Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[ThaiBob]

......

Thai Bob is the typical limousine liberal. He is for conserving the environment and preserving natural beauty when it is convenient. When it threatens his investment, to hel_l with the environment. So he's all for stopping offshore oil drilling in California, but is all for constructing a huge ugly building in Jomtien, so he can enjoy his views and protect his money.

I remember when the State of Massachussetts wanted to build wind turbines off the coast of Cape Cod. The first people to object were the Kennedys -- champions of wind power in other people's back yard.

I'm sure if oil were descovered in the Gulf of Thailand, TB would be leading the fight against the drilling. Why? To preserve the environment? No. "I don't want to look at those ugly oil rigs from my balcony." Of course, he'd SAY he was doing it for the environment.

The other side of it is that VT7 -- a so called "conservative" who believes in free markets unrestricted by government control, is petitioning the Thai government to stop a corporation from the pursuit of profit. In the United States, he's against government regulation, but here in Thailand, he's all for it.

Self interest trumps ideology every time.

Both these little guys make me laugh!

This is not a story about David Vs Goliath, the little guy taking on a government bureaucracy or about protecting the environment. StopVT7 "defender of Thai beaches" is a ruse. I am surprised some posters cannot see through his charade. StopVT7 made it quite clear early in this battle that it is about his sea view and only changed tactics when he realized his case was on shaky ground. He has tried to reinvent himself just like McCain, saying he is "friendly" to the environment when in fact he has voted against every increase in EPA fuel mileage standards for last 30 years.

Before us lies a simple question, Does VT7 meet the legal standards of a 30-year-old zoning law? This project has passed Thai environmental review law. This is not about the environment. Whether this project is aesthetically pleasing is another issue. Granted there are no buildings in Pattaya that will win any archictectural awards but "beauty" or "ugly" is in the eye of beholder.

Anybody who disagrees with stopVT7 is subject to his is vindictiveness and "swift boat" tactics. The Mayor, City Hall, other JCC homeowners, the Rayong Court, posters on this forum, Obama have all been subjected to his "Karl Rove" tactics. Obama has learned (unlike John Kerry) to hit back quickly against these tactics so many posters here are doing the same when stopVT7 posts his propaganda and crap. StopVT7 is a guest in Thailand and should act like one.

[Tammi]

StopVT7 is a guest in Thailand and should act like one.

And how do you think a 'guest' in Thailand should act?

Stop VT7 is, I think, protected by Thai Law just as Thais are protected by UK/American/Canadian/French/etc/etc laws when they are in those countries.

[ThaiBob]

StopVT7 is a guest in Thailand and should act like one.

And how do you think a 'guest' in Thailand should act?

Stop VT7 is, I think, protected by Thai Law just as Thais are protected by UK/American/Canadian/French/etc/etc laws when they are in those countries.

You are absolutely correct and stopVT7 has every right to justice within the Thai legal system. If I was is his situation I too would explore all my options and take action. Many of us would. But he has crossed the line. As a guest you don't make unsubstantiated allegations, use defamatory language or symbols, hint at corruption amongst public officials, etc. and then when challenged try and hide behind the flag. You may not be aware but nationalism; "anti-foreigner" sentiment is high in Thailand. I just wish stopVT7 would back off and refrain from playing his Bush Republican "Ugly American" role.

[stopvt7]

On 2007-04-08 stopvt7 introduced himself as Richard Haines on this site. (look it up) Therefore I didn't have reason to believe he meant to keep that private.

I did not "out" him and wouldn't do a thing like that.

Meanwhile, I am not "Lana".

My name was published in the Bangkok Post. Which surprised me. I'm not shame of my name! I wish that the old JCC committee would of done their duties. Then I would not of had to stood up with many other co-owners which started the legal action. If I did not believe the talk from the palaces office about the new Admin Court System and my research I would not stood up. But, I do not care for the intimidation and threats which been made.

Thailand a wonderful country for retirement and since I'm retired I do mind doing something for the Thailand people and their beaches. People who know me knows volunteer work is important part of my life.

Edited August 16, 2008 by stopvt7

[stopvt7]

Dear ThaiBob

Your statement "This project has passed Thai environmental review law. This is not about the environment." as many other of your statement it is incorrect. Vt7 since the project started been breaking the environmental impact study and their requirements. We filed protects and I was at those meets. I have a copy of VT7 impact study requirements. Bangkok office came to Pattaya and held meeting then left and told city hall to fix the problems. Then we (group of ten) suit city hall to stop VT7 using a Thai environmental law called Issue 9. Pattaya City Hall violated Issue 8 and 9, a environmental law, by giving VT7 a building permit! I have no control of a newspaper headline or the starting of this blog and it's name.

ThaiBob you never answer my questions. Like a liberal you have a dislike for facts.

Now, My question "why did they appoint a so-called expert witness?" Is this a hard question for your "rational qualitative reasoning" mind? So I tell you. To make a map locating VT7 building from MSL (or CCL) which the so-called expert witness fail to follow the court order.

What do you think Supreme Administrative Court will think of so-called expert witness report?

A. Trash!

B. Rubbish!

C. Waste of time!

D. All of the above

All of the above because "aligment of the coast line be taken at MSL" which the Supreme Administrative Court already knew.

Now they know for sure VT7 is only 102 or 103 meters from MSL (or CCL)!!

Rational reasoning tell a logical person the building permit will be taken away and the Supreme Court will order Rayong to supervises the tear down of VT7. The lower court must correct their mistake!

Edited August 16, 2008 by stopvt7

[lookat]

Stopvt7 you should add “Now the Supreme Court has proof” for the Rayong court that VT7 is only 102 or 103 meters from CCL. With what they already told Rayong court “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.”

I would not want to be a investor in VT7. Maybe after the SAC decision ThaiBob can claim his lose as a tax credit toward “global poverty tax” which Obama wants to enact.

ThaiBob: Before you judge stopvt7 group. Ask one of your friends to go over the JCC lobby and check both bulletin board. They see a newly posted picture which has Mr. Stopvt7, JPM and other stopvy7 group members meeting last week at city hall with the mayor of Pattaya . “He has crossed the line” and wouldn’t we like to know that they talked about?

[prospero]

......

Thai Bob is the typical limousine liberal. He is for conserving the environment and preserving natural beauty when it is convenient. When it threatens his investment, to hel_l with the environment. So he's all for stopping offshore oil drilling in California, but is all for constructing a huge ugly building in Jomtien, so he can enjoy his views and protect his money.

