| Pages:
1
..
25
26
27
28
29
..
36 |
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Great to see this moving along, and moving up the legal ladder
Hope ya get "headlines" on some of it .. Woooosh... would really kick it into overdrive... about now.,.. given current conditions in Mexico/Baja ...
something all can understand ... property law in Mexico
Sinaloa call was spot on ..... till ya get to the "fence" ... then control changes once again.. which from a distribution standpoint makes sense ...
if ya want to take that into consideration... factors which also impact real estate values.. and ones longevity IMHO
Best of luck, of course... and keep your head down... if that is possible 
Let us know when your going to be on TV... would like to see the old CT Yankee on TV... 
[Edited on 11-5-2011 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
ramuma53
Banned
Posts: 793
Registered: 2-27-2003
Location: Mulege B.C.S. Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
Bajaunpaw
You are buying a Real Estate rigth, that is not the dominium (The real estate rights are : Dominium or right to sell, Right to Use as in your case and
usufructo that mean the right to own the product of the real este) because you are renting or getting the right to use that land and its buildings,
you do not own any part of that property, not even the improvements and you should not pay any buying tax.
As you say, you have the right to inprove it and you are !!!buying!!!! the right to use the existing improvements; but in no way, you are buying the
dominium over any of those objects.
That mean, you are just renting and the one who pay the taxes for the lease contract is the one who lease the property, not you, you just pay what the
contract say you are obligated to pay, absolutely no taxes but the IVA (10% I think) for you.
Any tax concerning the property value should be paid by the dominium owner, not you, because he own the Real Estate not you, you have only the right
to use it.
Even if you are !!!buying!!!! the existing improvements, you are not buying the improvement´s property, since your have a lease contract and the
improvement´s property belong to the one whe lease to you, you are only getting the use of the improvements.
If you improve the property with your own improvements, automatically those improvement´s property or dominium go to the one who lease to you and at
that time you are paying the IVA tax on the store where you buy the building materials already and that is the only tax that you should pay.
----------------------------------------
| Quote: | | I am impressed with your knowledge concerning real estate purchases in Baja. I noticed that you list Mulege as your place of residence in Baja. I am
considering buying some improvements on a piece of leased land in Mulege. The lease is satisfactory and from an upstanding person in Mulege.
According to the lease, I have the right to sell the improvements during the course of the lease. I have no problem walking away from the
improvements, without being able to sell them after the 10 year lease expires, if that happens. My question is concerning the taxes on the
improvements. I have been told that taxes of 25% of the purchase price on the improvements will have to be paid to some taxing agency. I have been
told that it is the buyer's responsibility to pay the taxes. The owner of the improvements has mentioned nothing of this. Are the taxes to be paid?
We are not using a real estate agent and thus, I thought you might answer my question. Also, will I be subject to any annual taxes on the
improvements? Thanks in advance for any information you can share on this subject. |
|
|
|
ramuma53
Banned
Posts: 793
Registered: 2-27-2003
Location: Mulege B.C.S. Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
Wooosh
Zenta almost never write anything against Hugo Torres Chaver or his group, hope that little fact change.
|
|
|
Woooosh
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by ramuma53
Wooosh
Zeta almost never writes anything against Hugo Torres Chavert or his group, hope that little fact change. |
Torres son is also the seller of the Playa Bonita condos... so if Zeta can find a legal justification for him selling them, they likely will. I think
you are correct that it is the ZOFEMAT and PROFEPA local offices who manipulate the Z.M.F.T. lines to suit the needs of their "customer"- taking
advantage of a 30 year old marine demarcation survey. That's a good enough story if they print it.
I have no heard back from the Director General of ZOFEMAT since the last letter to him (legal basis for not granting land to the squatter and
requesting a hearing in person). The squatter Ortiz left the property last week and has not returned. A group of ten men walked around the area last
Friday taking photos and pointing out the concession signs. They parked on a side street out of camera range which tells me they are likely Grupo
Aries people- not PROFEPA or a gov't agency. The Zeta reporter has the CFE bill for the Playa Bonita condos that shows Grupo Aries as the owner.
