Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[ThaiBob]

Here are a few pics of the progress taken yesterday. They are pouring on the 21st floor.

[ripley]

While we wait, wanna bet on whether VT7 will take the trouble to festoon their monstrosity with bougainvillea on every level and lotsa palms and greenery - just like the artist rendition presented to the Environmental Impact Agency? I'm in for a fiver.

[ripley]

JPM76 wrote:"You are actually acting against the interests therefore of all the people actually paying for your case ie JCC owners. If I was one of them, I would be launching my lawsuit against you for all the costs your ignorance is producing here, and do you not think that, after all the trouble you have caused here (initially in a positive light), that there would be some in the justice system that would want to drive home to you the fact of yoru foreigner arrogance by making you pay to the full extent. "

Ah, but if I read the evidence correctly, the JCC owners will have to pay all the costs for suing as he is insured against lawsuit - with their own funds! Hope I'm wrong, but that's how it reads to me.

[plasticpig]

Here are a few pics of the progress taken yesterday. They are pouring on the 21st floor.

Stopv7, Has lost, its over when it went past 14m, that was the end of it.

he and all the others were wrong, the big 20 floor fact is right infront of them.

and i will wave at him and the rest of the boys from my place when i move in.

Have a nice day Stopvt7

[Wiresok]

I have just had a walk around vt7 , in the rain.

Fom whichever angle you choose to view vt7 ,in the location it occupies it really is the most hiddeous creation you could imagine, and just looks horrendously out of place from all 180 deg angles of view.

Regardless of its illegality, it just does not look nice there.

You really have to see this live in situ to appreciate this,photographs just do not show the real horror show.

It really destroys the beach to land symetry down there.

I am sure the Thai authorities (not Pattaya authorities ) and people do not want this situation to explode down their coastline.

Also , I have just read in the Bangkok Post, that the King has yesterday reminded the administrative court judges of their duties to the country and to be brave and honest in their decisions.

He said the country and the people were depending on them greatly to maintain Thailands reputation, especially as this year Thailand was head of Asean.

Everything is against vt7, in my view its going back to 14m.

[OhdLover]

I have just had a walk around vt7 , in the rain.

Fom whichever angle you choose to view vt7 ,in the location it occupies it really is the most hiddeous creation you could imagine, and just looks horrendously out of place from all 180 deg angles of view.

Regardless of its illegality, it just does not look nice there.

You really have to see this live in situ to appreciate this,photographs just do not show the real horror show.

It really destroys the beach to land symetry down there.

I am sure the Thai authorities (not Pattaya authorities ) and people do not want this situation to explode down their coastline.

Also , I have just read in the Bangkok Post, that the King has yesterday reminded the administrative court judges of their duties to the country and to be brave and honest in their decisions.

He said the country and the people were depending on them greatly to maintain Thailands reputation, especially as this year Thailand was head of Asean.

Everything is against vt7, in my view its going back to 14m.

Of course you are entitled to have your opinion. My opinion is that VT7 look very nice, from all angles. Not the same old stuff as before, I didn't see the Y-shape somewhere else in Jomtien. I always found the 2 towers behind VT7 horrendous, so I am glad that we won't see those monsters anymore when we are at the beach. Perhaps you should wait until everything is finished, sometimes it's difficult to get the idea when things are under construction. Or visit the VT-office, you can admire the small version over there.

It's a good thing people have their different tastes about beauty.

It's even better that this case hasn't got anything to do with beautiful or ugly meters, only with how many of them should be measured.

P.S. walking around a building usually means 360 degrees. Which beautiful side did you skip?

Edited September 16, 2008 by OhdLover

[ThaiBob]

I have just had a walk around vt7 , in the rain.

Fom whichever angle you choose to view vt7 ,in the location it occupies it really is the most hiddeous creation you could imagine, and just looks horrendously out of place from all 180 deg angles of view.

Regardless of its illegality, it just does not look nice there.

You really have to see this live in situ to appreciate this,photographs just do not show the real horror show.

It really destroys the beach to land symetry down there.

I am sure the Thai authorities (not Pattaya authorities ) and people do not want this situation to explode down their coastline.

Also , I have just read in the Bangkok Post, that the King has yesterday reminded the administrative court judges of their duties to the country and to be brave and honest in their decisions.

He said the country and the people were depending on them greatly to maintain Thailands reputation, especially as this year Thailand was head of Asean.

Everything is against vt7, in my view its going back to 14m.

Perhaps the rain obscured your vision? You sound very critical coming from from somebody who owns a VT5 condo considering VT7 will be a step forward in both design and quality.

"Everything is against vt7, in my view its going back to 14m." Yes, that is your view. But the construction continues because that is the Court's view; the only view that really counts.

[Wiresok]

I have just had a walk around vt7 , in the rain.

Fom whichever angle you choose to view vt7 ,in the location it occupies it really is the most hiddeous creation you could imagine, and just looks horrendously out of place from all 180 deg angles of view.

Regardless of its illegality, it just does not look nice there.

You really have to see this live in situ to appreciate this,photographs just do not show the real horror show.

It really destroys the beach to land symetry down there.

I am sure the Thai authorities (not Pattaya authorities ) and people do not want this situation to explode down their coastline.

Also , I have just read in the Bangkok Post, that the King has yesterday reminded the administrative court judges of their duties to the country and to be brave and honest in their decisions.

He said the country and the people were depending on them greatly to maintain Thailands reputation, especially as this year Thailand was head of Asean.

Everything is against vt7, in my view its going back to 14m.

