedings awaiting them in Thailand from ignoring Thai laws?

Edited August 10, 2008 by stopvt7

[jpm76]

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?

yes, very funny StopVT7, but I understand teh N & the O. What i cannot understand (if I was not familiar with your ever underhanded tactics) is how, after one reads post #1846, a post made by you which actually references the fact that it is your "Approved person on behalf of the 9 litigants" is how you can still blatantly deny it. Just how stupid are you to think that we are that stupid (but given your constant slurs at the intellegence levels of those against you, it suprises me little because everyone who does not agree with you is stupid right?) This is a thing against you... it is called E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. It works against people like you who try to manipulate facts and misconstrue everything.

As for your alleged support from SC, thank you for underlying "Therefore". It will make it easy for your readers to find that little yet big word after it that is called "IF". In English, this has the meaning of making a statement conditional, hence if that is your evidence for SC support, that's funny (haha - no need for little icon).

And no, I am not wrong in my thinking in my summation of the legal position that you find yourself in. you can dream all you want about a victory in 3 months, but then read back to your own SC supporter buddies, and you will see that they announce that they will direct this back to the court ie Rayong (ie the ones who delivered against you in the first place).

As for your minutes, why should I not think that you have misconstrued that - you have blatantly doctored and changed all the evidence to date, and you have shown on many occasions that you are not intelligent to understand English, yet alone providing us with Thai-English translations.

So, no need for Sponge Bob, I prefer real life comedy, and you StopVT7 are the biggest joke that has walked this way for a while. Anyone with a bit of time on their hand, I suggest that you read StopVT7's posts and arguments, and then actually have a go at sourcing all his apparent evidence, and then you find that he either completely misunderstood it all, else he took it out of context, else he quotes his own sides writing as being directives for Thai officials...talk about being King for a Day. Your time is soon to be up, and I hope that this won't even get to an appeal stage because I would hope that JCC co-owners finally put an end to your purse strings by suing you and JCC all the way past the 100m or 200m and yes, out to sea, where some firms happened to begin building at the time. That woudl be the most interesting headline for a while...StopVT7 and JCC charged with theft of condo owners money.

[jpm76]

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.

That is funny StopVT7, because that is exactly what did happen, else why are you having to appeal the Rayong decision that overran the decision to stop the injunction in the first place. Again, E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E to the contrary of your opinion, and once again, blatant evidence that you deny.

I am still reading through the postings, but I expect that ThaiBob actually picked this up and is actually challenging your self-styled superior grey matter which actually always seems a little faulty to me. But hey, no probs, i am sure you will find a way to spin it, or better yet, just blatantly change it to read what you want it to read.

[jpm76]

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.

Also, in addition to "if", you must also add the word "should" as it is a non-obligational directive not a command. And should you not point out that the SC had not heard any of the evidence at this point in time. It did the smart thing and said that things should stop before the evidence can be heard. Rayong then heard the evidence, and after hearing the evidence, not only did they overturn the injunction, but they also thought that you should not get a right to appeal because you were wasting valuable court time. It was only because you have a right to appeal under Thai law that the SC felt obliged to order your right to appeal, but do not try and argue that the SC are on your side, because there is only evidence to that fact if you take out all the "if"s, "buts" and begin forcing writings to appear in another manner. Let the people decide for themselves.

It seems that there are several maps going around, and whilst you claim that your map is correct, I am quite sure that the map that they used in court would have been the correct one as it was apparently the map that "clearly showed" the CCL as per that meeting on Issue 9. It places VT7 outside the 200m form the CCL.

[jpm76]

Dear fredKroket

The quote from the Nation newspaper: "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,"

Both Tammi and stopVT7 don't seem to understand the word "If" "

The word "if" despite the possibility or fact that thing will change! The Administrative Court is the court to make the change which will enforce Issue 9 regulation which will protect the Thai beach!

Actually, it was the administrative court that thought your case was so weak that they even denied your right to appeal to try and save the Thai court system the pains of having to go through all this. And I think that the "if" we are referring to is actually the "if" that you seem to miss when quoting your support from SC. Not suprisingly, no one else misses the importance of the "if" that you try and show sleight of hand with the word "therefore", a irrelevant word unless you are trying to force the emphasis upon the previous passage which still had not yet come to the big "IF".

Sorry to others if I am posting numerous posts here, but I figure that the only way to counter StopVT7's constant barrage of propaganda and lies, is to actually directly reply to his posts, and now to even source the things that he denies on the hope that people will nto go back through the previous pages (as I am sure that we all agree, it is hard enough to keep up woth this topic if you only visit every now and then). I am trying to respect what people have written about my posts being too wordy (so that the points are lost - I figure it is better done like this).

[jpm76]

--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,"

I advocate that interested parties take VT5 to court now. And the ex-mayor's comments above seem to suggest that VT7 (and VT5) are outside the Law.

Both Tammi and stopVT7 don't seem to understand the word "If"

You, FredKroket, are unable to analyse the ex-mayor's statement. He stated that maybe developers will think before asking for permits to build hi-rises within the 200 metre zone; that developers who do not read and understand the Law will have the problem of being taken to court; that we await the decision of the court to see IF the StopVT7 group will prevail or VT7.

