| Pages:
1
2 |
Woooosh
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
Woooosh's Rosarito Beach Concession Battle Continues... and worsens.
(The Baja Real Estate advice thread is getting very long so I moved my specific issue over to this new thread. I will still address the thread to the
expert, Ramuma53)
Well Ramuma53, I really need some help now. We are at a turning point in clearing the beach concession of the squatter Ortiz because she has finally
shown her hand. She has filed a claim to SEMARNAT to cancel the federal zone concession and return the house to her. She claims to have owned and
lived in that house for 25 years. She says a box was checked incorrectly on the 2006 concession application about there being any buildings with
services "obras" on the property. When we expanded the concession in 2010 she claims that same box was checked and this is an intentional fraud to
steal her house and property from her.
We have 14 days to respond to SEMARNAT or we lose it. Well we don't lose, the people and tourists will loose the beach and twenty meters of the
Malecon. Good one- 'eh fellow nomads? If you missed the video of this with photos of the "structure" in question", go here (YouTube short version in
Spanish but easy to follow- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn7BX68yMKg )
I've had only a day to think about the response, and I do hope our Federal Zone Expert, Ing Daniel Martinez Chavira will prevail. We hired him in
January of 2010 as our expert on this case. The first thing he found is that Ortiz was trying to get a land title by "prescription" (sp?) which is
basically squatting for five years and then applying for ownership. You cannot acquire Federal Zone Land by this method, which is what she attempted
to do. We are in the process of having the PGJE evict her from the concession and have an evidence hearing tomorrow morning actually.
In the letter she claims to have been the owner of that house for 25 continuous years, but does not explain how it became abandoned and unsafe around
2005 when I photographed it. At the time we applied for the concession in 2006 the "building" had no doors, windows, interior, exterior, electrical
or plumbing and was sitting on a foundation that was broken and falling into the water. It was being used for drugs and everything else you can think
of. We had just cleared another one of these pos off the beach and I was looking at this like an expensive hauling job, not as a house with services.
In her letter she makes it sound like we are stealing her lifelong home away from her and are scaring her- which rightly does not go over big down
here in Mexico. She says she is helpless and does not know what to do. I have some suggestions for her.
So let me plead my case. The first time I did not consider the shell of that building on an unsafe broken foundation to meet the criteria of a house
with services "obras", so we answered no. She did not tell SEMARNAT the house was ever abandoned by her (if she was ever an owner) so perhaps the
photos evidence will help with the original concession application in 2006. She arrived after the application was filed in 2006 but before the
concession was approved in 2008.
So that leaves us with the second "NO" box. The expansion of the concession in 2010 did not change the original concession Ortiz house is on,
SEMARNAT left it in tact and deemed it "current and valid". We filled out a new application for the second concession and we believed the same
question about structures applied to the new area of beach we were applying for this time- not the existing concession they had already ruled as
"current and valid".
If that check box we marked "NO" applies to the entire concession area, not just the new part we were adding- is that a fraud worthy of cancelling the
entire concession and awarding it to her... or was it just a mistake? Fraud requires that you are concealing or hiding something or hiding some fact
to use to your benefit. I can show that is not the case.
The "fraudulent" application we filed for the concession expansion at SEMARNAT was approved in person by the Jefe of Baja California. He met with us
personally because he had seen the video (Mayor Torres had sent it to him) and we met when we were dropping off a copy at his office. We had an
hour-long "interview" and in the same meeting he told us he would approve the concession expansion. He knew about our problems with Ortiz and told us
it was our "contractual obligation" to have Ortiz removed from the existing concession. If the Jefe of SEMARNAT knew she was there, approved the
second concession and ordered us to push hard with the PGR to move Ortiz off the concession- where is the fraud? What information was hiding from
whom? Nothing in this case. He told us 11 months ago to have the PGR remove her from the concession, so if she was only feeling "intimidated" by us
this past year, we certainly weren't pushing hard enough.