Of course you are entitled to have your opinion. My opinion is that VT7 look very nice, from all angles. Not the same old stuff as before, I didn't see the Y-shape somewhere else in Jomtien. I always found the 2 towers behind VT7 horrendous, so I am glad that we won't see those monsters anymore when we are at the beach. Perhaps you should wait until everything is finished, sometimes it's difficult to get the idea when things are under construction. Or visit the VT-office, you can admire the small version over there.

It's a good thing people have their different tastes about beauty.

It's even better that this case hasn't got anything to do with beautiful or ugly meters, only with how many of them should be measured.

P.S. walking around a building usually means 360 degrees. Which beautiful side did you skip?

No I left it at 180 deg.

You cannot get the true perspective from the sea end as the land falls away to quickly.

But I seen enough from 180 deg landside.Its totally destroyed the beach to buildings symmetry down there.The buildings are just to close together.You think the Thais are going to let this eyesore happen all down the coast?

You have to remember the Bangkok supreme administrative court has already ruled two out of two for stopvt7, and the king has reminded the judges to be strong and honest for Thailands reputation and people.

Do you think they are going to let a few investors tarnish that, especially when the regulation is so clear?

[Wiresok]

I have just had a walk around vt7 , in the rain.

Fom whichever angle you choose to view vt7 ,in the location it occupies it really is the most hiddeous creation you could imagine, and just looks horrendously out of place from all 180 deg angles of view.

Regardless of its illegality, it just does not look nice there.

You really have to see this live in situ to appreciate this,photographs just do not show the real horror show.

It really destroys the beach to land symetry down there.

I am sure the Thai authorities (not Pattaya authorities ) and people do not want this situation to explode down their coastline.

Also , I have just read in the Bangkok Post, that the King has yesterday reminded the administrative court judges of their duties to the country and to be brave and honest in their decisions.

He said the country and the people were depending on them greatly to maintain Thailands reputation, especially as this year Thailand was head of Asean.

Everything is against vt7, in my view its going back to 14m.

Perhaps the rain obscured your vision? You sound very critical coming from from somebody who owns a VT5 condo considering VT7 will be a step forward in both design and quality.

"Everything is against vt7, in my view its going back to 14m." Yes, that is your view. But the construction continues because that is the Court's view; the only view that really counts.

Thaibob, vision is in the mind , I think you mean my view .

I know as you are a vt7 investor ,it obviously colours your opinion about it , and its legality.

Its the wong building for that location.

It just looks completely out of place there.

The law is the law and in my opinion vt7 is illegal,whatever I own.I have seen nothing to change that opinion.

If I thought it legal I would say so.

I and others have stated so many reasons why; your total reliance on an arrow pointing on a map is so unconvincing.I take the same opinion as the Bangkok supreme court.

Do you really think they will allow so much devastation to their coastline ,when the regulation is so clear?

[Sir Burr]

You have to remember the Bangkok supreme administrative court has already ruled two out of two for stopvt7

Oh dear..........better go back to post #1 and start reading. It's obvious that you have no idea what's going on.

[OhdLover]

No I left it at 180 deg.

You cannot get the true perspective from the sea end as the land falls away to quickly.

But I seen enough from 180 deg landside.Its totally destroyed the beach to buildings symmetry down there.The buildings are just to close together.You think the Thais are going to let this eyesore happen all down the coast?

You have to remember the Bangkok supreme administrative court has already ruled two out of two for stopvt7, and the king has reminded the judges to be strong and honest for Thailands reputation and people.

Do you think they are going to let a few investors tarnish that, especially when the regulation is so clear?

You are mixing up a lot of things. I suggest you re-read the thread from the start (or at least the parts that weren't copy-pasted 63547 times). One thing to ask before you start reading: If the regulation is so clear, do you think there would be an almost 100 pages long thread over here about the subject, why are the people who have to decide still studying the case?

The other part is that you, as stopvt7 continuously does, mix up opinions with facts. You don't like VT7. That's ok. Projecting your opinion on all Thai is not ok, unless of course you interviewed them all and they all agreed with you. So please, keep your opinion, but keep it as an opinion, keep it away from the facts. It makes life, at least for this thread, easier.

[Wiresok]

You have to remember the Bangkok supreme administrative court has already ruled two out of two for stopvt7

Oh dear..........better go back to post #1 and start reading. It's obvious that you have no idea what's going on.

Me , and the Bangkok Supreme Court eh?

Go on then ,you tell us all what's going on,especially with the expert witness.

No wonder stop vt puts the laughing boys up.

[Wiresok]

No I left it at 180 deg.

You cannot get the true perspective from the sea end as the land falls away to quickly.

But I seen enough from 180 deg landside.Its totally destroyed the beach to buildings symmetry down there.The buildings are just to close together.You think the Thais are going to let this eyesore happen all down the coast?

You have to remember the Bangkok supreme administrative court has already ruled two out of two for stopvt7, and the king has reminded the judges to be strong and honest for Thailands reputation and people.

Do you think they are going to let a few investors tarnish that, especially when the regulation is so clear?

You are mixing up a lot of things. I suggest you re-read the thread from the start (or at least the parts that weren't copy-pasted 63547 times). One thing to ask before you start reading: If the regulation is so clear, do you think there would be an almost 100 pages long thread over here about the subject, why are the people who have to decide still studying the case?

The other part is that you, as stopvt7 continuously does, mix up opinions with facts. You don't like VT7. That's ok. Projecting your opinion on all Thai is not ok, unless of course you interviewed them all and they all agreed with you. So please, keep your opinion, but keep it as an opinion, keep it away from the facts. It makes life, at least for this thread, easier.