Hopefully, this clears things up for you?

As with most media, it usually is a little bias in the particular political viewpoints they adhere to, and depending upon the corporate ties they have. I doubt that the ex-Mayor spoke in English, and I am quite sure that VT did their thinking before deciding to engage this project. They also made sure that they gained LEGAL building permits, and this has to count for something in any final court remedy should this go against VT7. To date all the evidence seems to suggest that StopVT7 will just keep spending the money of the very owners who tried to tell him to go away before his buddies at JCC (who have their own legal issues if this goes against StopVT7 in their guarantees made to JCC investors about no-ne building in fron tof them).

So, despite all of StopVT7's grim warnings, I do not think that VT7 investors are sweating at all...just have to wait a little longer to receive our condos, but in that light, many VT7 investors are being given more time to pay the balance. Thanks StopVT7 (not that I need it, but since my price is fixed, i can make interest on this money in my hands, not theirs).

[jpm76]

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.

Wow, ThaiBob....slow down - far too much clearly written and presented logic here. It should be made illegal by order of StopVT7.

I just wanted to restate the importance of point 2 since STopVT7 keeps refusing to acknowledge the fact that no-one, well except when he looks for some phony evidence to counter the arguments against his case, has ever talked about measuring into the sea. Nor have we challenged that the "measured onto land" needed not to be in there either. It has always been just about measuring the 200m from the CCL that was clearly stated upon the map that was annexed to Issue 9. But how many times have we clearly stated this point to him, and yet StopVT7 just continues to ignore it as if he does not understand it. He insists that CCL equals MSL, but like ThaiBob, I am completely aware that this was a StopVT7 insertion ie tampering of the evidence.

Oh well, I am sure that the courts will rule against him yet again (because SC has still not reviewed any evidence and merely keep referring the matter back to Rayong whose job is to weigh in on the evidence (but importantly also to follow Thai law before throwing out any appeals without following due process)). Still, maybe if we were StopVT7 we can herald that as our big victory and how the tables are turning against VT7 investors. Maybe we can continue to post how THIS TIME Rayong will support us.

Does anyone else, other than StopVT7, actually believe that the SC is the definitive court here? It is not time yet for SC to hear any appeal, therefore they have not yet considered all the evidence - that was the job of Rayong to do. SC had to merely order the first injunction because evidence needed to be gathered, and that evidence was presented at the Rayong court and it resulted in a complete case smashing victory for VT7 investors (because the courts understood, and ratehr than accusing Asia Law Works of corruption, maybe they decided not to insult the intelligence of Thai courts).

If Rayong orders its final decision, only then will the SC be called in to weigh the evidence. Despite StopVT7's assertions that this case is nearly over, we must keep in mind that Rayong is the FIRST Administrative court, and that it still has to pass judgement. Even it has not decided definiteively for VT7 investors, but there is far more evidence to suggest that it is VT7 sympathetic than there is to suggest that the SC is StopVT7 sypathetic (whose evidence is completely scant or better yet, imagined).

As I have pointed out before, far from victory laps, StopVT7 is trying to get his last grip of the stork's throat before he finally gets eaten (anyone who knows this quite well known picture will know what I mean by this). The sooner, the better, for Thailand.

[jpm76]

Lalana, it is not possible to stop some people from disagreeing with StopVT7 group and writing screeds on this topic to which StopVT7 and supporters feel they have to respond.

The anti-StopVT7 people are upset that they may lose out on investments they have made on VT7 and very much want to read the Law differently. They don't seem to realize that however many posts they make it is now up to the Supreme Admin Court to decide what the intent of the Law is and maybe that will happen soon or it may happen years from now when VT7 is occupied and the residents are wishing they hadn't bought into another cereal box (modified) in an increasingly built-up area - I walk the beach from time to time and see only very grumpy looking farangs and Thais and no beauty.

And, of course, there are all the problems of condo living in Thailand that, in spite of best efforts by a few people to get condo owners interested in Condo Law and Regulations, will continue until the building(s) get into a state that even the most disinterested cannot ignore. It could be that many VT investors will rent out their units and that brings me to another thought which is how much tax does the Thai government levy on income from rental properties?

Another worry to VT7 investors is the fall in property prices in the past few months. According to HSBC, last month UK house prices fell by 1.7%, more than double June's 0.8%, resulting in an annual decline of 8.1%, the largest since records began in 1991.

Actually Tammi, it is exactly the other way around. I was one of those who merely sat back and read, but I got so sick of StopVT7 distorting the facts that i felt that he needed to be shown for what he is, and what he is doing. I began writing and I tried to make it reasoned so that people could follow the arguments against him, (but that meant longer posts). I know that you are a supporter of him, but we are not doing any different to him. He is the one that thinks he owns this page, and we feel that we have the same right to post against his constant propoganda.

Whilst you think he is right, we think that all the evidence (of what evidence of his is actually real and not twisted) points to the fact that we will win this case.