Mayor Robles is moving the malecon project from here to downtown Rosarito and adding a jetty. He is having a hard time getting the Baja Governor to
present the plan to Mexico City for some reason. He also recently failed to get an agreement with Ensenada on the boundary between Rosarito and
Ensenada.
\"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing\"
1961- JFK to Canadian parliament (Edmund Burke)
|
|
|
ramuma53
Banned
Posts: 793
Registered: 2-27-2003
Location: Mulege B.C.S. Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
Wooosh
Major Robles is going to have serious problems, trying to move forward the Malecon Project, because he was put in power by Hugo Torres Chavert and
Ejido Mazatlan and both are life enemies of the Real Estate Land legality correction.
Tha Malecon project was made by me, when Silvano Abarca was the Major; it was presented to him, by the Beach Commerce association who I was then
directing; we presented it to him and he promptly adopted it as city goal, but he tried to show it as his own project.
The main problem for that project is that, the Real Estate Land legality problem, has to be corrected first, as first phase and my plan showed it that
way, it start with that phase and with the cooperation of Mr. Jorge Duran, the National Land rights legal holder, but Hugo Torres Chavert and Ejido
Mazatlan oppose it until it was cancelled.
You have to remember that Hugo Torres Chavert and Ejido Mazatlan have been living from the land legality problem, they are the most interested in the
staus Quo; if the legalization start, everybody will know that Hotel Rosarito is national property and that ejido Mazatlan has been selling national
land. While all the Torres group towers are overn National Land already sold to other people, not them.
All the towers that the Torres group has built, are over National Land.
Rosarito will never grow or become what it should be, as long as Hugo Torres Chavert has any power backed by Ejido Mazatlan; they together control all
the political parties in Rosarito.
Now, it looks like Fernando Castro Trenty and PRI party, are looking in to the problem with a congresional investigation, finding that Rosarito will
never grow as long as those entities are in power and they have been in power in Rosarito for decades through bribery, corruption and lately violence.
The new Estate Congress investigation is backed by Fernando Castro Trenty, but who is he????? Why he can do what others have not????.
He has been a power instrument for decades, he is a born politician and has always been a disciplined element to political power, even against his own
political party, he was the executing hand when PRI decide to give away power to PAN in Baja and he acted then against his own party and now, he is
one of the main men for Manglio Fabio Beltrones, who just renounced to run for Mexico´s president and that mean, that he most likely he will end up as
Interior minister (Secretario de Gobernacion) in the next PRI administration and that mean, that Fernando Castro Trenty will end up on the top
echelons of that ministry, equal to one of the most powerful men in Mexico.
On the local level, that means, that top power men in Mexico, are looking in to the Tijuana Ensenada corridor and are exploring the Real Estate
problem solution.
[Edited on 11-23-2011 by ramuma53]
|
|
|
Woooosh
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
Ramuma53- I have heard that you are getting threatening e-mails. I hope this isn't the reason your posts have dropped off recently.
\"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing\"
1961- JFK to Canadian parliament (Edmund Burke)
|
|
|
ramuma53
Banned
Posts: 793
Registered: 2-27-2003
Location: Mulege B.C.S. Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
Bajaeng
At this time, Inmobiliaria Real de Mexico S.A. de C.V. the national land title legal holder, is promoting in Mexico city, the issuing of the National
Land title, it may take several months before we see any action, but I think, taking in to account legal times, we will se legal actions worth first
page news, by July next year, give or take 3 months.
Puerta del Mar is one of the easyest and as a consequence one of the fisrt to show legal consequences.
If you are there, try to move before that time.
Concerning legal suits, tell him to see the administrative procedure on the Rosendo Victorio Victorio National land title because when he receive the
firt lgal suit, it will be a federal case for illegal use of Federal Property and it ill be to late for him and any of their real estate buyers.
Clearly he is lying about safety
|
|
|
ramuma53
Banned
Posts: 793
Registered: 2-27-2003
Location: Mulege B.C.S. Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
Woooosh
I have not received any threat but it would not be a strange thing to me, I have been receiving them since I was 17 years old.
To this day they have not succeeded while of the issuers have gone down by their own actions.