Lastly, this parcel of land also falls into the Rosarito Black Hole of Real Estate- Rancho Costa Azul. Ramuma53 has stated that Mr. Jorge Duran of
Mexico City is the true owner of the strip of beach from the CFE breakwater to Rene's. It is SRA admistrative file # 55710. He has paid for the land,
has the rights to use the land, and has proven that he will enforce his rights to the land (vs "Club Animale"). There is no way she can get a title
with the Rancho Costa Azul ruling. I don't know if she will be able to get the concession transferred to her name with no proof of continued
ownership and Rancho Costa Azul owning the right to land already.
So come on fellow Nomads. Pile on and help me with some ideas...
[Edited on 8-16-2011 by Woooosh]
\"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing\"
1961- JFK to Canadian parliament (Edmund Burke)
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
One question, was any "official" ever on site and observed the "structure" and/or "obras" in 2006 ... which would support your call on same... ???
|
|
|
BajaGringo
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3922
Registered: 8-24-2006
Location: La Chorera
Member Is Offline
Mood: Let's have a BBQ!
|
|
How is she "proving" that she has lived there for 25 years?
|
|
|
Woooosh
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by wessongroup
One question, was any "official" ever on site and observed the "structure" and/or "obras" in 2006 ... which would support your call on same... ???
|
The map with our 2006 application shows the federal zone much further west than it is now. The area we applied for was large and had nothing on it,
not even the debris of a house. So we are OK with the first "NO" checkbox. She was matching the 2006 application to the new 2010 concession maps and
the Federal Zone line moved twice in between those dates.
We applied for 1,355M2 in 2006 but was only awarded 353.18M2 when it was approved in 2008. The line had moved east by 2008 and the area we were
awarded was not even part of the original request.
[Edited on 8-15-2011 by Woooosh]
\"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing\"
1961- JFK to Canadian parliament (Edmund Burke)
|
|
|
Woooosh
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by BajaGringo
How is she "proving" that she has lived there for 25 years? |
She isn't. None of the long-time neighbors believe it either. I can show she wasn't there from 2005-2007 is all when I took the photos you see in the
video. That will definitely be a strong point in my response.
\"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing\"
1961- JFK to Canadian parliament (Edmund Burke)
|
|
|
Bajatripper
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3148
Registered: 3-20-2010
Member Is Offline
|
|
Sounds like a very expensive problem you are attempting to solve. If you succeed, people everywhere will owe you big, because if you should lose, it
will only encourage such activities in other places. Good luck, Woosh.
[Edited on 8-15-2011 by Bajatripper]
There most certainly is but one side to every story: the TRUTH. Variations of it are nothing but lies.
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
I haven't followed this saga and so I don't know all the facts here. But a couple of things jump out at me, and it "begs the questions?"
It's interesting that Woooosh frames his fight over his home against a Mexican women who also claims she is the rightful home owner. Woooosh says if
he loses the fight the people and the tourist lose too? I seriously doubt the people or the tourists care who wins unless they know the individuals.
I also wonder what Woooosh originally got the property for, because that would be very telling if any unfairness was going on.
|
|
|
durrelllrobert
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7393
Registered: 11-22-2007
Location: Punta Banda BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: thriving in Baja
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by JoeJustJoe
I haven't followed this saga and so I don't know all the facts here. But a couple of things jump out at me, and it "begs the questions?"
It's interesting that Woooosh frames his fight over his home against a Mexican women who also claims she is the rightful home owner. Woooosh says if
he loses the fight the people and the tourist lose too? I seriously doubt the people or the tourists care who wins unless they know the individuals.
I also wonder what Woooosh originally got the property for, because that would be very telling if any unfairness was going on.
|
As usual you jump into something you know nothing about. This has nothing to do with his house; only the concession for the adjacent beach land in
the Federal Zone that should be kept open for use by the public. Yes, I know that by stating these facts I am a racist.