Do you agree with the way that he constantly derides people and uses his smug icons to poke fun at people. His snide remarks just smack of arrogance, and for what - he just fails to get it. I decided that if he wanted to do that, I would counter fire with fire, and I think that I have used part logic, and part exposing his character for being one of no credibility to ensure people "measure" his case and are not deceived by him, nor his writings.

But it is us who have responded to him, not the other way around...a look back over posts will clearly show this - and if you can look back at my posts, you will see my initial support for his case (or at least his right to take it to the courts), but he quickly lost my support because of the way that he has gone about this. he needed to emply someone to handle this for him, as he has only harmed the chances of winning support from others. I am not sure if others see his complete arrogance, but I suspect that they do. From assessing how he has written here, he is most likely a self-centred egotistical meglomaniac who uses "altruism" and "selflessness" to disguise the struggle that he must have to live with his own ego - he thinks that he is 100% self-righteous, and no-one has the right to disagree with him, else they are stupid. i am just merely taking up that challenge, as easy as it is to throw down his all-proud polluted brain matter. Pride comes before a fall StopVT7, and you sir are free-falling, but yet are doing it on stolen funds. Justice will be served, as no-one escapes the greater laws of life.

[jpm76]

<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.

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

Prospero, you are 100% correct. Could you please explain it to your friend StopVT7 who thinks that the SC are about to deliver the final verdict. We have not yet even got to the first ruling from the FIRST Administrative Court, which is Rayong...they are still in the process of deliberating.

Rayong will get around to issuing its final decision, and then the whole matter will be handed up to the appellate court.

The SC are merely acting as the higher court, an overseer at present, to ensure that the Thai law is properly conducted at this point in time. The scenario whereby the SC was appealed to in having the right to appeal reinstated was a matter completely different to the original court case (as per the SC's deliberation).

If StopVT7 is to claim a victory, then he needs for the SC to re order the injunction, but the SC first deliberation from SC stated that the injunction was to be in place UNTIL the court had ordered otherwise. This occured at the first point in the legal process where evidence was heard ie at Rayong. No evidence had been heard by the Supremem court other than to determine whether there was actually a case to be heard (to which the Sc believed that there is a case here).

But, there is a huge difference between having a case and claiming to be winning a case, and StopVT7's argument that the SC backs him is laughable because it just shows that, depsite having all the legal counsel at hand, that he iehter

1. Cannot understand the legal system, which is quite similar to ours as I am learnign of it OR

2. Is deliberately trying to feign victory to hide the fact of how badly he has been losing (probably to justify how he is spending the money of others). FYI, if he had done this to me, i would have slapped a lawsuit upon him so quickly, he would not have had time to see it coming. But that is for JCC co-owners to decide. I expect that they will just wait it out, and if he loses, then will hammer him with it then. i just hope that the Thai courts seize him in Thailand to make sure he is accountable for all he has done here.

He had the right to appeal and use the court system, but not like this - he has made a mockery of the whole case. (some may argue he is exposing the corruption of the Thai system, but others will argue that he just clearly jumps to his conclusions far too quickly, and does not understand the concept of actually being WRONG, or of not being omnipotent or omniscient).

But you are correct, there is no appeal after the Supreme Court. StopVT7 just needs to UNDERSTAND exactly where he is in the process - think it will get through??? maybe you can explain it to him because he does not listen to us.

[jpm76]

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

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

Dear lookat

I coming to understand what the statement means! Sponge Bob teaches right and wrong behavior, goodness and moral behavior.

I think Sponge Bob would care about Issue 9 and protecting the Jomtien beaches. He would care about breaking a law to destruct someone nice see view.

The anti-StopVT7 investment gang are about the evils money can bring? To them the money gods will arrange a win some how? They have no interest in protecting the local beach!

It's obliviously they did not watch the Howdy Doody show growing up!

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/H/htmlH/...howdydoodys.htm

Thansk StopVT7...just exactly the type of comment I needed to show why I originally began posting against you. If you do not capitalism (and I suspect you only could tolerate Communism if you were dictator), move elsewhere, but do not assume to know the motivations of VT7 investors. I actually am a surfer and very interested in the beaches, having even volunteered for Surfrider Foundation whilst living on the Gold Coast, Australia. I just recognise that the environment and economy needs to be balanced, and I fail to see the destructive harm of buildings 100m from shore vs 200m.

But there you go again, heralding for the support of beach protection when you are in this all for numero uno (yourself). Sorry that you got it so wrong again - I have alwasy lived by the beach and have been an avid supporter of beach protection. This case you started only happened to coincide with your alleged love of the beach, and I recognise that this is a case of someone who was born in the land of liberalism (and the great ideas it espoused even if it struggles to uphold it in principle vs big interests such as oil companies etc), but yet hates the idea of freedom when it means that you have to demonstrate tolerance of other's freedoms also. Can I suggest reading one of the early writers of liberalism (Locke, A Letter on Tolerance 1688) - it may bring you to rid yourself of the nasty dictator personality type you have there - but consider it self-help, to remove the delusion you have that you are always 100% correct, and there is no other side. It could have saved you (sorry JCC co-owners) a lot of money here.