Tell me then what I am mixing up .

Be specific please, not generics and generalities

Why do you not like the posts copied 63547 times, are they to close to the truth for you?

Ask yourself why there are 100 pages, isn't it obvious.

The people who will decide are still studying because the Bangkok Supreme Court allowed the corrective appeal, and are giving due process , isnt it obvious.

Give me some examples of opinions and facts I mix up, don't just say it,over to you then.

If you have problems with this thread then I'm sure you also have problems with issue 9.

I have just walked down jomtien beach road toward the police box.

VT 7 completely closes off the previously open vista.

It presents you bang in the face with a closed end.

It looks awfull, the great wall of Jomtien.

<snip.

Edited September 18, 2008 by Crow Boy
removal of reference to HM - comon guys you know not to do that

[ripley]

You know, it would be very interesting and revealing to see how long this thread actually is, minus all the cuts & repastes. Always had a notion that stopvt7 & co. were using these to extend the thread and make the debate seem more complex than it is. Can it be done? Moderators?

[ThaiBob]

...

You have to remember the Bangkok supreme administrative court has already ruled two out of two for stopvt7, ....

Really?

In April 2007, the litigants went to Court (SC) with no construction taking place at the VT7 jobsite. When they left the Courtroom, construction was permitted to resume to 14 meters until the Court (Rayong) made a final decision. The SC made no decision on the legality of VT7 or gave any hints or showed any bias in anything related to this case.

On June 19th of this year (3 months ago and 7 months since the Appeal was filed), the SC accepted to hear the litigants Appeal against the January 16th Rayong Court ruling that permitted construction to resume. Again this was a procedural ruling of Thai law and the SC gave no hints or showed no bias related to this case. But it did write in referring the Court ordered measurement, “The measurement result reported that the building of 2nd Plaint Receiver is not in the boundary of 200 meters.” (Note that there have been 3 seperate measurements taken and they all report the same thing.)

From this you say the SC has ruled two out of two for stopvt7?.... then so be it.

Instead of publicly knocking the Court appointed witness, did stopVT7 present his own expert witness testimony? Has he presented any new evidence since this case started? The silence is deafening.

[sotsira]

I have just had a walk around vt7 , in the rain.

Fom whichever angle you choose to view vt7 ,in the location it occupies it really is the most hiddeous creation you could imagine, and just looks horrendously out of place from all 180 deg angles of view.

Regardless of its illegality, it just does not look nice there.

You really have to see this live in situ to appreciate this,photographs just do not show the real horror show.

It really destroys the beach to land symetry down there.

I am sure the Thai authorities (not Pattaya authorities ) and people do not want this situation to explode down their coastline.

Also , I have just read in the Bangkok Post, that the King has yesterday reminded the administrative court judges of their duties to the country and to be brave and honest in their decisions.

He said the country and the people were depending on them greatly to maintain Thailands reputation, especially as this year Thailand was head of Asean.

Everything is against vt7, in my view its going back to 14m.

Perhaps the rain obscured your vision? You sound very critical coming from from somebody who owns a VT5 condo considering VT7 will be a step forward in both design and quality.

How can you think that VT7 is of better design and qaulity than VT5?

The front section of VT7 is identical to VT5 but built on a much smaller ground area, which will give it a very cramped feel once everyone starts living there.

The design of the two rear wings of VT7 make the rooms very long and very narrow with no windows apart from the balcony at the other end of the main entrance which is 22mtrs x 4.5mts, this makes it difficult to design a condo in a room of this proportion.

The only difference between VT5 & VT7 is the 40% higher prices for the same 48sqm2 units!

In my opinion VT5 offers far better value and design!

Edited September 18, 2008 by sotsira

[ThaiBob]

How can you think that VT7 is of better design and qaulity than VT5?

The front section of VT7 is identical to VT5 but built on a much smaller ground area, which will give it a very cramped feel once everyone starts living there.

The design of the two rear wings of VT7 make the rooms very long and very narrow with no windows apart from the balcony at the other end of the main entrance which is 22mtrs x 4.5mts, this makes it difficult to design a condo in a room of this proportion.

The only difference between VT5 & VT7 is the 40% higher prices for the same 48sqm2 units!

In my opinion VT5 offers far better value and design!

The fact is every new VT project even though of similar design was of a higher standard than it's predessor. VT2 was better than VT1, VT3 was better than VT2, and VT5 was better than VT3 and so on and so on. VT7 is the first VT project of a different design (Y-shaped) and using post-tensioned concrete construction. I agree with you that the rear-wings are narrow and offer little light. Perhaps that explains why many are still available for sale. I rent in VT5-C and I think VT5 offers an excellent value.

[ripley]

Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. (Do you really think JCC is ugly? I always thought it rather stately & olde world looking.) But no matter how much of a fan you may be of the VT style, surely you cannot welcome the sheer numbers of them in such a small area - aesthetically or practically. What is it now? VT5 - 3 bldgs & counting; VT7; and yet another just inches away about to be started. All the same crackerbox style, all eventually with rusting metal balconies - all crunched together blocking even each others' views. Inexpensive (or at least affordable) beach front housing. Fair enough. But When is enough enough?

Edited September 19, 2008 by ripley

[Binkie]

To be honest guys, this has stopped being about the complaints from Jomtien Complex and has become more about personal mud slinging and that is surely not what the intention was to start. Many other threads have been closed and taken from public view yet this one has been allowed to grow to gargantuan proportions, I wonder why. There is a lot of controversy contained herein and yet the mods have not taken it upon themselves to remove it.

