PUBLIC CORRUPTION
1. Said Defendants perverted and materially misrepresented the conclusive public record evidence with the intent to give advantage to the State of Florida, Lee County, Florida, and Governmental Officials inconsistent with their official and fiduciary duties and the rights of the Plaintiff unimpeachable riparian street and subject Parcel Owners. Here at Plaintiffs’ expense and injury, said Defendants fraudulently procured rights for the State, “Lee County”, and Officials contrary to Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally protected right to own and exclude Government(s) and the public from their private undedicated riparian Gulf-front street and subject Parcel.
2. Here, said Defendants and the other corrupt Governmental Officials fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that the “Lee County” forgeries could not have possibly put a “cloud” on Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable and unencumbered marketable record title to their riparian Gulf-front street and subject Parcel pursuant to Florida’s self-enforcing Marketable Record Title Act.
3. Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable marketable record title in reference to said 1912 Plat showed not only the intent to convey the property as platted, but also an intention to convey all property and all interest that the Grantor, A. C. Roesch, had in any of the streets and alleys included in said 1912 Plat referred to, PB 3, PG 25, pursuant to the record Federal Land Patent root title in the Lee County Grantor/Grantee Index and U.S. Index. This necessarily included the conveyance of any and all streets and alleys. There is nowhere any language that shows any intent on the part of the Grantor to reserve any land. Here, the conveyance was made according to a Plat and conveyed all interest in the platted streets and alleys. Here, Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable record conveyance gave their conveyed riparian Gulf-front street land the natural water boundary of the “Gulf of Mexico” [as admitted on 11/17/2009 by Defendant Alejo under oath] and consequent unimpeachable record riparian rights. Here, the Plaintiffs are unimpeachable record riparian owners, just like the Grantor, A. C. Roesch, with all rights and privileges thereto attached.
4. The 3 (three) publicly recorded plats of the facially riparian undedicated private residential Cayo Costa Subdivision, Lee County Plat Book 1, pages 48, 51, 52, which preceded the 1912 Plat, had conclusively proven the equal riparian rights of the Plaintiff Grantees, who are successors-in-title to Grantor A. C. Roesch. Here, the Plaintiff Grantees had the very same and equal conveyed riparian rights of Grantor A. C. Roesch, which included the publicly recorded right to receive accretions onto Plaintiffs’ Gulf-front street.
5. Here, A. C. Roesch had received all of the riparian Gulf-front subject Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A by process of ACCRETIONS, hence the “A” in “015A” for “ACCRETIONS”, and the Plaintiff Grantees had the equal record riparian rights of A. C. Roesch.
6. The judicial determination of record Cayo Costa riparian ownership had also been made in JOHN LAY AND JANET LAY v. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, OGC CASE NOs. 01-0203, 01-0204, DOAH CASE NOs. 01-1541, 01-1542, CASE NOs. DEP01-0860, DEP01-0876, and the Federal Courts must give full faith and credit to said ruling of record Cayo Costa riparian ownership with all appurtenant and vested riparian rights.
7. Said corrupt Defendants knew and/or fraudulently concealed that
“title to the lot owners extends to the outer limit of the street [Gulf of Mexico].”
Here, the “outer limit of the street” was the platted natural boundary and monument of the “Gulf of Mexico”, PB 3, PG 25 (1912). As admitted on 11/17/2009 under oath by Defendant Roger Alejo, Lee County Appraiser/Agricultural Specialist, Plaintiffs’ riparian street extended to the ordinary high water mark of the “Gulf of Mexico”. See Transcript of 11/17/2009 Value Adjustment Board Hearing. See also public recording on You Tube, Google Video, AOL Video, etc. Therefore here, the record depth of Plaintiffs’ subject Parcel increased from 190 feet [130 ft (riparian upland) + 60 ft (riparian Gulf front street)] at the time of the Subdivision platting in 1912, PB 3, PG 25, to more than 2,300 ft in 2008. Here, the Defendants knew that Defendant Roger Alejo had perjured himself when Alejo fraudulently and falsely pretended a purported depth of “135 ft”. Here, the Defendants knew that the depth of Plaintiffs’ riparian Gulf-front street alone was more than 2, 180 feet, and that “135 ft” could not have possibly reached “the outer limit of the street”, i.e., the shoreline of the “Gulf of Mexico”.
Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable record ownership of the accretion to the street was patently clear. As stated by Florida Attorney William L. Stewart, Stewart Keyes, in a 05/14/1997 letter on record:
“You have asked me about the ownership of the accretion to the area between Lots 2 and 3, Block 14, Second Revised Plat of Cayo Costa Subdivision and the Gulf of Mexico. The Plat of this subdivision does not have any dedication of easements for any purpose. It divides the property into numbered blocks with spaces between, which are obviously intended to be roads.”
“Our Supreme Court has repeatedly held that when a lot on a subdivision plat borders on a street, each lot owner owns to the street, and when the street is on the border of the subdivider’s property, title to the lot owners extends to the outer limit of the street. In the case of Caples v. Taliaferro, 197 So.861 the Supreme Court said:
‘There are also authorities holding that when a street of highway is laid out wholly on the margin of a grantor’s land, a conveyance of the lands abutting such street or highway carried the fee to the entire width of such street or highway…’”
“There now appears to be considerable accretion to this street bordering these lots. Since title to the land under the street belongs to you the accretion belongs to you. In the case of Mexico Beach Corporation v. St. Joe Paper Corporation, 97 So.2d 708, the Court said:
‘The common-law rule which vests title to soil formed along navigable waters by accretion or reliction in owners of abutting land is in force in Florida.’”
8. Here, unimpeachable record title to the land under Plaintiffs’ adjoining riparian Gulf-front street and the “considerable accretions thereto” belonged to the Plaintiffs as dispositively declared by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on 04/21/2009:
“The [Plaintiffs’-]Appellants’ Lot 15A [riparian Gulf-front Parcel 12-44-20-01-00015.015A, Lee County Plat Book 3, p. 25 (1912)] is on the west side of the Cayo Costa Subdivision on the Gulf of Mexico and is adjacent to land that was claimed through resolution 569/875 to create the Cayo Costa State Park.”
See PRESCOTT, No. 08-14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631. Here, said U.S. Court of Appeals followed Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959) and West Peninsular Title Co. v. Palm Beach County, 41 F.3d 1490, 1492 n.4 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 932, 116 S. Ct. 338, 133 L. Ed. 2d 237 (1995), in which the 11th Circuit relied on said Florida Supreme Court ruling.
9. Here, the Plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff unimpeachable record riparian street owners, because there was no genuine issue of material fact. Florida’s self-enforcing Marketable Record Title Act had automatically quieted Plaintiffs’ unencumbered and unimpeachable marketable record title to Plaintiffs’ riparian street and subject Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A “on the Gulf of Mexico”.
10. Here, named party Defendant objectively partial and corrupt U.S. Judge Richard A. Lazzara perpetrated extrinsic fraud and fraud on the Courts when he fraudulently pretended “frivolity”, fixed Plaintiffs’ Cases, and kept the pro se Plaintiffs away from the Court(s) in exchange for Defendants’ bribes. Under public policy, Richard A. Lazzara has no immunity for his crimes, and the Plaintiffs are entitled to relief from Lazzara’s fraudulent Judgments in the related and/or associated Cases.
11. Here in particular, Defendant corrupt Judge Lazzara fraudulently concealed that the Supreme Cout held that if the subdivider's offer to dedicate land for street purposes, as evidenced by his plat, was never accepted or if such offer to dedicate was accepted and lawfully surrendered, the holder of title to property abutting such tract so offered for dedication held title to the middle of the street, as shown by the plat, relieved of the easement so far as the public was concerned. There are also authorities holding that when a street or highway is laid out wholly on the margin of a grantor's land, a conveyance of the lands abutting such street or highway carries the fee to the entire width of such street or highway unless expressly reserved.
12. Rather than answer intelligently and with integrity, Lazzara criminally corrupted the judical process, real property, and Constitutional law. In particular, Lazzara perverted Florida Supreme Court jurisprudence such as, e.g., Burns v. McDanial, 104 Fla. 526, 140 So. 314. Lazzara’s depravity is a disgrace and undermines public policy of stability of title to real property. Lazzara is to be impeached for his crimes and corruption. Here, Plaintiff marketable record title holders and owners of the entire width of their riparian Gulf-front street could not have possibly been “frivolous” and/or “vexatious” when they vindicated their fundamental Constitutional rights to own their riparian street property against the criminal acts by corrupt Governmental Officials such as, e,g., Richard A. Lazzara.
No comments:
Post a Comment