People who issue threats, want to obtain a retreat just by scaring people, but usually they are unable to take any action, that is why they issue
threats; people who act, do not issue threats, they just act.
|
|
|
ramuma53
Banned
Posts: 793
Registered: 2-27-2003
Location: Mulege B.C.S. Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
Bajaeng
Puerta del mar or Venustiano Carranza title will be issued January next year, the offical study just finished on the side of Rosendo Victorio
Victorio.
That mean the new title is going to be issued very soon and a Federal Investigation will start to see who is usinf Federal land in an illegal way and
that mean Puerta del Mar.
|
|
|
senorj3
Junior Nomad
Posts: 25
Registered: 12-19-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
Mr. Munoz, what is happening at Playa Buenaventura? Thanks for your reply
|
|
|
elgatoloco
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4332
Registered: 11-19-2002
Location: Yes
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by bajaeng
Thanks for the update. I will be watching the news for this. Still, everyone at PDM is saying there are no concerns. I guess they may be in for
some unpleasant news soon. |
http://www.puertadelmar.net/page17.html
MAGA
Making Attorneys Get Attorneys
|
|
|
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 ramuma53
Woooosh
I have not received any threat but it would not be a strange thing to me, I have been receiving them since I was 17 years old.
To this day they have not succeeded while of the issuers have gone down by their own actions.
People who issue threats, want to obtain a retreat just by scaring people, but usually they are unable to take any action, that is why they issue
threats; people who act, do not issue threats, they just act. |
Thanks very much for stepping up to the plate on the law in Mexico and the structure and function of Agency
And for stating your position with supportive documentation and even "media" releases on events which impact you
Good luck, only hope there will not be any negative changes from the upcoming elections on your efforts, as it would set a new course for real estate
transactions in Baja and all of Mexico, which would benefit many people both north and south of the border
[Edited on 2-25-2012 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
Woooosh
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Woooosh
I would like to explore the "Prescripcion Positiva" aspect more among our real estate expert group since Angel brought it up in the Mark and Olivia
Thread where it was out of place. We'll go step by step to allow discussion by Angel and others.
Angel posts:
[Edited on 3-7-2012 by Woooosh] |
There are several legal conditions needed to acquire a "Squatters Title" known as the "Prescripcion Positiva."
Article 1151. The possession necessary to prescribe:
I. Must be held in the concept of ownership for five years and be uncontested,
II. Must be Peaceful. When the possession is gained by violence the period for prescription is ten years for buildings, starting from the cessation
of violence.
III. Must be Continuous (sole and permanent occupancy),
IV. Must be Public (marked or fenced)
Ms. Ortiz did not present a legal land title or any proof of payment when in April 2010 she asked the ZOFEMAT Director General to designate the land
as her "private property" stating it was land she has "owned and occupied for over 20 years". If she had it, she would have presented it. That, and
the fact she refused to present any other proof of ownership to Mr. Nava when he requested it- means she was attempting to acquire the land via the
Prescripcion Positiva method.
Ms. Ortiz is claiming the fraccionamineto lot under the white house (Lot #5) AND the empty lot to the left designated by Mr. Nava as the Disabled
Beach access (Lot #6). The house had previously been destroyed by the ocean and was vacant in 2005 as 14 neighbors have attested to in letters to
ZOFEMAT and is clearly shown in photos taken in 2005.
The photo Angel refers to of Mr. Nava showing the Federal Zone concession Title to Ms. Ortiz in Jan 2010 proves the occupation by the squatter was
contested prior to Ms. Ortiz accepting the Prescripcion Positiva in May of 2010. (There is also a YouTube video of this confrontation posted where the
concession holder tells her she cannot do anything on his concessio). Still, Ms. Ortiz brought in police escorts for the truck carrying boulders,
using the police to violate the legal rights Mr. Nava held for the concession- a federal crime.
In March 2010 Mr. Nava had a Red/white Federal Zone concession sign posted on the telephone pole directly in front of the house Ms. Ortiz now claims a
legally acquired Prescripcion Positiva for. Since 2009, the pole has been within the bounds of concession DGZF-832/08 held by Mr. Nava. This shows
Mr. Nava contested her presence prior to Ms. Ortiz accepting the Prescripcion Positiva in May 2010. It also shows the Federal Zone had already been
moved by PROFEPA all the way to the street- Paseo del Mar. Ms. Ortiz illegally removed the sign, which is a federal crime. The legal notes
concession DGZF-832/08 clearly stated the concession is "inperscriptable". Even still Ms. Ortiz went to the court and had the Prescripcion Positiva
issued to her in May 2010 which is yet another federal crime.