Bob Durrell
|
|
|
Woooosh
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by JoeJustJoe
I haven't followed this saga and so I don't know all the facts here. But a couple of things jump out at me, and it "begs the questions?"
It's interesting that Woooosh frames his fight over his home against a Mexican women who also claims she is the rightful home owner. Woooosh says if
he loses the fight the people and the tourist lose too? I seriously doubt the people or the tourists care who wins unless they know the individuals.
I also wonder what Woooosh originally got the property for, because that would be very telling if any unfairness was going on.
|
Part my fault. Every detail of this saga is on the Real Estate advice thread. That thread was just getting too long and I felt like I was hijacking
it when other people have RE issues too.
\"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing\"
1961- JFK to Canadian parliament (Edmund Burke)
|
|
|
Woooosh
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
I have a question. We have a "current and valid" federal land concession title and we filed a request to "expand it" adding more adjacent land. Ms.
Ortiz (squatter) is claiming a mis-checked box on the expansion application voids the application and expansion. Let's say I just accept that. If
SEMARNAT was to void the expansion, is my original concession still intact? It should be, right? There are no checkbox errors on the original. (The
concession she is fighting moved over her house as the Federal Line moved east from 2006-2010). I am very lucky to have saved every old map. This
would put her in a no-gain situation. Even if she wins to kill my expansion, the original is still valid and is the one causing her problems. I would
have to file for the expansion again and check the other box this time, that's all.
\"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing\"
1961- JFK to Canadian parliament (Edmund Burke)
|
|
|
JESSE
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3370
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
I wouldn't take any advice from ramuma, he hasn't won anything in more than a decade.
|
|
|
Woooosh
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by JESSE
I wouldn't take any advice from ramuma, he hasn't won anything in more than a decade. |
He's been doing verbal back-flips over some important legal decisions to be announced soon in the Rosarito area.
This isn't looking good. We're going to lose the whole concession. The best I can hope for is to prove her unworthy of it, because she is asking for
the concession to be transferred to her. I can show she didn't live there, doesn't own it, and has tried to sell it. That still may not be enough. I
also think this is in the Rancho Costa Azul track Ramuma53 talks about. If I can prove her unworthy- even if I loose the land stays open for the
malecon project.
She got a local authority to give her some sort of land title- contrary to everything I've read that land titles for federal zone can only come from
Mexico City. Ramuma53 will have answers and his cousin will kick some butt I hope. I'm pretty sure the concession is gone in 15 days due to errors we
made in application, although I'll definitely give it a good fight.
With the malecon coming the beach will get it's intended recreational use. She is trying to take two lots out of the Malecon and that may jeopardize
it unless the Malecon people have eminent domain rights like in the USA. It's not good for anyone but her- and she simply does not deserve it.
Funny- the heading on the SEMARNAT stationary saying they will extinguish our concession is 15 days reads: "2011, Ano del Tousimo en Mexico". The red
outline was our concession, now Ms. Ortiz will be building where the malecon should be.
[Edited on 8-16-2011 by Woooosh]
\"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing\"
1961- JFK to Canadian parliament (Edmund Burke)
|
|
|
Woooosh
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
I talked with the Jefe of SEMARNAT for Baja (Lic. Ricardo Molina Villarreal). He is the source of the problem and has been helpipng Ms. Ortiz. We
had the engineer who prepared the concession document over to the house last night- and he also said Villarreal likes money. I worked Villarreal
pretty hard over the phone- because he would not meet with me in person. I pointed out it was HIS office who gave us the referral for the man who
prepared the concession documents. I did also mention the Rancho Costa Azul issue and the name Ing. Daniel Chavira to him- and the phone went dead
for few seconds. Then he said he knew nothing about it- because “nothing has crossed his desk”. I also mentioned that we had stopped Playa Bonita
condos from being sold by Lawyer Eduardo Rosales (President of Rosarito AMPI) after mentioning the apparent rights of Rancho Costa Azul. He said the
name Chavira was not familiar to him and I responded that Ing. Daniel Chivira is also on the list of preferred engineers his office supplied to us. So
I have identified the snake, now I hope he is one of the people going down in the case Ramuma53 is saying will shake Rosarito. He’s scum.