[jpm76]

"It's obliviously they did not watch the Howdy Doody show growing up!"

stopvt7 - are you trying to beat your own record? This one almost knocks "attack the massager" out of the first place in our Goofy Grammar & Silly Spelling Book of Records! Great stuff!

Sorry, it should be obvious! Enjoy the laugh!

That darn as you type spell correction.

Have you ever heard of the Freudian slip StopVT7?

You use massager instead of messenger - perhaps shows how you would prefer to "massage" the facts before you message them.

You use "fell" instead of "feel" - shows your inherent emotive condition through all this.

And now "oblivious" instead of "obvious" - to me it is quite obvious you are more oblivious.

If you are trying to show us your internal world, thanks, I think I got it long ago though.

[jpm76]

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?

Actually StopVT7, this is a technical point of matter, not a legal matter. The legal matters are the parts that you show yourself to be completely ignorant of understanding, but yet, even those who support you get it. Don't worry you will soon.

You keep asking for responses to matters that we have responded to on many occasions. What has it profited us to reason with you?

Issue 8 and Issue 9 were different meetings and therefore used different maps. The CCL was marked clearly, and by the way, borderline means exactly that. A BORDERLINE, A FRONTIER, and therefore the boundary from which to begin measuring. Sorry, but until you understand this point, you will continue to spout how you know how MSL=CCL. It will not change the fact that you deny that the boundary should be the commencement of the measuring point. And so, it does not matte rhow many times we explain it to you, but I love it how you continue to post as if we never responded to you. Fact is that we have responded 1,000 times. You are just not listening, but I doubt that others who read here are so blind.

I am less interested in an interpretation of Issue 8 or Issue 9 anymore, and more interested in learning how the courts will provide a remedy when VT7 is already completed. Don't you think that it is more realistic assumption than a StopVT7 complete victory in 3 months.

And yes, that little guy does make me laugh. I laugh because you try and mock others on legal matters who are clearly far more in the understanidng than you. But don't spoil our fun...continue in your self-righteous without question. That way we get more laughs at your expense.

Edited August 10, 2008 by jpm76

[jpm76]

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,..

Wiresok, this not my map. It is stopVT7's. The translations for everything we read on this thread can be attributed to him and we Thank him for that. If he paid to have this particular map translated or had a friend do it I don't know. I have studied Thai and I am sure others here have also, but one thing you learn quickly is literal translations of Thai words or phrases are difficult and even more challenging when we deal with technical and legal language. Then you can through cultural differences into the equation. If we had all translations on this thread done again I can guarantee you there would be slight differences. The Court has accepted that you measure 200 meters landward from the "borderline of restricted construction". The SC calls it Construction Control Boundary. I am sure you see the similarities with Construction Control Line. If you ever study Thai, my message is do not get hung up on literal translations or exact wording because it will drive you crazy.

Apologies to all. I just realised after making my posts that ThaiBob has already addressed the technical matters in question and explained to StopVT7 yet again where he is going wrong.

Instead I would add that I believe that ThaiBob has been correct all along in coming to the same conclusions as I understand them - StopVT7 is using all info from pre-the Rayong verdict ie before the evidence was all presented, and only has the imagined SC support to go off. Thai Bob uses the evidence that was actually presented before the courts as the evidence, and understands why Rayong threw the court case of StopVT7 out. They also understood fortunately. StopVT7 investors are not sweating at all because we think that the SC will also understand when they also are presented with the evidence (to which they have not yet had their opportunity).

Edited August 10, 2008 by jpm76

[stopvt7]

Dear jpm76

Your statement "He insists that CCL equals MSL, but like ThaiBob, I am completely aware that this was a StopVT7 insertion ie tampering of the evidence." and the comment

"A BORDERLINE, A FRONTIER, and therefore the boundary from which to begin measuring. Sorry, but until you understand this point, you will continue to spout how you know how MSL=CCL. It will not change the fact that you deny that the boundary should be the commencement of the measuring point"

If you do not accept the fact the court, the expert witness and VT7 all said you measure from MSL. You are tampering with the "evidence"

While do you not go and read from "English Translation of January 16, 2008 Court lifts the Injunction what allows construction to start! "

http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/search?updated...p;max-results=7

Do miss this: "Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul, 7th Class Lawyer of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning, testified as the Witness, that the area controlling the construction as referred in The Royal Decree B.E. 2521 is 100 meter distance from MSL towards the sea. While measuring the Witness did not measure from the MSL point to the dispute building, but he measured from the MSL point until he reached 100 meter from the aforesaid point, and if measurement continued to reach the dispute building, the building would be about 102 or 103 meter far from MSL depending on which side to the building."

Then reread "Ministerial Regulation Issue 9: 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map. Annexed to the Royal Decree.......................in the regions of ........................at the seaside in which the following constructions shall not be built:"

You can fine MSL on the map at the seaside. So this is why MSL, CCL and the seaside on the map are the same point. Which you start measuring. We all agree to these fact! But, we do not agree how to make a 200 meter measurement from MSL.