I remember when the State of Massachussetts wanted to build wind turbines off the coast of Cape Cod. The first people to object were the Kennedys -- champions of wind power in other people's back yard.

I'm sure if oil were descovered in the Gulf of Thailand, TB would be leading the fight against the drilling. Why? To preserve the environment? No. "I don't want to look at those ugly oil rigs from my balcony." Of course, he'd SAY he was doing it for the environment.

The other side of it is that VT7 -- a so called "conservative" who believes in free markets unrestricted by government control, is petitioning the Thai government to stop a corporation from the pursuit of profit. In the United States, he's against government regulation, but here in Thailand, he's all for it.

Self interest trumps ideology every time.

Both these little guys make me laugh!

This is not a story about David Vs Goliath, the little guy taking on a government bureaucracy or about protecting the environment. StopVT7 "defender of Thai beaches" is a ruse. I am surprised some posters cannot see through his charade. StopVT7 made it quite clear early in this battle that it is about his sea view and only changed tactics when he realized his case was on shaky ground. He has tried to reinvent himself just like McCain, saying he is "friendly" to the environment when in fact he has voted against every increase in EPA fuel mileage standards for last 30 years.

Before us lies a simple question, Does VT7 meet the legal standards of a 30-year-old zoning law? This project has passed Thai environmental review law. This is not about the environment. Whether this project is aesthetically pleasing is another issue. Granted there are no buildings in Pattaya that will win any archictectural awards but "beauty" or "ugly" is in the eye of beholder.

Anybody who disagrees with stopVT7 is subject to his is vindictiveness and "swift boat" tactics. The Mayor, City Hall, other JCC homeowners, the Rayong Court, posters on this forum, Obama have all been subjected to his "Karl Rove" tactics. Obama has learned (unlike John Kerry) to hit back quickly against these tactics so many posters here are doing the same when stopVT7 posts his propaganda and crap. StopVT7 is a guest in Thailand and should act like one.

ThaiBob, what are you fighting for? Are you trying to make us believe you're not fighting for YOUR seaview? You bought and paid for a seaview that you may never get to experience. Talk about a charade! You and the other posters against StopVT7 are as selfish and hypocritical as he is, indeed, more so. I have never heard a single one of you discuss how the construction of that ugly monstrosity would make Dong Tarn Beach a better place! And, yes, there are standards of beauty and ugliness. Otherwise, a pile of dung would be as beautiful as a flower, or the oil rigs you don't want of the coast of California would be as beautiful as the sunset they would block.

So tell us, TB, exactly how will View Talay Seven improve Jomtien Beach? How will having a twenty seven story behemoth looming over the seaside make us all happier? How will it be when twenty seven other twenty-seven story buildings are built 100 meters from the sea on the rest of Dong Tarn Beach? How will the increased density of population, the blocking of the morning sun, the stress on infrastructure, the noise and traffic make Jomtien a better place to live?

Issue 9 may be thirty years old, but it was put there for a reason. To protect the beaches from overdevelopment, not to preserve StopVT7's view. The fact that the law has not been adhered to in Pattaya does not mean it is no longer in effect. The simple fact is noone has ever challenged a development in Pattay built too close to the sea until now! That is why this case is so critical and that is why we cannot know the outcome until the Supreme Administrative Court makes a ruling.

The last sentence of your article is completely offensive. You mean to say you have never complained about corruption in this country? Or any other country you have lived in or visited? You've never made a statement about bar owners paying off the police or a driver paying tea money to a policeman? You mean to say when you come to Thailand you obey all the laws? I can think of a few I have violated, and, I'm sure you can too if you put your mind to it. You mean to say "guests" in this country, especially those who have invested here, have no access to the courts, or to justice? I really hope you don't believe that because you signed a contract with the View Talay 7 developer. You may need access to the courts if things go wrong and you have to sue that particular Thai company.

I really don't know what it means "to be a guest in Thailand and to act like one." Perhaps you could enlighten us with a set of rules.

Edited August 17, 2008 by prospero

[stopvt7]

I have been asked. Why I helped start the group of ten and sued city hall for issuing a questionable building permit against Issue 8 and 9. Which is Thailand’s first environment law? Because I thought the new Thai Admin Court system was made up by honorable judge. We sued because we believed in the Supreme Administrative Court. Now, the case I read about in newspaper convinces me this Supreme Court is better then I thought.

Other condition of our group was to keep the public informed!

The Bangkok Post

Today's Top Stories

Trial in absentia

“The Supreme Court ruled on Friday to proceed with the corruption trial against ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra and Khunying Potjaman in the Ratchadaphisek land case, because the couple are not required to be present for the hearing.

Mr Thaksin and his wife skipped bail last Monday and fled to Britain. The Supreme Court has issued warrants for their arrest, and prosecutors may request their extradition.

Lawyers for the couple asked the court to suspend the hearings while Mr Thaksin is out of the country. But the court struck down their request, insisting that the trial would proceed in absentia, as scheduled.

"The court considers that the defendants are still in the court's jurisdiction because the defendants had surrendered to authorities, and the court had granted them bail," chief judge Tonglor Chomngarm read.

"The court still has jurisdiction to proceed with the case and there is no reason to dismiss the case," he added. “

For the full story go to:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/topstories/tops...s.php?id=129661

[ThaiBob]

Dear ThaiBob

Your statement "This project has passed Thai environmental review law. This is not about the environment." as many other of your statement it is incorrect. Vt7 since the project started been breaking the environmental impact study and their requirements. We filed protects and I was at those meets. I have a copy of VT7 impact study requirements. Bangkok office came to Pattaya and held meeting then left and told city hall to fix the problems. Then we (group of ten) suit city hall to stop VT7 using a Thai environmental law called Issue 9. Pattaya City Hall violated Issue 8 and 9, a environmental law, by giving VT7 a building permit! I have no control of a newspaper headline or the starting of this blog and it's name.

ThaiBob you never answer my questions. Like a liberal you have a dislike for facts.

Now, My question "why did they appoint a so-called expert witness?" Is this a hard question for your "rational qualitative reasoning" mind? So I tell you. To make a map locating VT7 building from MSL (or CCL) which the so-called expert witness fail to follow the court order.

What do you think Supreme Administrative Court will think of so-called expert witness report?