In March 2010, Ms. Ortiz offered the two land parcels for sale to US investors for $199,000USD- claiming she had the legal title to sell it. In March
2010 she didn't even have the Prescripcion Positiva in hand yet, and since the complete area was now in the Federal Zone it would not be valid against
the concession anyway. It is also a federal crime to sell federal zone land.
In November 2011 the PROFEPA delegate to Baja (Bernabe Esquer Peraz) issued a ruling that all of the land west of Paseo del Mar was either Federal
Zone or Marine Zone (under water). This ended any doubt that the land could be acquired as private property by the Prescripcion Positiva of Ms Ortiz,
even if the "PP" had been acquired legally.
So, in these two instances we see that the presence of Ms. Ortiz was contested at both properties she is claiming, BEFORE she accepted the
Prescripcion Positiva. This is proof fraud was comitted by Ms. Ortiz in regards to condition #1.
... and we still have "PP" conditions 2,3, and 4 to go to prove the fraud by Ms. Ortiz was comprehensive.
[Edited on 3-7-2012 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
|
|
Well, first of all PROFEPA already made its written 15 page decision in November 2011- so although there are always two sides to the story- PROFEPA
has already decided the facts and made their decision in this matter. We can discuss and debate their written decision though.
ZOFEMAT provided us with the original letter Ms. Ortiz wrote in April of 2011, requesting that our concesion be voided due to fraud in the application
process. In that document Ms. Ortiz wrote she had owned and lived there for over 20 years:
We provided photos from 2005 that showed it vacant and vandalized, and 14 neighbors wrote letters supporting that. One example:
Had Ms. Ortiz paid for the property or the two properties (she is claiming two land parcels of a fraccionamiento: Lot #5 and Lot #6) she could have
provide a payment receipt, family photos, or a land title for at least one of them. I think that is a telling point. How can she claim to own both
the house and lot next to it (ued as the disabled access) when two different families lived in them before the ocean destroyed them both- and she
clearly was not one of them? She went to court in 2010 to get the "Prescripcion Positiva" so clearly that was all she had. She also did not disclose
in her letter to the ZOFEMAT Director General the method she was using to claim ownership ("PP")- only that it was all she had in the world and had
been her full time home and in her family for 20 years. She asked in the letter that these two lots be granted to her as "her private property". That
is why this comes down to a challenge of a squatter against federal zone land. No title or proof of payment by her for either property.
In 2005 the large area we applied was all sand and west of the abandoned house and lot next to it (Lot #5, Lot#6) she is claiming. The application
map proves that:
The problem was exactly as I stated earlier- the existing maps were from 1976 and still showed an area between the street and the Federal Zone as
Ganados al Mar (where lots #5 and #6 are). The Playa Bonita condo was going up in 2005 (in the gandos al mar) and we certainly did not want
development to spread down the coastline in front of our house. Who would? No apology from us for that. We applied for the large concession area,
knew the Gandos al Mar was there (but that we could not apply for it) and waited for the concession title to be awarded. In the two years that
passed, Ms. Ortiz showed up and those two years did no one a favor- to be sure. We have saved all our e-mails from her about the house being
abandoned when she arrived and us offering to include that land in our concession if PROFEPA ever gave her a hard time about being there. Our
concession was eventually granted in 2008 and, because PROFEPA had moved the line in those two years a little more to east towards the street, our
concession was now over half of "her" lot which she had already fenced and began making unpermitted improvements on. She attempted to fence the beach
access to the second lot, and had put a "private property" sign on it. We ordered her to remove the sign and to allow pedestrian access and she did.
(She had still not been there long enough (5 years) to get the Prescipcion Positiva at that point).