See there I go again trying to antagonise the vox populi.

This looks very much like a closed case to me so why it is resurrected time and again escapes me except for the reason I gave at the beginning of my diatribe.

VT7 is and will be. No stopping it now so it looks to me like StopVT7 has the most redundant name on the board.

Guys get on with your lives, and enjoy this wonderful and decadent place for what it is. Your view is gone, sorry but you are not the first and neither will you be the last.

Go out and have a bit of what makes life worth living.

Nuff sed?

I think so. (my opinion)

[ripley]

Yeah this has been a wandering, blustering thread much of the time which is irritating. BUT I think it stopped being about whether JCC loses its view a long time ago. It is only that (correct me if I'm wrong) the JCC case is the only one that attempts to establish once and for all the existing law of the land regarding seaside construction. How many highrise constructions are permitted at the seashore? How far from MSL? What is MSL and what is "construction control line"? How many units are permitted within what amount of space? What controls exist to protect the beach and ocean from over-development? Once clarified, how strong are the laws? Is it really legal for someone like VT to cover the beachfront?

Previously (actually, still) every time you asked these questions you got a different answer from every source. Chaos and uncertainty have developed, and for no good reason. Let's seek out clearly drawn lines, the clearly defined law, transparent procedures. My notion is that can only come from the Thai Supreme Admin. Ct. Then we can all make sensible informed decisions about where to invest. That would be very much more relaxing.

[Binkie]

I am of the opinion that this will never happen. It is a fact that so long a speculation and uncertainty are present then anything goes. If there is a definite line set in stone then the machine that we are talking about will not be able to function and all will suffer in the long run. At best the decision will be delayed indefinitely and at worst they will come back with a hashed up version that suits no one but that some will claim as a moral victory.

I hope that case one is the outcome.

[ripley]

I'm inclined to agree with you, Binkie. A quarter of a century of life in Asia & I haven't fully learned that line "East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet." Every 6 yrs or so I find myself saying "If we could only get things clear" then everything would be fine & we'd all know where we stand. What I keep forgetting is that Asia is not keen on getting things "too" clear. They're more comfortable with wiggle-room in which to do business, etc. And, to be honest, that probably produces the "decadence" you mention which is a sense of freedom that makes us fall in love with life here, and an escape from the stifling over-monitoring which one gets in the West.

But, like I said, I keep forgetting.

[jpm76]

No I left it at 180 deg.

You cannot get the true perspective from the sea end as the land falls away to quickly.

But I seen enough from 180 deg landside.Its totally destroyed the beach to buildings symmetry down there.The buildings are just to close together.You think the Thais are going to let this eyesore happen all down the coast?

You have to remember the Bangkok supreme administrative court has already ruled two out of two for stopvt7, and the king has reminded the judges to be strong and honest for Thailands reputation and people.

Do you think they are going to let a few investors tarnish that, especially when the regulation is so clear?

You are mixing up a lot of things. I suggest you re-read the thread from the start (or at least the parts that weren't copy-pasted 63547 times). One thing to ask before you start reading: If the regulation is so clear, do you think there would be an almost 100 pages long thread over here about the subject, why are the people who have to decide still studying the case?

The other part is that you, as stopvt7 continuously does, mix up opinions with facts. You don't like VT7. That's ok. Projecting your opinion on all Thai is not ok, unless of course you interviewed them all and they all agreed with you. So please, keep your opinion, but keep it as an opinion, keep it away from the facts. It makes life, at least for this thread, easier.

Tell me then what I am mixing up .

Be specific please, not generics and generalities

Why do you not like the posts copied 63547 times, are they to close to the truth for you?

Ask yourself why there are 100 pages, isn't it obvious.

The people who will decide are still studying because the Bangkok Supreme Court allowed the corrective appeal, and are giving due process , isnt it obvious.

Give me some examples of opinions and facts I mix up, don't just say it,over to you then.

If you have problems with this thread then I'm sure you also have problems with issue 9.

I have just walked down jomtien beach road toward the police box.

VT 7 completely closes off the previously open vista.

It presents you bang in the face with a closed end.

It looks awfull, the great wall of Jomtien.

<snip.

The part you are mixing up is the fact that the SC has never made ANY ruling about this case - they have made clear the parameters, but since their statements are always tainted with "IF", "Therefores" and "SHOULD", they have made suggestive actions SHOULD and IF the building be found to be illegal as per court ruling. Now Rayong did not find the building to be illegal, and even moreso, found it to be so legal that they tried to get rid of StopVT7 then and there by avoiding the whol appeal scenario (which SC correctly rules that they had a right to appeal).

I can understand why you think that the SC supports StopVT7...after all he has posted it all along, but the VT7 investor side knows the truth is that we are not anywhere near the legal stage where a SC COULD legally rule. They are down in the appeals process, and so far, the only appeals that have taken place was

1. by VT7 against the initial "temporary stop work order" AFTER the court heard the evidence (it ruled in VT7's favour) and allowed them to continue &

2. by STopVT7 when the Rayong court heard the evidence, ruled in favour of VT7, and then even tried to remove any right of appeal (to which the SC later ruled that StopVT7 has a legal right of appeal that could not be so quickly squashed where a legit interpretation of the law was prima facie in existence).