Get your facts strait before you accuse me of "tampering" with the "evidence"!!

For a copy from Thai Government of Issue 9 Map with Regulation: http://www.asa.or.th/download/03media/04la.../mr/mr21-09.pdf

See Mayor Sept. 9, 2005 letter translation! Is he tampering?

Edited August 11, 2008 by stopvt7

[Tammi]

Why don't VT7 investors go get themselves a lawyer who can inform them and keep them informed - will give us all a rest from unnecessary posts by both VT7 investors and 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,..

Wiresok, this not my map. It is stopVT7's. The translations for everything we read on this thread can be attributed to him and we Thank him for that. If he paid to have this particular map translated or had a friend do it I don't know. I have studied Thai and I am sure others here have also, but one thing you learn quickly is literal translations of Thai words or phrases are difficult and even more challenging when we deal with technical and legal language. Then you can through cultural differences into the equation. If we had all translations on this thread done again I can guarantee you there would be slight differences. The Court has accepted that you measure 200 meters landward from the "borderline of restricted construction". The SC calls it Construction Control Boundary. I am sure you see the similarities with Construction Control Line. If you ever study Thai, my message is do not get hung up on literal translations or exact wording because it will drive you crazy.

Thaibob, if you are suggesting that the "CCL" is at the "borderline of restricted construction" , you have to review what that means in the wider context.

Because if you are , you are also suggesting that the parlicular construction restrictions also apply at the North, South, and East borders of the overall construction restricted area.

Clearly this cannot be so.

Therefore you have to introduce a measuring datum, independant of the overall area boundary, that directs that the particular 200m area of concern is at the seaside , not the North, South, or East boundaries.

Under issue 9 this is achieved by MSL=CCL

[ThaiBob]

Dear jpm76

Your statement "He insists that CCL equals MSL, but like ThaiBob, I am completely aware that this was a StopVT7 insertion ie tampering of the evidence." and the comment

"A BORDERLINE, A FRONTIER, and therefore the boundary from which to begin measuring. Sorry, but until you understand this point, you will continue to spout how you know how MSL=CCL. It will not change the fact that you deny that the boundary should be the commencement of the measuring point"

If you do not accept the fact the court, the expert witness and VT7 all said you measure from MSL. You are tampering with the "evidence"

While do you not go and read from "English Translation of January 16, 2008 Court lifts the Injunction what allows construction to start! "

http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/search?updated...p;max-results=7

Do miss this: "Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul, 7th Class Lawyer of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning, testified as the Witness, that the area controlling the construction as referred in The Royal Decree B.E. 2521 is 100 meter distance from MSL towards the sea. While measuring the Witness did not measure from the MSL point to the dispute building, but he measured from the MSL point until he reached 100 meter from the aforesaid point, and if measurement continued to reach the dispute building, the building would be about 102 or 103 meter far from MSL depending on which side to the building."

Then reread "Ministerial Regulation Issue 9: 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map. Annexed to the Royal Decree.......................in the regions of ........................at the seaside in which the following constructions shall not be built:"

You can fine MSL on the map at the seaside. So this is why MSL, CCL and the seaside on the map are the same point. Which you start measuring. We all agree to these fact! But, we do not agree how to make a 200 meter measurement from MSL.

Get your facts strait before you accuse me of "tampering" with the "evidence"!!

For a copy from Thai Government of Issue 9 Map with Regulation: http://www.asa.or.th/download/03media/04la.../mr/mr21-09.pdf

See Mayor Sept. 9, 2005 letter translation! Is he tampering?

"If you do not accept the fact the court, the expert witness and VT7 all said you measure from MSL. You are tampering with the "evidence"".....Here we have another classic stopVT7 "fact". His "fact" conveniently omits the next paragraph which of course puts everything into perspective:

"If the measurement was from the construction control area prescribed by the Royal Decree B.E. 2521, the building distance obtained would be similar to the measurement from the MSL inward the land at the distance of 200 meter."

Measuring 200 meters landward from the Borderline of Restricted Construction on the Issue 9 map (or Construction Control Line or Construction Control Boundary) is equivalent to measuring 100 meters from MSL. From the Bangkok Dept. of Engineering Report:

"Measurement must be started from the point of MSL having 0.00 meter. While measured from this point outward to sea at the distance of 100 meter, it shall be the construction control area as shown in the map annexed to aforesaid Royal Decree. And while measured from this point toward the land to reach the building by another 100 meter, it shall be the distance from construction control area of 200 meter referred in Article 3 under the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) which restricts the construction of building over 14 meter from road surface. Measurement showed that the building of the Second Prosecuted Person is over 200 meter construction control line."

And as also summarized by the Supreme Court:

"...But the measurement following the order of court, reported by of the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning, together with the witness’s testimony, stated that, the dispute building is located more than 100 meters from the Mean Sea Level. With the consideration of court, considering the measurement of 100 meters, from the Mean Sea Level, outward into the sea which was reported and testified by the witness, to be the Construction Control Boundary, shown on the Annexed map of the Royal Decree, which stipulated to enforce the Construction Control Acts of B..E. 2479, to take control over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea, and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province, B.E. 2521, the contrary building will be over 200 meters of the Construction Control Boundary, and also as stipulated in the aforementioned Ministerial Regulations. "

So what the Court, expert witness and Vt7 say is you measure 100 meters from the MSL or 200 meters from the CCL because they are equivalent.