\"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing\"
1961- JFK to Canadian parliament (Edmund Burke)
|
|
|
JESSE
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3370
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Woooosh
I talked with the Jefe of SEMARNAT for Baja (Lic. Ricardo Molina Villarreal). He is the source of the problem and has been helpipng Ms. Ortiz. We
had the engineer who prepared the concession document over to the house last night- and he also said Villarreal likes money. I worked Villarreal
pretty hard over the phone- because he would not meet with me in person. I pointed out it was HIS office who gave us the referral for the man who
prepared the concession documents. I did also mention the Rancho Costa Azul issue and the name Ing. Daniel Chavira to him- and the phone went dead
for few seconds. Then he said he knew nothing about it- because “nothing has crossed his desk”. I also mentioned that we had stopped Playa Bonita
condos from being sold by Lawyer Eduardo Rosales (President of Rosarito AMPI) after mentioning the apparent rights of Rancho Costa Azul. He said the
name Chavira was not familiar to him and I responded that Ing. Daniel Chivira is also on the list of preferred engineers his office supplied to us. So
I have identified the snake, now I hope he is one of the people going down in the case Ramuma53 is saying will shake Rosarito. He’s scum.
|
Sounds like your not in a good position, and like i said, ramuma is always claiming outrageous triumphs that never materialize.
|
|
|
Woooosh
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by JESSE
| Quote: | Originally posted by Woooosh
I talked with the Jefe of SEMARNAT for Baja (Lic. Ricardo Molina Villarreal). He is the source of the problem and has been helpipng Ms. Ortiz. We
had the engineer who prepared the concession document over to the house last night- and he also said Villarreal likes money. I worked Villarreal
pretty hard over the phone- because he would not meet with me in person. I pointed out it was HIS office who gave us the referral for the man who
prepared the concession documents. I did also mention the Rancho Costa Azul issue and the name Ing. Daniel Chavira to him- and the phone went dead
for few seconds. Then he said he knew nothing about it- because “nothing has crossed his desk”. I also mentioned that we had stopped Playa Bonita
condos from being sold by Lawyer Eduardo Rosales (President of Rosarito AMPI) after mentioning the apparent rights of Rancho Costa Azul. He said the
name Chavira was not familiar to him and I responded that Ing. Daniel Chivira is also on the list of preferred engineers his office supplied to us. So
I have identified the snake, now I hope he is one of the people going down in the case Ramuma53 is saying will shake Rosarito. He’s scum.
|
Sounds like your not in a good position, and like i said, ramuma is always claiming outrageous triumphs that never materialize.
|
He is not aware of the current situation. I have had no luck contacting him the past week- or any of his team. August in Mexico is for vacations. I
hope he isn't on a three week vacation or I have no chance.
\"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing\"
1961- JFK to Canadian parliament (Edmund Burke)
|
|
|
Woooosh
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
OK any Ramuma53 doubters, here's your thread.
In the "Baja Real Estate Advice" thread I explained my concession case to Ramuma53 bit by bit and he walked me through the correct things to do. He
also said if his expert cousin, Ing. Daniel Martinez Chavira would take my case- it would be very good for me. I hired Ing. Chavira in Jan 2011 and
have met him twice in person. He's the real deal and a true Mexican gentleman. He's smart and very specific with his words. Ramuma53 says he'll
fight for me like a dog if he took the case- so now it's time.