A. Trash!

B. Rubbish!

C. Waste of time!

D. All of the above

All of the above because "aligment of the coast line be taken at MSL" which the Supreme Administrative Court already knew.

Now they know for sure VT7 is only 102 or 103 meters from MSL (or CCL)!!

Rational reasoning tell a logical person the building permit will be taken away and the Supreme Court will order Rayong to supervises the tear down of VT7. The lower court must correct their mistake!

I've just had this translated and thanks again for another illuminating post.

"Like a liberal you have a dislike for facts"....calling me a liberal is the nicest thing you said to me. Thank you. I just have liking for the truth, so when will your arguments be presented here by by a qualifed expert that can be trusted? Remember Wirsok has volunteered to help you.

[ThaiBob]

......

Thai Bob is the typical limousine liberal. He is for conserving the environment and preserving natural beauty when it is convenient. When it threatens his investment, to hel_l with the environment. So he's all for stopping offshore oil drilling in California, but is all for constructing a huge ugly building in Jomtien, so he can enjoy his views and protect his money.

I remember when the State of Massachussetts wanted to build wind turbines off the coast of Cape Cod. The first people to object were the Kennedys -- champions of wind power in other people's back yard.

I'm sure if oil were descovered in the Gulf of Thailand, TB would be leading the fight against the drilling. Why? To preserve the environment? No. "I don't want to look at those ugly oil rigs from my balcony." Of course, he'd SAY he was doing it for the environment.

The other side of it is that VT7 -- a so called "conservative" who believes in free markets unrestricted by government control, is petitioning the Thai government to stop a corporation from the pursuit of profit. In the United States, he's against government regulation, but here in Thailand, he's all for it.

Self interest trumps ideology every time.

Both these little guys make me laugh!

This is not a story about David Vs Goliath, the little guy taking on a government bureaucracy or about protecting the environment. StopVT7 "defender of Thai beaches" is a ruse. I am surprised some posters cannot see through his charade. StopVT7 made it quite clear early in this battle that it is about his sea view and only changed tactics when he realized his case was on shaky ground. He has tried to reinvent himself just like McCain, saying he is "friendly" to the environment when in fact he has voted against every increase in EPA fuel mileage standards for last 30 years.

Before us lies a simple question, Does VT7 meet the legal standards of a 30-year-old zoning law? This project has passed Thai environmental review law. This is not about the environment. Whether this project is aesthetically pleasing is another issue. Granted there are no buildings in Pattaya that will win any archictectural awards but "beauty" or "ugly" is in the eye of beholder.

Anybody who disagrees with stopVT7 is subject to his is vindictiveness and "swift boat" tactics. The Mayor, City Hall, other JCC homeowners, the Rayong Court, posters on this forum, Obama have all been subjected to his "Karl Rove" tactics. Obama has learned (unlike John Kerry) to hit back quickly against these tactics so many posters here are doing the same when stopVT7 posts his propaganda and crap. StopVT7 is a guest in Thailand and should act like one.

ThaiBob, what are you fighting for? Are you trying to make us believe you're not fighting for YOUR seaview? You bought and paid for a seaview that you may never get to experience. Talk about a charade! You and the other posters against StopVT7 are as selfish and hypocritical as he is, indeed, more so. I have never heard a single one of you discuss how the construction of that ugly monstrosity would make Dong Tarn Beach a better place! And, yes, there are standards of beauty and ugliness. Otherwise, a pile of dung would be as beautiful as a flower, or the oil rigs you don't want of the coast of California would be as beautiful as the sunset they would block.

So tell us, TB, exactly how will View Talay Seven improve Jomtien Beach? How will having a twenty seven story behemoth looming over the seaside make us all happier? How will it be when twenty seven other twenty-seven story buildings are built 100 meters from the sea on the rest of Dong Tarn Beach? How will the increased density of population, the blocking of the morning sun, the stress on infrastructure, the noise and traffic make Jomtien a better place to live?

Issue 9 may be thirty years old, but it was put there for a reason. To protect the beaches from overdevelopment, not to preserve StopVT7's view. The fact that the law has not been adhered to in Pattaya does not mean it is no longer in effect. The simple fact is noone has ever challenged a development in Pattay built too close to the sea until now! That is why this case is so critical and that is why we cannot know the outcome until the Supreme Administrative Court makes a ruling.

The last sentence of your article is completely offensive. You mean to say you have never complained about corruption in this country? Or any other country you have lived in or visited? You've never made a statement about bar owners paying off the police or a driver paying tea money to a policeman? You mean to say when you come to Thailand you obey all the laws? I can think of a few I have violated, and, I'm sure you can too if you put your mind to it. You mean to say "guests" in this country, especially those who have invested here, have no access to the courts, or to justice? I really hope you don't believe that because you signed a contract with the View Talay 7 developer. You may need access to the courts if things go wrong and you have to sue that particular Thai company.

I really don't know what it means "to be a guest in Thailand and to act like one." Perhaps you could enlighten us with a set of rules.

You completely missed the point. VT7 buyers purchased for many reasons and views are certainly one of them. No body is denying that. But the ruse; the charade is that stopVT7 is a "defender of Thai beaches". He has shifted gears because he knows his legal argument has a hole so big his Republican California Governor Schwartznegger could drive his Hummer through it. StopVT7 is an actor (and not a good one); our Republican friend is no environmentalist.

Personally I believe VT7 will be an asset to Jom Tien. When I first came to Dong Tarn beach in 1998 I was quite frankly shocked. I realized I was in a third world country but my beach expectations were much higher. No drainage, no sewer, no bathrooms, both farangs and Thais using the walkway fence as a public urinal (to cheap to pay 5 baht). However, in recent years things have changed for the better. The new-bricked roadway and pathway with a sewer, new landscaping and palms, new beach lights at night, etc. Also, new additions such as the Rabbit Resort, the Avalon Resort and VT5. (By the way Deborah and her husband (Rabbit Resort owners) told me could have built a high-rise condo on their land but obviously did not choose to do so.) Yes there have been hiccups along the way (missing sewer covers, improper tree pruning) but the overall beach experience has been vastly improved in my opinion. You and others may not share that view but that is your opinion, which I respect. In this spirit I think VT7 will be a nice addition to Dongtarn beach. Of course, a true die-hard Sierra Club environmentalist would answer your question about VT7 making people happier by asking “ and how did JomTien Plaza, Grand Condotel, Adriatic Hotel, VT3, VT5 or even the two twin 32-story towers JCC make people happier or add to beach environment?”.