And so, this is precisiely what yo are missing when you listen to StopV7's propaganda of all his SC support. I suggest that you go back and read the actual supreme court docs, remove all StopVT7's underlining and emphases out of the picture, and instead, read the rulings as an English speaking literate should. You will then see all the evidence that actually shows that the SC has never formed ny legal opinion on this case - they have merely stated the law, and then left the opinion to the lower courts ie where it legally has to commence under even legal systems of our own.

This is why VT7 investors have said all along in our posts that StopVT7 is using all the smokes and mirrors here to try and create an impression that he is winning because he has the SC on his side. Reality checks have not worked there, but use common sense, research the proper legal procedure in even our system (because it is very similar), and you would realise that the SC has not been legally allowed to make any ruling whatsoever this early in the legal process. We are not up to the appeal stages on the main case - all we have seen in appeals to date are appeals against minor rulings subsequent to the main case whereby Rayong has yet to give its final ruling - it merely ruled that during the case that an order to stop the construction of VT7 during this case would result in unfair penalties against VT7, and so, it lifted the injunction because it was only a temporary order until the court had ruled (AND RAYONG RULED). Now why VT7 investors are confident is because Rayong ruled in such a clear cut manner that tended to suggest that they did not want to hear any more from StopVT7, and even tried to get rid of this case as quick as possible so that the courts time could be more properly allocated.

I am not making any opinions on the rulings here but merely stating what was decided by the courts. VT7 investors are confident that the SC will not overrule the lower court because VT7 have not doing anything that was against the law (ie they foillowed all the due procedures of obtaining legal permits etc from council AND environemntal commissions, thus satisfying the law's requirements), and the law would have to be so clear against VT7 to basically allow no room for interpretation of the Issue 9 rulings, and yet, there is obviously no clear cut answer to this because expert witnesses brought in actually ruled that the interpretation of Issue 9 actually favored the VT7 interpretation given the evidence at hand at the time. Therefore, I think that there is only a very slim possibility that the SC would overrule a technical interpretation of a witness specifically brought in to give evidence to the court (forget StopVT7's arguments that the witness made law...it is already debunked). The problem was that the law may not have been so clearly stated as some whould like to think, and that it lead to misinterpretation, but since VT7 followed the letter of the law, it would be an extremely confident SC that was convinced of true and actual corruption (and we have not seen any evidence to such claims, actual I see contradictory evidence that seems to suggest that VT7 had to state a full case in order to obtain the permit in the first place due to the legal concerns). How can the SC punish VT7 in this scenario? THey have done everything by the book...it is only an interpretation of Issue 9 that is under question, and if the Sc wants to clarify that issue, then I would think that they would only pass a law that will apply AFTER the date of the final ruling by them (ie long after VT7 is fully built). That is why we are confident that VT7 is clearly going to get built...there is no just scenario that could arise to suggest that they should be punished for wrongful action - at best, they could be accussed of testing the legal ruling of Issue 9, and since courts only ever rule after the challenge to the law, they cannot be punished for this harshly AFTER seeking all the correct approvals from the appropriate departments. It is ludicrous to suggest the things that have been charged by StopVT7, and if he did it in the first world, he would certainly be facing legal action that would add up to a smear campaign at best and wilful harm to VT7 by all the false accusations and manipulation he has employed on this topic post alone and his website.

He can believe what he wants to believe...that is his freedom, but he should not expect to be able to pull the wool over everyone else's eyes. We, the VT7 investors, have merely tried to show the general public that nearly all of his information has been either clearly wrong (as his understanding of the Thai legal system and its processes have been), or else, intentional manipulation of the evidence (as he tries to change the meaning and context of legal statements). Thanks to the efforts of many of the VT7 investors, we think that we have done this in a reasonable and intelligent manner by deconstructing the arguments that StopVT7 uses in order to show that they are either false, or else, require a leap of faith beyond common sense.

I can understand, since StopVT7 has been allowed to spread propaganda like the best of any totalitarian regime, why many are confused as to the state of this case, but if they read our posts with an open mind (despite our personal interests here), we hope that the misunderstandings can be cleared up, and you may realise that you have been victim to a vindictive and moralless attempt to confuse facts with lies. Whilst the internet is as free as what it is, there is little that can be doen, but we are firtunate to have moderators here who have ensured the freedom of information (as well as opinion), but have drawn the lines when they have needed to be drawn.

Of course, StopVT7 will feel that the law has wronged him when he loses, but he needs to face up to everything that he has done here on these posts, because there have been many attempts to draw him out from any self-delusion or lack of knowledge about the process, and yet he continues to fire back with laughing emoticons, sneers at VT7 investors (who were only ever really an innocent other side through all this, not ruthless capitalists bent on world domination) and an arrogance that suggests that the argument will never be won until the courts finally rule.

You have asked a serious question though, in what have you missed, and so I hope that you may now understand, or else dig deeper to understand that most of the evidence is not tamper-proof if it comes from sources close to StopVT7, and yet, he done us all a service here in providing the info to the general public and allowed us to see where the wishful thinking got in the way. Had he had a greater command of the English language, he would have realised and listened to what we were telling him, but for now, it is merely a waiting game for us, and then, this issue can be laid to rest. SHould any future issues be clairfied and bettered by court action here, then, that is why the legal system is the way that it is, and subject to evolution and development, but for now, I would be very disappointed if VT7 were punished here as our legal systems which act as the model for some of the ideals that these principles are based on, would not find any fault with VT7, and moreso since they have had to endure this whole process at great cost to themselves, but that is the law. StopVT7 had the right to challenge it, and I for one, initially welcomed his right and supported it, but he changed character completely when he actually started to lose in the courts, and I had to wothdraw my support, not on account of not supporting the legal process, but because I thought that he was completely abusing his privileges and even damaging the reputation of farangs in general by his actions.