It turns out this case is involving Ing. Chavira, in a central way- that we did not know about before today. Like I said in a previous post, I was
happy I had held on to all the old maps (don't we all?!) The map Ms. Ortiz and SEMARNAT are claiming is incorrect and caused a fraudulent application
which voids our concession was prepared by none other than.... drum roll --- Ing. Daniel Martinez Chavira in 2006. I had never Mr. CHavira back
then so I will presume he was hired by the architect I hired- that SEMARNAT had referred me to (Chavira was also on that referral list btw).
So here's the deal. Ing. Daniel Chavira and Ramuma53 have been kicking some legal butt up here over the years. The fruits of their work is about to
pay-off up her on the unrelated cases he has been posting of. I think they both worked on the CFE breakwater case here in Rosarito. Ing. Chavira is
also a leading expert in Baja Federal Zone matters for the court. In talking about the Playa Bonita condos nearby even Ramuma53 said he did the
Federal Zone measuring himself. What are the chances that in 2006 these two experts, who have worked in that exact area botched a federal zone
concession map so bad that it caused it to be annulled?
On the flip side- What are the chances Ms. Ortiz is working with someone at either PROFEPA or SEMARNAT to find the "technicality" to void the
concession? I've seen a PROFEPA car pull up to her house and greet her with hugs (photos too). I also don't ever get a warm-fuzzy from the local
SEMARNAT Jefe who I know has met with Ms. Ortiz about this (I get phone-only time, which I still thought was good actually).
I'm betting Chavira will prevail. They are real cowboys who love the good fight. They liked my cause to protect the beach and the way I have fought
it. By sheer coincidence we now find it is their work five years earlier that is now in question in this case. They will go ballistic on someone or
some agency because their expert reputation is on the line. How do Ms. Ortiz accuse the Baja federal zone judicial expert of fraud and win?
On the other hand- if we should loose this SEMARNAT appeal and the concession it will be their fellow Mexicans who suffer. We built a handicap beach
access point and have cared for the beach. This will only prove to American and Canadian investors (Mexicans too for that matter) not to invest in
anything oceanfront and not expect the Mexican system to take it away. You can do everything right and the corruption built into the system can take
you down hard and fast.
Nomads have been following my concession battle from the start. I have posted all the details on the other thread. Nomads helped me craft an
effective video to show the problem- which now has had a total of 4,000 views. Nomads can now follow the battle to hold onto a beach concession that
is destined to become the Rosarito Malecon. "2011, el ano de tourismo en Mexico" on the SEMARNAT letterhead. Right... So what will the end of this
story be?
I applied for ZFMT 1,355.200m2 of beach. Nothing on it but sand right? The existing buildings and walls were on the "Terrenos Ganados Al Mar" closer
to the street. In 2006 we were trying to protect as much available beach as possible without getting involved with the existing buildings. You can
see we specifically stopped before Ms. Ortiz house. But SEMARNAT only awarded us 383.15m2 in 2008 and guess where it was? North and East of the area
we had applied for in 2006- the Ortiz lot and to the south of it. SEMARNAT awarding us that area outside the application area shouldn't mean the map
or application were wrong. They do have the right to award you whatever they want. Here's a section of the map:
[Edited on 8-17-2011 by Woooosh]
\"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing\"
1961- JFK to Canadian parliament (Edmund Burke)
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Woooosh
I have a question. We have a "current and valid" federal land concession title and we filed a request to "expand it" adding more adjacent land. Ms.
Ortiz (squatter) is claiming a mis-checked box on the expansion application voids the application and expansion. Let's say I just accept that. If
SEMARNAT was to void the expansion, is my original concession still intact? It should be, right? There are no checkbox errors on the original. (The
concession she is fighting moved over her house as the Federal Line moved east from 2006-2010). I am very lucky to have saved every old map. This
would put her in a no-gain situation. Even if she wins to kill my expansion, the original is still valid and is the one causing her problems. I would
have to file for the expansion again and check the other box this time, that's all. |
Woooosh, exactly the reason for the question on your original app... would say your in pretty good shape .. as your have the reference point of the
2005-6 process documented...