Yes, the simple question is VT7 greater than 200 meters from CCL ( > 100 meters from MSL)? The Rayong Court has ruled but we await the Supreme Court answer to the stopVT7 Appeal.

I have no set rules just good common sense and showing respect to people and culture where I am a guest. I also subscribe to the old adage “When in Rome do as the Romans do”. See post #2062 for other comments.

[ThaiBob]

...

I would not want to be a investor in VT7. Maybe after the SAC decision ThaiBob can claim his lose as a tax credit toward “global poverty tax” which Obama wants to enact.

...They see a newly posted picture which has Mr. Stopvt7, JPM and other stopvy7 group members meeting last week at city hall with the mayor of Pattaya . “He has crossed the line” and wouldn’t we like to know that they talked about?

Since you brought this up. As a citizen of a great nation I don't mind paying my fair share of the tax burden. An abstract from the Obama Senate bill that stopVT7 mentioned:

"To require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the [u.N.] Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day"

If I were the litigants and had the mayor's ear I would certainly ask him the question , "When are you going to file the court papers like the SC asked so our Appeal can move forward?" (Assuming of course the City has not yet done so.)

[stopvt7]

Dear Prospero and other

Most time it is lonely carrying on the fight! Thanks you for your support and Prospero well written question for ThaiBob!

I doubt he will answer you. Because he refuse to face factual question from our appeal, Minutes for the Drafting of Issue 8 (which is a import part of Issue 9) and the Supreme Administrative Court first order.

Liberals do not address facts. But they give you a feel good argument which they want to hear and ignore the facts!

q

Edited August 18, 2008 by stopvt7

[Buckwheat]

I realize that there is a lull in the "action" while awaiting court decisions, but I have requested before that the comments remain on topic and the 1 on 1 flames to cease.

Please be advised that this is the final public warning that will be given.

Thank you again for your anticipated cooperation.

[Tammi]

Also, new additions such as the Rabbit Resort, the Avalon Resort and VT5. (By the way Deborah and her husband (Rabbit Resort owners) told me could have built a high-rise condo on their land but obviously did not choose to do so.)

My understanding of my conversation with Deborah and Paisin was that they would have built hi-rise at 200 metres back from sea on same line as Jomthien Condotel but could not get access from Tappraya Road and therefore had to go for the very attractive low-rise resort they have now and use buggies to transport customers along Dongtan Beach pathway. (Later on they bought property inside Jomthien Condotel compound and knocked down part of the wall between the Condotel and Rabbit and now use Jomthien Condotel road for access and parking)

Edited August 18, 2008 by Tammi

[Wiresok]

I'm not confused. Make any lines you want and call them anything you want. Lawyers are very happy to confuse things as much as possible. The point is that mean sea level is a simple thing. For those of you who like to confuse things, mean sea level is the mid point of high tide and low tide. I have no dog in this fight but I would like to see developers follow the rules of law and it is obvious to me that VT 7 has been caught severely bending these rules.

I have to admit I was confused by stopVT7's "facts" until I took a little time to do some independent thinking and ask myself questions. I looked at his "evidence" and it seemed reasonable so I asked why were others not convinced (especially the Court). Only when I did my own analysis did I realize there were major problems with his "facts" and these "facts" only serve his agenda. Maps and drawings work for some people but rational qualitative reasoning works easier for me.

Imagine in your mind two parallel lines called A and B. We are told these 2 lines represent a distance of 100 meters. We are also told that building or constructing within the area of these 2 lines is "restricted" or "controlled". What else can we say about these 2 lines? Well both A and B both bound or control or border the mentioned restricted or controlled area, so both lines could be boundary lines or control lines or border lines. Simple enough. Now in your mind picture the Issue 8 map with its Construction Control Line (and no MSL). Now simply superimpose your mind's image over the Issue 8 map with the CCL being line A. Presto, a restricted or controlled area, simple and clear to understand. Note that the CCL on the map (or line A in your mind) is called by stopVT7 as the CCL at "high tide" or "high water". Ok.

But now let's take it a step further. As Gary as astutely noted that MSL is not at high tide or low tide but somewhere in between. In our mind or on the map let's draw the MSL. Well although we don't have clearly defined reference points one thing we have certainly know is that by definition MSL and CCL are not the same line. I hope everyone understands this fundamental point including stopVT7. If you don't you will be confused.

How does all this apply to Issue 9? In short, Issue 9 added the concept of MSL and extended, expanded, made larger the restricted area or zone by 100 meters (from 100 to 200). We look at the new Issue 9 map and we compare it to Issue 8. We see the added MSL line and the CCL (Court's definition) or what stopVT7 calls the Borderline of restricted constructions 100 meters seaward from the MSL.

Now let's go back to the beginning and re-visit our image of the two lines A and B. What's changed now is the separation represents 200 meters but we also must add another line for the MSL. Let's call it line C and place it 100 meters from line A just like the map does. Other than adding line C (MSL) and increasing the width everything else about our image remains the same. The concept of a restricted or controlled construction area bounded by our 2 lines is all valid. Our labels or names for our lines are valid as well.

The last step simply superimposes again our mind's image over the Issue 9 map. Guess what everything aligns perfectly. Line C = MSL; Line A = CCL or a boundary line or control line or border line or some other name you to choose to call it. Line B can be viewed as the other control line or border line or boundary all of which bounds our "restricted" or "controlled" construction zone. No surprises, no contradictions. And remember CCL and MSL are not same despite what stopVT7 tries to tell you. He (like his fellow conservative George) is so confused he does know right from left, up from down, Barrack from a Socialist, a Christian from a Muslim, Saddam Hussein from Al Qaeda, a liberal from a conservative and list could go on.

You are losing it all ways now Thaibob,you are begining to mimic JPM76 with your posts.

As I have informed you before, it isn't important what you want to call the various locations referred to in the issue 9, you now introduce lines A,B,C ;what is crucial however is that you understand their meaning and significance in the context of what issue 9 looks to achieve.

My view is that the SC have done just that.

[Wiresok]

MSL and CCL cannot be at the same place.

Lets use a bit of logic.

If mean sea level is half way between the high water mark and the low water mark, this distance is going to differ all along the beach, as it depends on the slope of the beach. The shallower the slope, the greater the difference between high and low water, so, the MSL moves seawards.

MSL could be very different 50 metres along the beach. Why would anybody in their right mind use the MSL as CCL. The MSL will meander right along the length of the beach.