"You can fine MSL on the map at the seaside. So this is why MSL, CCL and the seaside on the map are the same point. Which you start measuring. We all agree to these fact! But, we do not agree how to make a 200 meter measurement from MSL."....absolutely false. Nobody agrees with these "fact". As I previously showed you, your "good logic" was inaccurate and in fact illogical; the MSL and CCL are not equal on the maps. Only you say to measure 200 meters from MSL. Everyone else measures 200 meters from CCL OR 100 meters from MSL.

[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."

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,..

Wiresok, this not my map. It is stopVT7's. The translations for everything we read on this thread can be attributed to him and we Thank him for that. If he paid to have this particular map translated or had a friend do it I don't know. I have studied Thai and I am sure others here have also, but one thing you learn quickly is literal translations of Thai words or phrases are difficult and even more challenging when we deal with technical and legal language. Then you can through cultural differences into the equation. If we had all translations on this thread done again I can guarantee you there would be slight differences. The Court has accepted that you measure 200 meters landward from the "borderline of restricted construction". The SC calls it Construction Control Boundary. I am sure you see the similarities with Construction Control Line. If you ever study Thai, my message is do not get hung up on literal translations or exact wording because it will drive you crazy.

Thaibob, if you are suggesting that the "CCL" is at the "borderline of restricted construction" , you have to review what that means in the wider context.

Because if you are , you are also suggesting that the parlicular construction restrictions also apply at the North, South, and East borders of the overall construction restricted area.

Clearly this cannot be so.

Therefore you have to introduce a measuring datum, independant of the overall area boundary, that directs that the particular 200m area of concern is at the seaside , not the North, South, or East boundaries.

Under issue 9 this is achieved by MSL=CCL

The Court, Bangkok Dept. of Engineering, SC all agree to measure 200 meters from what we call "CCL" in English. The maps the Courts examined are of course in Thai and they did not have to struggle with translations like you. If you have a problem with "Borderline of restricted construction" on stopVT7's map I suggest you take it with stopVT7 or his translator.

"..you are also suggesting that the particular construction restrictions also apply at the North, South, and East borders of the overall construction restricted area."....No I am not suggesting that. The discussion was about lines not areas.

As I have shown in other posts the MSL and CCL are completely different concepts and are not the same.

[ThaiBob]

Why don't VT7 investors go get themselves a lawyer who can inform them and keep them informed - will give us all a rest from unnecessary posts by both VT7 investors and StopVT7.

Tammi I am as tired as you (and others) on constant stopVT7 propaganda posts with his "facts". However, there are posters here that simply want to set the record straight. If stopVT7 follows another poster's suggestion "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", then "us" other posters can join you in taking a rest.

[lookat]

Dose anyone know how much the Mayor’s letter cost VT?

What is interesting in this letter is “View Talay Condominium (1999) Co”. VT3 was “View Talay Condominium (2002) Co.” So VT has more than one company. Does anyone know how many different View Talay Condominium company they own?

[fredKroket]

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.

Wow, ThaiBob....slow down - far too much clearly written and presented logic here. It should be made illegal by order of StopVT7.

I just wanted to restate the importance of point 2 since STopVT7 keeps refusing to acknowledge the fact that no-one, well except when he looks for some phony evidence to counter the arguments against his case, has ever talked about measuring into the sea. Nor have we challenged that the "measured onto land" needed not to be in there either. It has always been just about measuring the 200m from the CCL that was clearly stated upon the map that was annexed to Issue 9. But how many times have we clearly stated this point to him, and yet StopVT7 just continues to ignore it as if he does not understand it. He insists that CCL equals MSL, but like ThaiBob, I am completely aware that this was a StopVT7 insertion ie tampering of the evidence.

Oh well, I am sure that the courts will rule against him yet again (because SC has still not reviewed any evidence and merely keep referring the matter back to Rayong whose job is to weigh in on the evidence (but importantly also to follow Thai law before throwing out any appeals without following due process)). Still, maybe if we were StopVT7 we can herald that as our big victory and how the tables are turning against VT7 investors. Maybe we can continue to post how THIS TIME Rayong will support us.

Does anyone else, other than StopVT7, actually believe that the SC is the definitive court here? It is not time yet for SC to hear any appeal, therefore they have not yet considered all the evidence - that was the job of Rayong to do. SC had to merely order the first injunction because evidence needed to be gathered, and that evidence was presented at the Rayong court and it resulted in a complete case smashing victory for VT7 investors (because the courts understood, and ratehr than accusing Asia Law Works of corruption, maybe they decided not to insult the intelligence of Thai courts).