[ripley]

As has been agreed again & again, the Courts will make the decision regarding VT7's legality. And the case rests on Issues 8 & 9 - unfortunately not any other activities by the corporation regarding this project. But, JPM76, can you allow as how VT is abusing the law even if it is not judged eventually to be breaking it?

[jpm76]

As has been agreed again & again, the Courts will make the decision regarding VT7's legality. And the case rests on Issues 8 & 9 - unfortunately not any other activities by the corporation regarding this project. But, JPM76, can you allow as how VT is abusing the law even if it is not judged eventually to be breaking it?

Hi Ripley,

I do not believe VT to be abusing the law any - I think that they have followed it to a tea. As to whether they may have considered the extent to which they would be testing the Issue 9 law, I have no idea about that, but I certainly do not believe that there is any malice in VT's actions. I believe that they saw an opportunity, went to the council upon the project, were approved, went to the Environmental Agency (actually most likely before the council), were approved, and therefore, expected for VT7 to be built without opposition from external parties such as StopVT7. StopVT7 was within his rights to ask these questions, and it seems to have triggered a revision of Issue 9. I am with other VT7 investors in believing that the law was actually not as clear as it could have been, else there would be no need for all the clarification, and no debate around Issue 9. I am still waiting to hear how this will all be settled, but I stand by what I wrote above in that I think it would be very harsh indeed to tear down VT7, especially since it seems quite unclear as to the exact intention of whoever drafted Issue 9.

I also take note of your earlier post that states that StopVT7 has an immunity from being sued by the JCC owners, even if I cannot understand how he may have actually received such an immunity - to me, that would be another decision for the courts to make, and if someone cost me a lot of money, I would certainly want to know why they should not be responsible for reimbursing me.

Hope you are well, and I thank you again for making me aware of info that I was not in possession of.

[ripley]

Here are only 3 of the areas in which VT7 could be proved to have acted unethically if not illegally.

One is the Environmental Impact report you mentioned. Some schmoozing is strongly indicated betwx. the JCC paid environmental advisor and VT7, causing the JCC advisor to recommend VT7 to the EIA and then disappear. Also, excellent reason to believe a vital connection betwx. the Consulting company which presented its case to the EIA and a person actually serving on the EIA. One could call this "roomer"! but if you look at the report that EIA submitted to city hall okaying VT7 you'll find it almost identical to VT's own presentation.

Second - JCC had a guaranteed walkway to the beach. It was informed by the land office that this walkway didn't in fact belong to them (as the JCC developer had claimed) BUT had been in use so long that it was now officially "community access". VT7 has erased the walkway - taken it over.

Third - VT7 (according to their EIA report) was to have used drills before inserting its pilings. The drills they had on site weren 't long enough, so - contrary to regulation and their own agreement - they pounded the piles into the additional required 2 mtrs. This shook JCC bldg. to its foundations and it is still not known how much damage was done.

As I have never seen the report, this is strictly rumour but worth noting: Good sources have stated that the VT7 site isn't stabile enough to hold a high-rise - in fact is the reason the JCC developer gave up its plans for a lowrise. I might have dismissed this out of hand, but all of us noted the amount of water (sea water?) seepage pooling around the construction site & some photographed it. The only way to find out for sure about this one would be to access the files of the engineering company who worked for JCC developers.

Finally, the "immunity" you mention is actually in the form of an insurance policy, paid for from condo funds, to protect all committee members from the consequences of lawsuits. If you think about it, it's a good idea to have something like this. I mean, why would anyone volunteer to be on a committee if it placed them in a position to be sued frivolously by some irate owner with a grudge? It's happened in JCC. Still, the policy almost certainly covers stopvt7.

Good wishes to you, as well.

Ripley

[ripley]

Hi - I'm going to apologize for my last post because it concerns things for which VT is NOT being sued. I guess I just wanted to underline that the co. is not blameless & straightforward.

[Wiresok]

No I left it at 180 deg.

You cannot get the true perspective from the sea end as the land falls away to quickly.

But I seen enough from 180 deg landside.Its totally destroyed the beach to buildings symmetry down there.The buildings are just to close together.You think the Thais are going to let this eyesore happen all down the coast?

You have to remember the Bangkok supreme administrative court has already ruled two out of two for stopvt7, and the king has reminded the judges to be strong and honest for Thailands reputation and people.

Do you think they are going to let a few investors tarnish that, especially when the regulation is so clear?

You are mixing up a lot of things. I suggest you re-read the thread from the start (or at least the parts that weren't copy-pasted 63547 times). One thing to ask before you start reading: If the regulation is so clear, do you think there would be an almost 100 pages long thread over here about the subject, why are the people who have to decide still studying the case?

The other part is that you, as stopvt7 continuously does, mix up opinions with facts. You don't like VT7. That's ok. Projecting your opinion on all Thai is not ok, unless of course you interviewed them all and they all agreed with you. So please, keep your opinion, but keep it as an opinion, keep it away from the facts. It makes life, at least for this thread, easier.

Tell me then what I am mixing up .

Be specific please, not generics and generalities

Why do you not like the posts copied 63547 times, are they to close to the truth for you?

Ask yourself why there are 100 pages, isn't it obvious.

The people who will decide are still studying because the Bangkok Supreme Court allowed the corrective appeal, and are giving due process , isnt it obvious.

Give me some examples of opinions and facts I mix up, don't just say it,over to you then.