I think the principle of measurement is very important.

As you allude to, depending on whether you measure perpendicular to the building, parallel to the sea, or along the ground , you get different results.

Your second point would be correct if you measured along the ground.

However you have overlooked that if MSL meandered like this, then the ghost CCL would also meander like this, as it would always be 100m out to sea from it per Thaibobs map!!

Thats why the measurement technique is important to right minds.

Also practically, you can get at MSL, but not to the ghost CCL, to do the issue 9 stated measuring.

[prospero]

You really have lost it, ThaiBob. You are resorting to intellectual dishonesty, fact twisting, and deliberate dis ingenuousness.

I don't know how well you know the owners of Rabbit Resort, but they refrained from building a high-rise on their property because of Issue 9 and because they respected the Dong Tarn beach environment. As a co-owner in Jomtien Condotel, Paysan has been supportive of the fight against another developer who wants to build too big too close to the sea. Yet you make it seem as if they welcome View Talay 7.

Then, there is your refusal to understand that StopVT7 can be trying to protect his seaview while AT THE SAME TIME trying to protect Thailand's beaches. You don't seem to be able to get it into your head that there is not contradiction!

After AsiaLawWorks betrayed the plaintiffs, they secured the services of Khun Surachai Trong-ngam, Thailand's foremost crusading environmental attorney. He has taken on major corporations on issues of dumping, pollution, and other damage to the environment. He wins most of the time.

The plaintiffs had to convince Surchai that their crusade against View Talay concerned a crucial environmental issue -- that of over development and protection of Thai beaches. If Surchai did not think the case was about defending the enviroment, he wouldn't have taken it on. He doesn't work for anyone and any cause.

Your 'personal belief' that View Talay 7 will be an 'asset' to Jomtien is nonsense. For reasons I outlined in my previous posting, the building will be a blight, and it will encourage other developers to also build high rises too close to the sea. Dong Tarn Beach will look like the awful Costa Brava, where buildings are now being torn down because they violated environmental laws.

Your "respect the local customs" advice is silly. Just what is the local culture? Yesterday, I saw a "Wanted" poster for Thaksin printed in all the Thai newspapers. It would seem that part of Thai culture is accusing government officials of corruption. If a Thai came to the United States and made statements about the corruption of the Bush Administration, say, by pointing out the sleazy contracts handed out to Halliburton, would you, as an American, tell him he had no right to speak?

Would you tell him to butt out of our affairs? The fact is, ThaiBob, you have spent very little time in this country, or anywhere else in Asia. You don't speak Thai. You hang out mostly with expatriates. You've never held a job here. You really don't know what you're talking about when you talk about the Thai people or Thai culture. So don't tell the rest of us how to act.

[Wiresok]

Dear ThaiBob

Your statement "This project has passed Thai environmental review law. This is not about the environment." as many other of your statement it is incorrect. Vt7 since the project started been breaking the environmental impact study and their requirements. We filed protects and I was at those meets. I have a copy of VT7 impact study requirements. Bangkok office came to Pattaya and held meeting then left and told city hall to fix the problems. Then we (group of ten) suit city hall to stop VT7 using a Thai environmental law called Issue 9. Pattaya City Hall violated Issue 8 and 9, a environmental law, by giving VT7 a building permit! I have no control of a newspaper headline or the starting of this blog and it's name.

ThaiBob you never answer my questions. Like a liberal you have a dislike for facts.

Now, My question "why did they appoint a so-called expert witness?" Is this a hard question for your "rational qualitative reasoning" mind? So I tell you. To make a map locating VT7 building from MSL (or CCL) which the so-called expert witness fail to follow the court order.

What do you think Supreme Administrative Court will think of so-called expert witness report?

A. Trash!

B. Rubbish!

C. Waste of time!

D. All of the above

All of the above because "aligment of the coast line be taken at MSL" which the Supreme Administrative Court already knew.

Now they know for sure VT7 is only 102 or 103 meters from MSL (or CCL)!!

Rational reasoning tell a logical person the building permit will be taken away and the Supreme Court will order Rayong to supervises the tear down of VT7. The lower court must correct their mistake!

I've just had this translated and thanks again for another illuminating post.

"Like a liberal you have a dislike for facts"....calling me a liberal is the nicest thing you said to me. Thank you. I just have liking for the truth, so when will your arguments be presented here by by a qualifed expert that can be trusted? Remember Wirsok has volunteered to help you.

I trust you are speaking "tongue in cheek" here, Thaibob , insinuating that I cannot be trusted?

You become a qualified, registered Engineer by virtue of Education, Qualification, Training, and Experience.

Chartered Engineers are expected to go about their business in an unbiased ,moral ,ethical, manner, using their Professional and Technical judgement to arrive at a fair and balanced conclusion ,on solely the related facts and evidence before them.

I have given you my conclusions.

As I have given my opinion here ,I could not now be described as independant , so professionally could not and would not offer my services, and as such the court would not accept them.

The SC have demonstrated the high standards they are upholding in this matter.

[Wiresok]

Seeing as we are on the topic of distances and measurements, I would be interested to learn the technical aspects of the measurements required and undertaken here.

Issue talks of 200m distances , but measured in what context,

Perpendicular to the vt7 building in air?

Parrallel with sea level in air

Along the ground?

As you will appreciate depending upon which technique you employ, you will get a different measurement.

This leads to further questions,

Which technique does issue 9 state to employ?

Which technique did the Dept of Engineering surveyors employ

We all know that the Dept of Engineering did not comply with the court order to measure 200m from a point 100m further out to sea than MSL.

Any error embodied in a 100m measurement is doubled in a 200m measurement.

Wiresok, stopVT7 has some good information about the survey on his blog. You should check it out. He was also an observer and signed-off on the survey I believe.

"Any error embodied in a 100m measurement is doubled in a 200m measurement." ? Errors are not necessarily doubled. For example, if the measurement showed an error factor of (+) or (-) let's say 3 meters for a building distance at 103 meters (e.g., between 100 to 106 meters) then the 200 meter error range would be 200 to 206 meters (just adding the 100 meters). The error factor would not be 6 meters (doubled) for a range of 197 to 209 meters. Of course, the Thais saw no need to do a 200 meter measurement (100 meters is Same-same).

Incorrect Thaibob.

Errors in a measurment technique are expressed as a % (percentage, just looks like 96 ) range error.