Would seem this would be the "start point" in any discussions.. along the "others" being able to document their "presents" on site, via normal
means... contracts, tax bills, utilities, photo's .. et al..
Think you have a good leg up on this one... 
Hope it lays down for ya....
[Edited on 8-17-2011 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
Depreator
Newbie
Posts: 17
Registered: 1-11-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by durrelllrobert
| Quote: | Originally posted by JoeJustJoe
I haven't followed this saga and so I don't know all the facts here. But a couple of things jump out at me, and it "begs the questions?"
It's interesting that Woooosh frames his fight over his home against a Mexican women who also claims she is the rightful home owner. Woooosh says if
he loses the fight the people and the tourist lose too? I seriously doubt the people or the tourists care who wins unless they know the individuals.
I also wonder what Woooosh originally got the property for, because that would be very telling if any unfairness was going on.
|
As usual you jump into something you know nothing about. This has nothing to do with his house; only the concession for the adjacent beach land in
the Federal Zone that should be kept open for use by the public. Yes, I know that by stating these facts I am a racist. |
Great Post Bob, I could not have said it better myself. I'm still a Newbie on these boards but I read alot of different threads, and this guy "joe"
always has something to say it seems about people in general living in Baja and their troubles and struggles. Just my observation.
|
|
|
bajaguy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9247
Registered: 9-16-2003
Location: Carson City, NV/Ensenada - Baja Country Club
Member Is Offline
Mood: must be 5 O'clock somewhere in Baja
|
|
Support for claims
Woosh.............
What support or physical evidence does she offer to support her use or residence????....ask for receipts from CFE, propane delivery, water - Check the
tax records and see if any taxes have been paid during the time she claims residence.............look for the little things.
Maybe it's time to hire a PI to do some checking into the "lady"
|
|
|
Woooosh
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by bajaguy
Woosh.............
What support or physical evidence does she offer to support her use or residence????....ask for receipts from CFE, propane delivery, water - Check the
tax records and see if any taxes have been paid during the time she claims residence.............look for the little things.
Maybe it's time to hire a PI to do some checking into the "lady" |
Who needs a PI when fellow Nomads have come to my aid, as usual? I have already been provided with her prior residential and employment histories in
California from 2003-2009. I have been provided with her bankruptcy information from the same time period, which supports my claim she is only
seeking profit and she already listed the concession for sale. I have asked the longtime neighbors to write a letter if their memories refute her
claims of 25 years of continuous occupancy.
Somehow she got someone local to give her a land title "good enough" for SEMARNAT to take her land claim seriously. We have learned on the "Baja Real
Estate Advice" thread from Ramuma53 you cannot get a land title to federal zone land by the process of "prescription" (fancy word for squatting).
The biggest piece of evidence her claim is false is the photo below taken by me in 2005. The house with the red roof is previously abandoned one she
lives in now. The house to the left with the graffiti was torn down, but that is the lot she is also claiming to be hers. Will SEMARNAT believe she
actually owned these TWO houses next to each other and occupied them both for 25 years? Once I point out this huge crack in her claim, the rest of
the details of how she is nothing more than a clever thief will make more sense to SEMARNAT.
My goal at collecting these facts is NOT to save the concession, but to prevent SEMARNAT from having it awarded to her if we do not succeed in our
appeal. Saving the concession is what I am hoping Ramuma53 and Ing. Chavira can do. They know the laws and by co-incidence it was Ing. Chavira who
created the concession map in 2006. He did not complete the application that went with it though, just the map.
Soome very good news is that Ramuma53 contacted me last night and Ing Chavira was indeed on vacation, but is now up-to-date. I scanned the SEMARNAT
document and sent them the PDF file. Keep the suggestions coming! Thanks all!
[Edited on 8-19-2011 by Woooosh]
\"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing\"
1961- JFK to Canadian parliament (Edmund Burke)
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