If you have problems with this thread then I'm sure you also have problems with issue 9.

I have just walked down jomtien beach road toward the police box.

VT 7 completely closes off the previously open vista.

It presents you bang in the face with a closed end.

It looks awfull, the great wall of Jomtien.

<snip.

The part you are mixing up is the fact that the SC has never made ANY ruling about this case - they have made clear the parameters, but since their statements are always tainted with "IF", "Therefores" and "SHOULD", they have made suggestive actions SHOULD and IF the building be found to be illegal as per court ruling. Now Rayong did not find the building to be illegal, and even moreso, found it to be so legal that they tried to get rid of StopVT7 then and there by avoiding the whol appeal scenario (which SC correctly rules that they had a right to appeal).

I can understand why you think that the SC supports StopVT7...after all he has posted it all along, but the VT7 investor side knows the truth is that we are not anywhere near the legal stage where a SC COULD legally rule. They are down in the appeals process, and so far, the only appeals that have taken place was

1. by VT7 against the initial "temporary stop work order" AFTER the court heard the evidence (it ruled in VT7's favour) and allowed them to continue &

2. by STopVT7 when the Rayong court heard the evidence, ruled in favour of VT7, and then even tried to remove any right of appeal (to which the SC later ruled that StopVT7 has a legal right of appeal that could not be so quickly squashed where a legit interpretation of the law was prima facie in existence).

And so, this is precisiely what yo are missing when you listen to StopV7's propaganda of all his SC support. I suggest that you go back and read the actual supreme court docs, remove all StopVT7's underlining and emphases out of the picture, and instead, read the rulings as an English speaking literate should. You will then see all the evidence that actually shows that the SC has never formed ny legal opinion on this case - they have merely stated the law, and then left the opinion to the lower courts ie where it legally has to commence under even legal systems of our own.

This is why VT7 investors have said all along in our posts that StopVT7 is using all the smokes and mirrors here to try and create an impression that he is winning because he has the SC on his side. Reality checks have not worked there, but use common sense, research the proper legal procedure in even our system (because it is very similar), and you would realise that the SC has not been legally allowed to make any ruling whatsoever this early in the legal process. We are not up to the appeal stages on the main case - all we have seen in appeals to date are appeals against minor rulings subsequent to the main case whereby Rayong has yet to give its final ruling - it merely ruled that during the case that an order to stop the construction of VT7 during this case would result in unfair penalties against VT7, and so, it lifted the injunction because it was only a temporary order until the court had ruled (AND RAYONG RULED). Now why VT7 investors are confident is because Rayong ruled in such a clear cut manner that tended to suggest that they did not want to hear any more from StopVT7, and even tried to get rid of this case as quick as possible so that the courts time could be more properly allocated.

I am not making any opinions on the rulings here but merely stating what was decided by the courts. VT7 investors are confident that the SC will not overrule the lower court because VT7 have not doing anything that was against the law (ie they foillowed all the due procedures of obtaining legal permits etc from council AND environemntal commissions, thus satisfying the law's requirements), and the law would have to be so clear against VT7 to basically allow no room for interpretation of the Issue 9 rulings, and yet, there is obviously no clear cut answer to this because expert witnesses brought in actually ruled that the interpretation of Issue 9 actually favored the VT7 interpretation given the evidence at hand at the time. Therefore, I think that there is only a very slim possibility that the SC would overrule a technical interpretation of a witness specifically brought in to give evidence to the court (forget StopVT7's arguments that the witness made law...it is already debunked). The problem was that the law may not have been so clearly stated as some whould like to think, and that it lead to misinterpretation, but since VT7 followed the letter of the law, it would be an extremely confident SC that was convinced of true and actual corruption (and we have not seen any evidence to such claims, actual I see contradictory evidence that seems to suggest that VT7 had to state a full case in order to obtain the permit in the first place due to the legal concerns). How can the SC punish VT7 in this scenario? THey have done everything by the book...it is only an interpretation of Issue 9 that is under question, and if the Sc wants to clarify that issue, then I would think that they would only pass a law that will apply AFTER the date of the final ruling by them (ie long after VT7 is fully built). That is why we are confident that VT7 is clearly going to get built...there is no just scenario that could arise to suggest that they should be punished for wrongful action - at best, they could be accussed of testing the legal ruling of Issue 9, and since courts only ever rule after the challenge to the law, they cannot be punished for this harshly AFTER seeking all the correct approvals from the appropriate departments. It is ludicrous to suggest the things that have been charged by StopVT7, and if he did it in the first world, he would certainly be facing legal action that would add up to a smear campaign at best and wilful harm to VT7 by all the false accusations and manipulation he has employed on this topic post alone and his website.

He can believe what he wants to believe...that is his freedom, but he should not expect to be able to pull the wool over everyone else's eyes. We, the VT7 investors, have merely tried to show the general public that nearly all of his information has been either clearly wrong (as his understanding of the Thai legal system and its processes have been), or else, intentional manipulation of the evidence (as he tries to change the meaning and context of legal statements). Thanks to the efforts of many of the VT7 investors, we think that we have done this in a reasonable and intelligent manner by deconstructing the arguments that StopVT7 uses in order to show that they are either false, or else, require a leap of faith beyond common sense.

I can understand, since StopVT7 has been allowed to spread propaganda like the best of any totalitarian regime, why many are confused as to the state of this case, but if they read our posts with an open mind (despite our personal interests here), we hope that the misunderstandings can be cleared up, and you may realise that you have been victim to a vindictive and moralless attempt to confuse facts with lies. Whilst the internet is as free as what it is, there is little that can be doen, but we are firtunate to have moderators here who have ensured the freedom of information (as well as opinion), but have drawn the lines when they have needed to be drawn.