Therefore for a 3% error in the technique, 3% of 200m is twice the value of 3% of 100m.

[ThaiBob]

Seeing as we are on the topic of distances and measurements, I would be interested to learn the technical aspects of the measurements required and undertaken here.

Issue talks of 200m distances , but measured in what context,

Perpendicular to the vt7 building in air?

Parrallel with sea level in air

Along the ground?

As you will appreciate depending upon which technique you employ, you will get a different measurement.

This leads to further questions,

Which technique does issue 9 state to employ?

Which technique did the Dept of Engineering surveyors employ

We all know that the Dept of Engineering did not comply with the court order to measure 200m from a point 100m further out to sea than MSL.

Any error embodied in a 100m measurement is doubled in a 200m measurement.

Wiresok, stopVT7 has some good information about the survey on his blog. You should check it out. He was also an observer and signed-off on the survey I believe.

"Any error embodied in a 100m measurement is doubled in a 200m measurement." ? Errors are not necessarily doubled. For example, if the measurement showed an error factor of (+) or (-) let's say 3 meters for a building distance at 103 meters (e.g., between 100 to 106 meters) then the 200 meter error range would be 200 to 206 meters (just adding the 100 meters). The error factor would not be 6 meters (doubled) for a range of 197 to 209 meters. Of course, the Thais saw no need to do a 200 meter measurement (100 meters is Same-same).

Incorrect Thaibob.

Errors in a measurment technique are expressed as a % (percentage, just looks like 96 ) range error.

Therefore for a 3% error in the technique, 3% of 200m is twice the value of 3% of 100m.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear the measurement was taken at 100 meters not 200 meters. If a physical measurement was taken at 200 meter then yes, the error range in meters is doubled. Just one more reason for measuring from 200 meters! Looks like the Bangkok Dept of Engineering are professionals and no what they are doing.

[Tammi]

MSL and CCL cannot be at the same place.

Lets use a bit of logic.

If mean sea level is half way between the high water mark and the low water mark, this distance is going to differ all along the beach, as it depends on the slope of the beach. The shallower the slope, the greater the difference between high and low water, so, the MSL moves seawards.

MSL could be very different 50 metres along the beach. Why would anybody in their right mind use the MSL as CCL. The MSL will meander right along the length of the beach.

I think the principle of measurement is very important.

As you allude to, depending on whether you measure perpendicular to the building, parallel to the sea, or along the ground , you get different results.

Your second point would be correct if you measured along the ground.

However you have overlooked that if MSL meandered like this, then the ghost CCL would also meander like this, as it would always be 100m out to sea from it per Thaibobs map!!

Thats why the measurement technique is important to right minds.

Also practically, you can get at MSL, but not to the ghost CCL, to do the issue 9 stated measuring.

Today, I consulted with a nautical expert and it is his opinion that the measurement should be from the mean high water spring tides. If any of you would like me to explain this further please let me know. But you can 'google' it.

[ThaiBob]

Dear ThaiBob

Your statement "This project has passed Thai environmental review law. This is not about the environment." as many other of your statement it is incorrect. Vt7 since the project started been breaking the environmental impact study and their requirements. We filed protects and I was at those meets. I have a copy of VT7 impact study requirements. Bangkok office came to Pattaya and held meeting then left and told city hall to fix the problems. Then we (group of ten) suit city hall to stop VT7 using a Thai environmental law called Issue 9. Pattaya City Hall violated Issue 8 and 9, a environmental law, by giving VT7 a building permit! I have no control of a newspaper headline or the starting of this blog and it's name.

ThaiBob you never answer my questions. Like a liberal you have a dislike for facts.

Now, My question "why did they appoint a so-called expert witness?" Is this a hard question for your "rational qualitative reasoning" mind? So I tell you. To make a map locating VT7 building from MSL (or CCL) which the so-called expert witness fail to follow the court order.

What do you think Supreme Administrative Court will think of so-called expert witness report?

A. Trash!

B. Rubbish!

C. Waste of time!

D. All of the above

All of the above because "aligment of the coast line be taken at MSL" which the Supreme Administrative Court already knew.

Now they know for sure VT7 is only 102 or 103 meters from MSL (or CCL)!!

Rational reasoning tell a logical person the building permit will be taken away and the Supreme Court will order Rayong to supervises the tear down of VT7. The lower court must correct their mistake!

I've just had this translated and thanks again for another illuminating post.

"Like a liberal you have a dislike for facts"....calling me a liberal is the nicest thing you said to me. Thank you. I just have liking for the truth, so when will your arguments be presented here by by a qualifed expert that can be trusted? Remember Wirsok has volunteered to help you.

I trust you are speaking "tongue in cheek" here, Thaibob , insinuating that I cannot be trusted?

....

Not sure how you jumped to that conclusion but it was certainly not my intent.

You do not mock Court witnesses, repeatedly copy and paste text out of context, continually post "facts" that have been shown not to be factual and therefore cannot be trusted. My thought was stopVT7 could use your help since you are qualified and you had volunteered. He has been asked to provide facts or evidence in the form of a sworn affadavit or depostion from an expert (preferably a qualified Thai engineer; no lawyers) to support his argument that MSL = CCL and refute the Bangkok Dept of Engineering report and witness testimony which has been excepted by the Court. Continued discussions about MSL = CCL are meaningless until he does this.

[stopvt7]

After AsiaLawWorks betrayed the plaintiffs, they secured the services of Khun Surachai Trong-ngam, Thailand's foremost crusading environmental attorney. He has taken on major corporations on issues of dumping, pollution, and other damage to the environment. He wins most of the time.

The plaintiffs had to convince Surchai that their crusade against View Talay concerned a crucial environmental issue -- that of over development and protection of Thai beaches. If Surchai did not think the case was about defending the enviroment, he wouldn't have taken it on. He doesn't work for anyone and any cause.

q

Edited August 19, 2008 by stopvt7

[ripley]

"......Thailand's foremost crusading environmental attorney. He has taken on major corporations on issues of dumping, pollution, and other damage to the environment. He wins most of the time."

Wish you'd told us this before. It's major! JCC chances looking much better with this info.

[ThaiBob]

You really have lost it, ThaiBob. You are resorting to intellectual dishonesty, fact twisting, and deliberate dis ingenuousness.