If Rayong orders its final decision, only then will the SC be called in to weigh the evidence. Despite StopVT7's assertions that this case is nearly over, we must keep in mind that Rayong is the FIRST Administrative court, and that it still has to pass judgement. Even it has not decided definiteively for VT7 investors, but there is far more evidence to suggest that it is VT7 sympathetic than there is to suggest that the SC is StopVT7 sypathetic (whose evidence is completely scant or better yet, imagined).

As I have pointed out before, far from victory laps, StopVT7 is trying to get his last grip of the stork's throat before he finally gets eaten (anyone who knows this quite well known picture will know what I mean by this). The sooner, the better, for Thailand.

May be stopvt7 will take his case to the court of human rights? He seems to think its his right to have a sea view!

[stopvt7]

Thaksin refusal to return to face four court cases on corruption charges! Are the VT7 investors worry that Thailand in a country of laws? Does not this newspaper article points to the fact the courts are honorable?

http://www.bangkokpost.com/topstories/tops...s.php?id=129528

The Bangkok Post

Today's Top Stories

Analysis: End of an era

By Peter Janssen, dpa

Deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's refusal on Monday to return to face four court cases on corruption charges effectively puts an end to his controversial political career, but his legacy may prove harder to kill.

Thaksin and his wife Potjamarn were allowed to travel to Beijing to attend the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games Friday.

Although they had booked return tickets to Bangkok Sunday evening they never boarded the flight, heading instead for London where Thaksin, a billionaire, owns the Manchester City football club and several properties.

The former first couple had been ordered to appear at the Supreme Court Monday, to start proceedings in an abuse of power case involving Potjamarn's 772-million-baht ($23 million) purchase of a piece of prime real estate on Ratchadaphisek Road at a public auction in 2003 when Thaksin was still prime minister.

The likelihood of Thaksin remaining free after the four court cases pending against him was slim, and the Thai judiciary had already sent him a strong message that he was not untouchable when they sentenced his wife and business partner Potjamarn to jail.

On July 31, in the first major blow to the former first family, the Bangkok Criminal Court sentenced Khunying Potjamarn to three years in jail for avoiding a tax bite amounting to 546 million baht on a share transfer to her stepbrother Bannapot Damapong and her secretary Karnchanapa Honghern in 1997.

The verdict left Thaksin visibly shaken.

"It's understandable he decided not to come back," said Chaturon Chaisaeng, a former leader of the Thai Rak Thai Party that Thaksin led during his dual premierships from 2001 to 2006. "He probably thought it was now or never."

As it has turned out, the judiciary has proved to be Thaksin's downfall.

Thaksin was toppled by a military coup on Sept 19, 2006, on charges of corruption, dividing the nation and undermining democracy and the monarchy.

He stayed abroad in self-exile throughout 2007, while a military-appointed government ruled Thailand, returning only on last Feb 28, after an elected, pro-Thaksin government was in place.

Despite his political connections and efforts to manipulate the court system, the judiciary has plowed ahead with cases against the Shinawatras.

Thaksin, in a statement he issued Monday in London, claimed the court cases against his family were part of a conspiracy by his political enemies to keep him out of politics. If so, they have succeeded, at least in the short term.

"Thaksin's political future is finished," opined political scientist Thitinan Pongsudhirak, director of the Institute of Security and International Studies (ISIS) at Chulalongkorn University and a Bangkok Post analyst.

Like many Thai academics, Thitinan is in two minds about Thaksin.

While Thitinan opposed Thaksin - the wily and corrupt politician who manipulated Thailand's political system for his own gain and that of his political cronies - he admired the "Thaksin legacy" of using essential populist policies to provide Thailand's rural and urban poor with a better deal and empower them through elections.

"That legacy is in danger of being swept under the carpet," said Thitinan. "Whether Thaksin really changed Thailand or not, we will have to wait and see in the coming months."

One movement that bears watching will be the Peoples Alliance for Democracy (PAD), a loose coalition of anti-Thaksin forces that have been holding street demonstrations since May, calling for the demise of the current coalition government led by the blatantly pro-Thaksin People Power Party (PPP) that won the December 2007 elections.

With Thaksin now effectively out of the picture, it remains to be seen if the PAD will stop campaigning for the government's downfall and continue to oppose calls for amendments to the military-sponsored 2007 constitution that aim at strengthening the political party system.

There have been indications that the PAD's goals have shifted from being just anti-Thaksin to being anti-democratic, such as calls for a completely appointed Senate, a move that would benefit Thailand's traditional political elite - the bureaucracy, military and old money.

"The theory that all Thailand's political problems occurred because of Thaksin will soon be proved wrong," predicted one former member of the Thai Rak Thai. "The real problem of the divide between political parties and the elite hasn't gone way."

Long live the King and his honorable courts!

[ripley]

Thank you for the Bangkok Post article which is at least passing on new and useful info.

Frankly, everytime I see a stopvt post with the bold blues and reds, the corny emoticons, Thai flags waving as tho he's invented the concept of Thai national pride COPIED AND RECOPIED, my eyes start crossing & I think this site is degenerating. It's bad enough that he repeats himself so often - personally I think it's his way of bullying the site. But do you all have to copy/paste his ENTIRE letters over & over? Surely a simple relevant quote that you're responding to is sufficient. This site is 80pages long. I understand the need to recover old ground now & then but, if you removed all of the unnecessary re-quoting it would probably be more like 50 pages and much more rewarding to read thru.