Of course, StopVT7 will feel that the law has wronged him when he loses, but he needs to face up to everything that he has done here on these posts, because there have been many attempts to draw him out from any self-delusion or lack of knowledge about the process, and yet he continues to fire back with laughing emoticons, sneers at VT7 investors (who were only ever really an innocent other side through all this, not ruthless capitalists bent on world domination) and an arrogance that suggests that the argument will never be won until the courts finally rule.

You have asked a serious question though, in what have you missed, and so I hope that you may now understand, or else dig deeper to understand that most of the evidence is not tamper-proof if it comes from sources close to StopVT7, and yet, he done us all a service here in providing the info to the general public and allowed us to see where the wishful thinking got in the way. Had he had a greater command of the English language, he would have realised and listened to what we were telling him, but for now, it is merely a waiting game for us, and then, this issue can be laid to rest. SHould any future issues be clairfied and bettered by court action here, then, that is why the legal system is the way that it is, and subject to evolution and development, but for now, I would be very disappointed if VT7 were punished here as our legal systems which act as the model for some of the ideals that these principles are based on, would not find any fault with VT7, and moreso since they have had to endure this whole process at great cost to themselves, but that is the law. StopVT7 had the right to challenge it, and I for one, initially welcomed his right and supported it, but he changed character completely when he actually started to lose in the courts, and I had to wothdraw my support, not on account of not supporting the legal process, but because I thought that he was completely abusing his privileges and even damaging the reputation of farangs in general by his actions.

Well, thanks for all that.

You are entitled to your opinion but I wasn't asking you.

But in any case I am sure you could have said all that in a couple of sentences.

1.When vt first went to the SC the judges ammended the Rayong injunction ,and allowed the building to continue to 14m, per its reading of issue 9, not the 27 storeys vt7 were after.

Vt7 did not get the injunction lifted, but the court said vt7 could lawfully continue to 14m.

One from one for stop vt.

2.The Rayong court attempted to deny stopvt his right to appeal their ruling, and close the case.

The SC had the chance to close the case by denying stopvt the appeal.

They didn't, they allowed the appeal, he won.

Two from two for stopvt at the SC.

And the first ruling from Rayong, when things were on an even keel, prior to the subsequent antics there ,which everybody knows about.

In my book 3 good decisions to 1 (questionable) to stop vt.

My grammar and spelling is not the best, you have mocked most of the stop vt posts, you need to take a look at your own grammar and spelling.People in glass houses...

Your point about you, the vt7 investors, pointing out to everyone else how you are so right here is very apt.In my view I only see the vt7 investors doing this on here.

In my view most of the posters on here are against it.

[Wiresok]

No I left it at 180 deg.

You cannot get the true perspective from the sea end as the land falls away to quickly.

But I seen enough from 180 deg landside.Its totally destroyed the beach to buildings symmetry down there.The buildings are just to close together.You think the Thais are going to let this eyesore happen all down the coast?

You have to remember the Bangkok supreme administrative court has already ruled two out of two for stopvt7, and the king has reminded the judges to be strong and honest for Thailands reputation and people.

Do you think they are going to let a few investors tarnish that, especially when the regulation is so clear?

You are mixing up a lot of things. I suggest you re-read the thread from the start (or at least the parts that weren't copy-pasted 63547 times). One thing to ask before you start reading: If the regulation is so clear, do you think there would be an almost 100 pages long thread over here about the subject, why are the people who have to decide still studying the case?

The other part is that you, as stopvt7 continuously does, mix up opinions with facts. You don't like VT7. That's ok. Projecting your opinion on all Thai is not ok, unless of course you interviewed them all and they all agreed with you. So please, keep your opinion, but keep it as an opinion, keep it away from the facts. It makes life, at least for this thread, easier.

Tell me then what I am mixing up .

Be specific please, not generics and generalities

Why do you not like the posts copied 63547 times, are they to close to the truth for you?

Ask yourself why there are 100 pages, isn't it obvious.

The people who will decide are still studying because the Bangkok Supreme Court allowed the corrective appeal, and are giving due process , isnt it obvious.

Give me some examples of opinions and facts I mix up, don't just say it,over to you then.

If you have problems with this thread then I'm sure you also have problems with issue 9.

I have just walked down jomtien beach road toward the police box.

VT 7 completely closes off the previously open vista.

It presents you bang in the face with a closed end.

It looks awfull, the great wall of Jomtien.

<snip.

Sorry that you felt cause to snip.

I was only referring to the interview the King gave to the newspaper recently,not the individual.

[Wiresok]

I have today done the full 360 deg around vt7 as was earlier suggested.

I actually went out into the sea ( something the surveyor didn't do ,when ordered by Rayong to perform the 200m measurement ).

It looks horrific.

It is totally ugly, an eyesore, and imbalanced with JCC hanging out on one side there.

I walked further down Dongtan beach to the cable car, where the skyscrapers are well back from the beach.

You get this feeling of open-ness and expansive space as you walk the prom there.

Then you hit vt3 , Atlantic tower hotel , and the blue building skyscraper all in a row, close to the beach.

I lost that sense of space and open-ness, as the tall skyscrapers loomed in on me, and imposed themselves as the masters in that particular area; you have to walk it to appeciate it.

Can you imagine this being repeated all down the coast?

What would you say was best for the Thai's and their kids?

The courts have to rule for their own on this.