I don't know how well you know the owners of Rabbit Resort, but they refrained from building a high-rise on their property because of Issue 9 and because they respected the Dong Tarn beach environment. As a co-owner in Jomtien Condotel, Paysan has been supportive of the fight against another developer who wants to build too big too close to the sea. Yet you make it seem as if they welcome View Talay 7.

Then, there is your refusal to understand that StopVT7 can be trying to protect his seaview while AT THE SAME TIME trying to protect Thailand's beaches. You don't seem to be able to get it into your head that there is not contradiction!

After AsiaLawWorks betrayed the plaintiffs, they secured the services of Khun Surachai Trong-ngam, Thailand's foremost crusading environmental attorney. He has taken on major corporations on issues of dumping, pollution, and other damage to the environment. He wins most of the time.

The plaintiffs had to convince Surchai that their crusade against View Talay concerned a crucial environmental issue -- that of over development and protection of Thai beaches. If Surchai did not think the case was about defending the enviroment, he wouldn't have taken it on. He doesn't work for anyone and any cause.

Your 'personal belief' that View Talay 7 will be an 'asset' to Jomtien is nonsense. For reasons I outlined in my previous posting, the building will be a blight, and it will encourage other developers to also build high rises too close to the sea. Dong Tarn Beach will look like the awful Costa Brava, where buildings are now being torn down because they violated environmental laws.

Your "respect the local customs" advice is silly. Just what is the local culture? Yesterday, I saw a "Wanted" poster for Thaksin printed in all the Thai newspapers. It would seem that part of Thai culture is accusing government officials of corruption. If a Thai came to the United States and made statements about the corruption of the Bush Administration, say, by pointing out the sleazy contracts handed out to Halliburton, would you, as an American, tell him he had no right to speak?

Would you tell him to butt out of our affairs? The fact is, ThaiBob, you have spent very little time in this country, or anywhere else in Asia. You don't speak Thai. You hang out mostly with expatriates. You've never held a job here. You really don't know what you're talking about when you talk about the Thai people or Thai culture. So don't tell the rest of us how to act.

I am not friends with Rabbit Resort owners. However, I almost purchased one of their units “off-plan” years ago. Deborah mentioned they could have built a high-rise if they choose. No discussion of 100 meters, 200 meters, or Issue 9. I only mentioned this in the context of the many new improvements to Dong Tarn beach in recent years. Period.

“Then, there is your refusal to understand that StopVT7 can be trying to protect his sea view while AT THE SAME TIME trying to protect Thailand's beaches.” We just do not agree. I do not see stopVT7 as an environmental savior of Thailand beaches (read his blog and how it changed). His true and only objective is protection of his sea views. And there is nothing wrong with that!! Just admit it. Like a political campaign changes course or re-invents itself that is what stopVT7 has done. When his arguments were challenged and when the Rayong Court ruled against him, his strategy then changed (along with his blog). I do not equate his sea view and protection of Thailand’s beaches although some do. I admit I have a vested interest in VT7’s completion; just as you have an interest that if VT7 is shown to be illegal and you can then piggyback on that decision to help your own legal case surrounding the ******* (the project we can’t name).

Let’s let the Court decide what is “blight” and what is not. If you were around when the JomTien Plaza, Adriatic Hotel, JomTien Palm Beach, Markland Hotel, etc. were built I am sure you would have called them “blight” too. The standard that was applied to them should also be applied to VT7 and therefore the question before the Court, “is “blight” (VT7) greater than 200 meters from CCL (> 100 meters from MSL)?”

I have written no Code of Conduct for Foreigners or The Ten Commandments for Foreigners while Living Abroad or tell others how to live their lives or act. I do find stopVT7’s behavior appalling however. “Your "respect the local customs" advice is silly” the quote is not quite right but it is close enough and I think that pretty much sums up the differences in our attitudes. We are not talking about stopVT7’s freedom of speech. How would you feel if a foreigner seeking his rights in our (America) Court system makes unsubstantiated charges about the Mayor or City Hall, implies or hints corruption, or mocks agents of the Court? I know how I would feel and I suspect other posters/readers here would feel the same about foreigners if they behaved that way in their home countries. This is the behavior you seem to condone.

(By the way, I do speak Thai but not fluently. I am learning to read and write at the local Wat although at my age it is not easy. I encourage others to learn Thai also.)

Let’s follow the moderator’s suggestion and tone-down the rhetoric. I know some people are personally, emotionally involved and have strong feelings about this case. We know you and stopVT7 are involved in lengthy, costly Court cases and seem frustrated when others disagree and express opposing views but there are no hard feelings.

[ThaiBob]

After AsiaLawWorks betrayed the plaintiffs, they secured the services of Khun Surachai Trong-ngam, Thailand's foremost crusading environmental attorney. He has taken on major corporations on issues of dumping, pollution, and other damage to the environment. He wins most of the time.

The plaintiffs had to convince Surchai that their crusade against View Talay concerned a crucial environmental issue -- that of over development and protection of Thai beaches. If Surchai did not think the case was about defending the enviroment, he wouldn't have taken it on. He doesn't work for anyone and any cause.

q

I admire Khun Surachai but how are these articles specifically related to this case? Can he testify in Court for you that MSL = CCL? Does he also hold an engineering degree?

[ripley]

"I admire Khun Surachai but how are these articles specifically related to this case? Can he testify in Court for you that MSL = CCL? Does he also hold an engineering degree?"

Well, for one thing, I'd say that Khun Surachai's acceptance of the case is a strong indicator that the issue over VT7 does in fact affect the environment and can be fought on those grounds. The articles might be construed to be some independent verification of his professional expertise in environmental matters.

[prospero]

After AsiaLawWorks betrayed the plaintiffs, they secured the services of Khun Surachai Trong-ngam, Thailand's foremost crusading environmental attorney. He has taken on major corporations on issues of dumping, pollution, and other damage to the environment. He wins most of the time.

The plaintiffs had to convince Surchai that their crusade against View Talay concerned a crucial environmental issue -- that of over development and protection of Thai beaches. If Surchai did not think the case was about defending the enviroment, he wouldn't have taken it on. He doesn't work for anyone and any cause.

q

I admire Khun Surachai but how are these articles specifically related to this case? Can he testify in Court for you that MSL = CCL? Does he also hold an engineering degree?

Let me see if I can explain it to you.

