VICTIMS EXPOSE LEE COUNTY FRAUD

... Would you please do me a favor and add MaizeMaze@gmail.com This is the family who had their farm taken from them in New Jersey. I would like for her to see all of the corruption that you have listed and have filed under, also if you could get some of what she writes to you about on Scrib....as you did for me. We would appreciate this very much. We are putting a book together.....The Lawless Law and if you would like to contribute to it, as many other victims are doing, that would be wonderful. Thank you. Angela

In a message dated 1/29/2010 11:32:55 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, JRBU@aol.com writes:

AVATAR: ART IMITATES LIFE IN LAWLESS FLORIDA

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26049851/AVATAR-AND-AMERICAN-CROOK-JOHN-EDWIN-STEELE

LEE COUNTY CORRUPTION

LAY v. STATE OF FLORIDA

FINAL ORDER

LAY v. STATE OF FLORIDA

“Under Florida law, "in the absence of a contrary showing," conveyance of Lots 16 and 17 included title to the centerline of the road east of the Lays' property, subject to the easement dedicated to Lee County by platting of the Cayo Costa Subdivision in the early 1910's; and, since the County either did not accept or has abandoned the road easement, the Lays own to the centerline of the road easement free and clear of any easement. See Smith v. Horn, 70 Fla. 484, 489, 70 So. 435, 436 (1915); Calvert v. Morgan, 436 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). DEP did not prove that MHW is to the west of the centerline of the platted road easement at the point of the Lays' proposed dock.

20. As suggested by Smith v. Horn, it was possible for the conveyance of Lots 16 and 17 from the owner who platted the Cayo Costa Subdivision to have excluded title to the road easement (or to have retained a reversionary interest). If so, the Lays would not own to the centerline of the road easement. See Servando Bldg. Co. v. Zimmerman, 91 So. 2d 289, 291-292 (Fla. 1956); Peninsula Point, Inc. v. South Georgia Dairy Co‑op, Inc., 251 So. 2d 690, 692-693 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). But DEP did not prove that the deeds to Lots 16 and 17 included such a provision. For that reason, DEP did not prove that the Lays do not own to the centerline of the platted road easement and did not prove any misrepresentations in the Lays' applications for consent of use.”