This part is interesting: In 2009 someone fenced the part of the beach in front of our house and put a "For Sale" sign on it. Thinking it was part
of our concession (concession titles have only the map co-ordinates so we really didn't know what exact area had been given to us) , we filed a
denuncia with PROFEPA and Bernabe Esquer Peraz, the PROFEPA Baja delegate personally came to investigate. He showed us where our concession really
was and we were not pleased that it was the area by Ms. Ortiz. We had intentionally applied for area away from that, but that is not what was granted
in the title. When Bernabe asked us where we thought our concession was (we were only granted about 381m2 of the 1355m2 we had applied for), we told
him that because the ocean water now came over the seawall into the street- that we thought we were awarded a three meter strip one hundred meters
long (the top of the seawall basically). I produced a photo of the water coming over the seawall and touching our property. He asked that we sign
and date that photo. That is the 2009 event that moved the FMZ line all the way to the street, but no the exact picture we signed:
The PROFEPA delegate himself did the investigation and moved the line. No shenanigans. Once he moved the line, the ganados al mar was gone. Our
concession automatically moved to the street with it. So, we have the same PROFEPA delegate who personally investigated our denuncia making the final
15 page decision on this case two years later.
It is 100% absolutely true that when Ms. Ortiz "landed" on the property it was not in the Federal Zone. It is also true that with no land title or
taxes being paid by her on either property (Lot #5 or Lot#6) there was no one legally to notify when the federal zone line did move.
Even with all this, we did not act on having Ms. Ortiz removed until we were ordered to do so by the Baja Jefe de ZOFEMAT who has his office right
here in Villas del Mar. Mr. Villarreal told us if she was on our concession it was our contractual obligation to have her removed (condition of the
title) and we could be prosecuted if we did not do so. So what choice did we have but to follow the course of action he told us to- go the PGR.
There is more complexity to this and I'm sure you'll have more questions for me once Tila gives them to you. Please just keep the conversation civil
and I will tell you whatever you want to know and post whatever documents you want to see. We would do the same with her- but she was never
interested in sharing her documents or talking about it with us.
It is a good story Joe. That is why we made the videos. It is also why Zeta magazine has come to our house to interview us and request documents.
[Edited on 3-9-2012 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)
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
Baja real estate advice? Don't do it!
|
|
|
Woooosh
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
I also want to add this whole mess is NOT the fault of Tila Ortiz or us. It is clearly the fault of PROFEPA/ZOFEMAT/SEMARNAT but they have told both
of us this is a personal battle between us while they sit back and watch. They are making us two fight it out and for that they are wrong.
SEMARNAT/PROFEPA/ZOFMAT gave us none of the area we requested in the concession application. NONE. They sat on the application for two years and then
awarded us the area over Lot #5 and #6 which had been the "Ganados al Mar" we were told we cold not apply for. They reserve the right to adjust your
application map- and they did so. Why? Who knows. They did not tell us what they did, or offer show us what they adjusted on the concession map. It
is true what Ortiz says that there was a building and foundations on the area they awarded us- so it is not "ornato." But that doesn't make it
intentional fraud on our part as she claimed in her letter to SEMARNAT. We didn't even know until the PROFEPA delegate Bernabe told us in 2009. We
didn't like it either. We had intentionally applied for the area west and south from there so we would not have a conflict with her or anyone. We just
wanted to stop more construction from moving south down the beach in front of us. When ZOFEMAT/PROFEPA/SEMARNAT issues you a concession THEY are the
ones who are supposed to make sure it is correct. To make us go back and remove the squatter Ortiz was wrong. That is their job and 100% their fault-
but they will never admit it.
We did tell the inspector General we did not mind if they took the piece of our concession under the squatter Ortiz house (but not the other lot #6)
and give it to her. But they cannot grant it to her as her "private property" because it is Federal Zone now and I doubt she wants to just protect
it. She has already offered the land she claims (Lot#5 and Lot#6) for sale for $199K (claiming she had the legal land title) in March 2010- so the
reason she wants it designated as "her private property" is simply to sell it. There is noting really wrong with that- except she was too late- it's
gone:
We also told ZOFEMAT/SEMARNAT/PROFEPA if they were to cancel our concession based on the fact the concession area they awarded us did not match the
application or area we applied for, we would re-apply. Because the water comes over the seawall and touches our property we are still #1 in line for
it all should we have to re-apply. The Prescripcion Positiva held by Tila Ortiz can't legally allow them to grant her anything at this point. Only
the legal land owner could claim it ahead of us, and that person does not exist. We are still waiting for a hearing date if they decide to go that
route, but considering the mistake was theirs and Zeta Magazine will attend the hearing with us- I doubt it will happen.