Lawyers have discretion. They can accept or refuse cases. If a lawyer is committed to a certain cause, say he is against the death penalty, he will decide to accept only cases where the client is threatened with execution. Now, follow me. If the plaintiff in a death penalty case is acting out of self-interest, that is, he is trying to save his life, that does not necessarily mean that the lawyer who argues on his behalf isn't also arguing for the larger interests of society -- that is, that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, or, that all persons are entitled to due process. You get the idea?

If a lawyer is committed to the environment, he will accept only cases he deems will further environmental causes. That is, he will fight against projects and companies that threaten the environment.

Khun Surachai accepted the View Talay 7 case because he has been convinced by the Jomtien Complex plaintiffs that the construction of VT7 threatens the environment. That is, that the City Hall interpretation of the Issue 9 boundry endangers Thailand's beaches.

You say, over and over again, that StopVT7 is only interested in protecting his view. That may be true. It's not for me (or you) to say. But if seaviews were the only issue here, Khun Surachai would not have accepted the case. He would have told the plaintiffs to find another attorney.

As a lawyer, Khun Surachai does not testify in court. He has a law degree. Witnesses testify in court. If a lawyer handles medical malpractice cases, he suborns witnesses who understand the practice of medicine and who have medical degrees. Since this is an environmental case involving the interpretation of the distance from Mean Sea Level, I would predict that Khun Surachai will bring before the court testimony from engineers (who do have engineering degrees), environmental experts, and legal experts. It is not necessary that he himself testify.

Is that all clear?

[ThaiBob]

After AsiaLawWorks betrayed the plaintiffs, they secured the services of Khun Surachai Trong-ngam, Thailand's foremost crusading environmental attorney. He has taken on major corporations on issues of dumping, pollution, and other damage to the environment. He wins most of the time.

The plaintiffs had to convince Surchai that their crusade against View Talay concerned a crucial environmental issue -- that of over development and protection of Thai beaches. If Surchai did not think the case was about defending the enviroment, he wouldn't have taken it on. He doesn't work for anyone and any cause.

q

I admire Khun Surachai but how are these articles specifically related to this case? Can he testify in Court for you that MSL = CCL? Does he also hold an engineering degree?

Let me see if I can explain it to you.

Lawyers have discretion. They can accept or refuse cases. If a lawyer is committed to a certain cause, say he is against the death penalty, he will decide to accept only cases where the client is threatened with execution. Now, follow me. If the plaintiff in a death penalty case is acting out of self-interest, that is, he is trying to save his life, that does not necessarily mean that the lawyer who argues on his behalf isn't also arguing for the larger interests of society -- that is, that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, or, that all persons are entitled to due process. You get the idea?

If a lawyer is committed to the environment, he will accept only cases he deems will further environmental causes. That is, he will fight against projects and companies that threaten the environment.

Khun Surachai accepted the View Talay 7 case because he has been convinced by the Jomtien Complex plaintiffs that the construction of VT7 threatens the environment. That is, that the City Hall interpretation of the Issue 9 boundry endangers Thailand's beaches.

You say, over and over again, that StopVT7 is only interested in protecting his view. That may be true. It's not for me (or you) to say. But if seaviews were the only issue here, Khun Surachai would not have accepted the case. He would have told the plaintiffs to find another attorney.

As a lawyer, Khun Surachai does not testify in court. He has a law degree. Witnesses testify in court. If a lawyer handles medical malpractice cases, he suborns witnesses who understand the practice of medicine and who have medical degrees. Since this is an environmental case involving the interpretation of the distance from Mean Sea Level, I would predict that Khun Surachai will bring before the court testimony from engineers (who do have engineering degrees), environmental experts, and legal experts. It is not necessary that he himself testify.

Is that all clear?

Yes, very clear now. I missed the point this was stopVT7's lawyer. I read an earlier post, "they secured the services of" instead of "we secured secured the services of" meaning the litigants. I hope the litigants have a better experience with this lawyer.

[prospero]

<br />

After AsiaLawWorks betrayed the plaintiffs, they secured the services of Khun Surachai Trong-ngam, Thailand's foremost crusading environmental attorney. He has taken on major corporations on issues of dumping, pollution, and other damage to the environment. He wins most of the time. <br /><br />The plaintiffs had to convince Surchai that their crusade against View Talay concerned a crucial environmental issue -- that of over development and protection of Thai beaches. If Surchai did not think the case was about defending the enviroment, he wouldn't have taken it on. He doesn't work for anyone and any cause.<br />q

<br /><br />I admire Khun Surachai but how are these articles specifically related to this case? Can he testify in Court for you that MSL = CCL? Does he also hold an engineering degree?<br />

<br /><br />Let me see if I can explain it to you.<br /><br />Lawyers have discretion. They can accept or refuse cases. If a lawyer is committed to a certain cause, say he is against the death penalty, he will decide to accept only cases where the client is threatened with execution. Now, follow me. If the plaintiff in a death penalty case is acting out of self-interest, that is, he is trying to save his life, that does not necessarily mean that the lawyer who argues on his behalf isn't also arguing for the larger interests of society -- that is, that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, or, that all persons are entitled to due process. You get the idea?<br /><br />If a lawyer is committed to the environment, he will accept only cases he deems will further environmental causes. That is, he will fight against projects and companies that threaten the environment.<br /><br />Khun Surachai accepted the View Talay 7 case because he has been convinced by the Jomtien Complex plaintiffs that the construction of VT7 threatens the environment. That is, that the City Hall interpretation of the Issue 9 boundry endangers Thailand's beaches.<br /><br />You say, over and over again, that StopVT7 is only interested in protecting his view. That may be true. It's not for me (or you) to say. But if seaviews were the only issue here, Khun Surachai would not have accepted the case. He would have told the plaintiffs to find another attorney.<br /><br />As a lawyer, Khun Surachai does not testify in court. He has a law degree. Witnesses testify in court. If a lawyer handles medical malpractice cases, he suborns witnesses who understand the practice of medicine and who have medical degrees. Since this is an environmental case involving the interpretation of the distance from Mean Sea Level, I would predict that Khun Surachai will bring before the court testimony from engineers (who do have engineering degrees), environmental experts, and legal experts. It is not necessary that he himself testify.<br /><br />Is that all clear?<br />

<br /><br /><br />Yes, very clear now. I missed the point this was stopVT7's lawyer. I read an earlier post, "they secured the services of" instead of "we secured secured the services of" meaning the litigants. I hope the litigants have a better experience with this lawyer.<br />

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

Sorry if the post was unclear. From what I understand, they are having a far better experience with Khun Surachai.