[OhdLover]

Call to the moderators: What has an article about Taksin to do with the subject of this thread??

What will happen to this thread if we start posting articles that show "Thailand is not (always) a country of laws?

I would like to suggest that the repeating copy/paste of things that have been mentioned at least 20 times before, and posting irrelevant things be punished with a ban or at least removal of these postings, just to keep this thread interesting.

Funny thing is, stopvt7 says he never accuses anybody of corruption, and again he posts something to "prove" corruption will be punished. So stopvt7, give me something new to think about: who exactly has been corrupt in the VT7-case????

Edited August 12, 2008 by OhdLover

[Buckwheat]

Back on topic please folks!

Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

Thanks!

[stopvt7]

Dear ThaiBob

Your quote from the court record: "If the measurement was from the construction control area prescribed by the Royal Decree B.E. 2521, the building distance obtained would be similar to the measurement from the MSL inward the land at the distance of 200 meter." This does not make sense when compared with Issue 9

Reread Issue 9: "Ministerial Regulation Issue 9: 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map. Annexed to the Royal Decree.......................in the regions of ........................at the seaside in which the following constructions shall not be built:"

You can say anything! But the records shows don't measure from construction control area (borderline) or (zone). But you measure from construction control line see the map.........at the seaside! Found on the map at MSL! This is a fact the court accepts!!

Maybe you do not understand the meaning of IF?

if >conjunction 1 introducing a conditional clause; on the condition or supposition that. 2 despite the possibility or fact that. 3 whether. 4 every time that; whenever. 5 expressing a polite request or tentative opinion. 6 expressing surprise or regret. >noun a condition or supposition.

-ORIGIN Old English.

New posted facts the Pattaya Mayors letter, dated April 4, 2007, sent to the Rayon Court. Check the Mayor letter he also uses "if".

It looks like the mayor doesn't understand how to apply Issue 9 to it's map?

Edited August 12, 2008 by stopvt7

[stopvt7]

Dear Buckwheat

“Back on topic................ Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View” and to protect are beaches. Let me explain why we sued City hall. Because the Mayor did not understand the regulation or their maps!

Compare the Mayors letter of April 4, 2007 with the Expert witness June 19 , 2007 letter to Rayong court. Expert witness letter contradicts the mayor’s letter which claim that Issue 8 and 9 are the same!

The Expert witness said Issue 9 must be measure from MSL!! This is a fact the court accepts! So how could the court say? "If the measurement was from the construction control area prescribed by the Royal Decree B.E. 2521, the building distance obtained would be similar to the measurement from the MSL inward the land at the distance of 200 meter." What??

Remember when reading the expert witness letter he testified at the 2nd court hearing. What he did not understand the “technique” used the city hall when they explained you measure into the sea 100 meters.

[ThaiBob]

Dear ThaiBob

Your quote from the court record: "If the measurement was from the construction control area prescribed by the Royal Decree B.E. 2521, the building distance obtained would be similar to the measurement from the MSL inward the land at the distance of 200 meter." This does not make sense when compared with Issue 9

Reread Issue 9: "Ministerial Regulation Issue 9: 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map. Annexed to the Royal Decree.......................in the regions of ........................at the seaside in which the following constructions shall not be built:"

You can say anything! But the records shows don't measure from construction control area (borderline) or (zone). But you measure from construction control line see the map.........at the seaside! Found on the map at MSL! This is a fact the court accepts!!

Maybe you do not understand the meaning of IF?

if >conjunction 1 introducing a conditional clause; on the condition or supposition that. 2 despite the possibility or fact that. 3 whether. 4 every time that; whenever. 5 expressing a polite request or tentative opinion. 6 expressing surprise or regret. >noun a condition or supposition.

-ORIGIN Old English.

New posted facts the Pattaya Mayors letter, dated April 4, 2007, sent to the Rayon Court. Check the Mayor letter he also uses "if".

It looks like the mayor doesn't understand how to apply Issue 9 to it's map?

Well you've managed to do it again but that shouldn't surprise anyone. I've challenged your "good logic" with specifics based on your statements and your maps but all you do is continually re-cycle your inane answers. You create smoke screens and try to divert the argument from your very questionable logic with errors of omission and taking statements out of context. The Court does not accept a 200-meter measurement from MSL. What the Court does accept is a 200-meter measurement from Construction Control Line (or the Borderline of Restricted Construction as you like to call it or the Construction Control Boundary as the SC calls it) per the annexed map. As the Dept. of Engineering report explained no measurement was made from the construction control boundary. Nobody took boat or a 100-meter swim to sea to mark the CCL. Measuring 100 meters landward from the MSL is equivalent to measuring 200 meters from the CCL. I hope you understand the difference, most people do. Please do not infer that the Court supports your 200-meter measurement from MSL or CCL=MSL because it doesn’t. I view your most recent posts as those of diversion and desperation.