What PROFEPA did in their 15 page decision was cover over the mistakes made by them and SEMARNAT/ZOFEMAT by just saying all the land west of the
seawall is now Federal or Marine Zone and is already in a concession- ours. It rids them of the whole problem.
She's not the biggest victim if this though. Nor are we. The owners of Playa Bonita condos are. They built a gorgeous $5 Million USD building on
that same "Ganados al Mar" three lots north of Ortiz and now can do almost nothing with it. Someone gave them the green light to build, but once they
were done the land under is now Federal or Marine zone too. That did not stop them from trying to sell it to US investors last year claiming they had
the clear land title and title insurance (when NO title exists at all), but we Nomads contacted PROFEPA and stopped the sale:
We don't want the house. It's a modular house and she can pull it anywhere she wants. We just want the beach to be sand for people to enjoy and for
there to be room for lifeguards, residents and tourists to walk past on the beach. Just like the our video says.
[Edited on 3-9-2012 by Woooosh]
[Edited on 3-9-2012 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)
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
Wooosh wrote: That's an important legal point and strategy. When our concession was potentially threatened by the squatter's false claims of
"intentional fraud"on our part, we provided all the correct documents to refute those claims. In Mexico there is a cultural tendency to want to help
your friends in any way possible without judging if what your friend did was right or wrong. Nothing wrong with that, but it slows the legal process
because no one wants to say no- or that they can't help, even if their friend is unlikely to prevail. After six months of letters and e-mails (yes,
even the Director Generals of ZOFEMAT and PROFEPA will e-mail you back these days if you ask respectfully) we did what we should have done right away-
ask for the public hearing on the matter the law says we are entitled to before a concession can be taken away. We told the Director Generals we would
travel anywhere at any time to attend this hearing to defend our concession. Not many people know that this is their legal right and it makes it very
hard for them to ignore you once you ask for it.
Regarding this specific statement:
In Mexico there is a cultural tendency to want to help your friends in any way possible without judging if what your friend did was right or
wrong. Text
Wrote wrote the above statement in the M&O thread but wants to discuss his issue over here in this thread. That's fine with me, and I don't even
know if I want to discuss to discuss this issue fully yet, and try to look to look at both sides of this housing dispute. I am a licensed real estate
agent in the USA not Mexico, and really I use my real estate license for investment purposes. So this is really out of area of knowledge, but I learn
fast, and I have a keen understanding of human nature, and some of my focus is going to be on human nature side of this problem, and what's going on
behind the scenes. I am not Tila, and I'm not here to fight her case for her in front of a 'Nomad" jury, but there are a few things I'm learning on my
own, and with very good anonymous sources that I will not disclose at this time unless they give me permission to do so.
So while I play catch up and digest all this information. I want to quickly comment on Woooosh's Mexican stereotype comment he often makes, and he
did so right now.
In every culture there is a tendency to help your family and your friends. This is something that's not just with Mexican norms and local culture
customs. It's everywhere like that.
But no doubt Woooosh is an "outsider" here, as well as Tila who is an Mexican-American like JoeJustJoe, although Wooosh has his Mexican partner. I
think Tila has the advantage here because she can pass as a local Mexican from what I heard and is just as smart as Woooosh or even smarter.
Woooosh also seems to think he has a slam dunk case, and everybody should take his side in this dispute, because he is right, and he has law and order
on his side. Wooosh believes the only reason why he hasn't won this case is because some cultural thing in Mexican society. That's crazy! Because
most of the time when you take on a legal case. It's far from a slam dunk, especially with collection the money or gaining the property when and if
you win.
I give the edge to Tila, because I doubt she'll fall back to some stupid Mexican stereotype to win her case against Woooosh.
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Shoot the messenger ... now that helps...
|
|
|
Woooosh
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
You just can't make a point without attacking? Please try harder. I stand by that statement- I also said in the very next sentence there was nothing
wrong with that- just that it slows the legal process down. You running a super-PAC campaign or something?
