You and your Thai Wife of 20 years.

[webfact]

King Bhumibol's pictures help sea gypsies escape encroachment charges
By Salinee Prab
The Nation

 

This picture taken in 1959 becomes evidence that the defendants have not encroached on the land.

 

PHUKET: -- Coconut trees in the pictures of HM King Bhumibol Adulyadej’s 1959 visit to sea gypsies in Phuket province rank among key evidence that acquits four longtime residents of land-encroachment charges. 

 

The Phuket Court Tuesday threw out landencroachment cases against four members of the sea-gypsy group on Phuket’s Rawai area. 

 

Acquitted were Aew Hadsaithong, Woranan Hadsaithong, Bancha Hadsaithong, and Nirun Yangparn. 

 

“The court has examined several pieces of evidence including the pictures of the late monarch, which took place in 1959. Included in the pictures are coconut trees, which plaintiffs claim are just 10 years old,” Nirun said. 

 

Full story: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/breakingnews/30305357

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-01-31

[webfact]

Friendly reminder

 

In using Thai Visa you agree to abide by the following terms:

 

1) You will not express disrespect of the King of Thailand or any one member of the Thai royal family, whether living or deceased, nor to criticize the monarchy as an institution.

 

By law, the Thai Royal Family are above politics. Speculation, comments and discussion of either a political or personal nature are not allowed when discussing HM The King or the Royal family.

 

To breach these rules may result in immediate ban.

 

Linking to external sites which break these rules will be treated as if you yourself posted them.

 

Forum Rules: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/terms/

 

//Admin

 

[jollyhangmon]

Excellent! Well dunn.

So these liars can't tell the difference between 10 and almost 60 yrs old palm-trees?

Will they be slapped with defamation suits now? 

[webfact]

Phuket court upholds sea gypsies’ rights in land claim ruling

Premkamon Ketsara

 

The Rawai sea gypsies waited anxiously outside Phuket Provincial Court to hear the news today (Jan 31). Photo: Premkamon Ketsara

 

PHUKET: -- The Phuket Provincial Court today (Jan 31) ruled in favour of four Rawai sea gypsies, upholding their rights to live in the sea gypsy village in Rawai at the southern end of the island.

 

The verdict was handed down in the land claim by plaintiff Boonsri Tantiwattanawanlop against sea gypsies Aeaw Hardsaithong, Woranan Hadsaithong, Bancha Hadsaithong and Niran Hyangpan.

 

Mr Niran exited the courthouse at about 11am and broke the news to the 100-odd sea gypsies waiting anxiously outside, who cheered vociferously.

 

Ms Boonsri and her legal representative did not appear in court today to hear the ruling.

 

“The court dismissed the claim,” Mr Niran told Khao Phuket. 

 

“We have photo evidence of His Majesty the late King Bhumibol Adulyadej when he visited our village in 1959 with a picture of a coconut tree.

 

Full story: http://www.thephuketnews.com/phuket-court-upholds-sea-gypsies-rights-in-land-claim-ruling-60854.php

 

-- © Copyright Phuket News 2017-02-01

[Somtamnication]

Good win. Now I hope 200 men don't arrive with bulldozers. Reality in Thailand.

[Reigntax]

And when does the investigation begin as to how the land titles were illegaly issued?

 

We all know the answer. Never!

[performance]

This picture confirms nothing.

[Jimi007]

8 minutes ago, performance said:

This picture confirms nothing.

It confirms that the plaintiffs are lying. The trees in question are more than 10 years old. There were no land titles in 1959. I've lived not far from their village for almost 12 years. No new coconut trees, just new fake land titles that were bought in the last ten years from corrupt officials. 

[HerbalEd]

14 hours ago, Reigntax said:

And when does the investigation begin as to how the land titles were illegaly issued?

 

We all know the answer. Never!

Do you have factual evidence that those land titles are illegal? Of course not.

[Reigntax]

4 hours ago, HerbalEd said:

Do you have factual evidence that those land titles are illegal? Of course not.

 

Only the judgement which by the evidence presented show they have occupied land for at least the last 68 years which makes it impossible for the land titles to be legally issued based on occupation and use of the subject land.

 

Besides that, no. But I have a pretty good idea how the titles were issued based on the numerous similar claims and encroachments on the island.

[manarak]

the land titles are probably not illegal by themselves, but in land law of most countries,  land titles cannot be opposed to long term occupation of the land by residents.

i.e. illegal occupation of land becomes legal after a certain period of time of permanent occupation when the legal owner does not untertake steps to evict occupants.

it is even possible to lose officially documented land ownership this way.

Edited February 1, 2017 by manarak