Tila hates "gringo's". I do not know why. I certainly do not hate Mexicans. The first thing she yelled out when the Police Captain asked a question
about me was "But he's a gringo!". I told her "Gringos are good here senorita". Her friend popped in with "He's a queer". So I mentioned to him that
Hugo Torres, Hank Rhon and Bejamin Felix Arellnao are all alleged to be gay (and we have friends who have entertained at Hank's parties)- so what's
the problem? The Captain laughed and clearly was amused by my sense of humor and candor.
Tila Ortiz Maldonado works for the California School System for the Eastside Union School System in Lancaster. She currently lives and pays property
taxes in Sun City, CA (another reason her "PP" is fraudulent). Squatting is a financial hobby for her and how she makes extra cash. Nothing wrong
with that- but in this case PROFEPA, not me - has said she missed the mark. All she has lost is time- she didn't pay for a thing as far as I can
tell. (sound familiar?)
I hope you do a good job investigating this. I don't care who your sources are really, I speak the truth. The man that does cable TV shows in English
here in Rosarito is a Nomad and has already posted that he "enjoyed talking to Tila" and thought the people she associated with were harmless. After
I started sending him the documentation I also offer you he wrote back and said he wanted to do a story about this battle. I said "NO". The point of
us doing the Beach Fitness Trail was to create a positive thing for Rosarito Beach. I asked him to wait until the Beach Fitness Trail was open and
then do a pro-Baja story on it. I also told him I hope to add a "Dog Beach" next because that would be good for tourism too. But you think I hate
all things Mexico and Mexican , huh?
Tila Ortiz is very very good at deceiving and manipulating people and never offers any documentation or proof of anything. She is a pro at it. In
all my years in the casino business I have never run into a character like her- and I really thought I had seen it all. She has not one Mexican
friend in the neighborhood because she doesn't need them and does not intend to stay here- she just wants to sell the land and get out. She hangs out
with deportees and drug dealers because it is easy to turn them against us. She turned them against us and used the local police to make it through
five years to get her squatter's title ("PP"). She even claims I pushed her to the ground and tried to kill her with a hammer! The truth is the
established Mexicans in the area know she is squatter trying to sell their beach and want nothing at all to do with her. That's why they wrote the
letters of support for us they did. They said we are the first people to do something good for the neighborhood and are blown away that we are doing
all this. The local Mexicans (and most deportees actually) like us and after being here so many years they know us by our actions- not her words.
The only one she has been successful with is an American tatooed skinhead drug dealer named Harlan Pankau- who is seen threatening us in the video
after she sent him over to our house. Here's a photo of Harlan with Tila- and his rap sheet:
Please let me know what additional information or facts you need for your "investigation". Keep it factual and civil I will continue spending time
responding. Thanks.
[Edited on 3-9-2012 by Woooosh]
[Edited on 3-9-2012 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)
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
Before I get to the technical real estate aspects of your real estate fight Woooosh. Can you answer me this:
Did you get into a physical fight with Harlan the person in that picture you provided below?
Did you at any time get into a physical fight with Ms Ortiz, and either hit or push Ms Ortiz a women?
Woooosh have you ever verbally assaulted Ms Ortiz with the kind of words we can't write down on "Baja Nomads." Woooosh have you tried to intimidate
Ms Ortiz with your five dogs or have you noticed if Ms Ortiz felt intimated by your five dogs? ( now I owned a Lab and Golden Retrieve before, and
know at most those type of dogs will lick you to death, but people who never owned those type of dogs do sometimes fear those retrievers because they
can be pretty big dogs, and they do have loud barks)
So what happened Woooosh on the physical side of this dispute? It seems like you already anticipated that I would ask about a physical altercation
between you, and Ms Ortiz. I wonder why you first brought it up?
Did you Woooosh ever do any time in a Mexican jail for fighting, with Ms Ortiz or any friend or neighbor of Ms Ortiz who perhaps tried to help her
with her legal fight against you Wooosh? Wooosh did the local police ever put you in back of their patrol car for any reason related to your legal
case and that includes fighting? Did you ever have to see a local judge because of any physical alteration relating or extending from this real estate
dispute.
Woooosh did you throw against this vato, and take the fight to the ground?:
[Edited on 3-9-2012 by JoeJustJoe]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
25
26
27
28
29
..
36 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
