| Pages:
1
..
48
49
50
51
52
..
83 |
Burbs
Junior Nomad
Posts: 78
Registered: 2-13-2012
Location: Buenaventura B.C.S. Mexico
Member Is Offline
Mood: Full Mood
|
|
Munoz,
You can fool a few sometimes. But not us or the authorities.
Take your papers if you have any new ones and go to court. Make your best case. Then if you don't win, slander the authorities in the newspapers and
other publications. Oh yes, call Olivia and Mark heads of the gulf cartel and the pacific cartel. If that does not work convince some on the Nomad. If
this has negative results hire some help with promises of riches and wealth to harass us with guns and blocking the entrance to all.
Sideline it all from a state far away in case crimes are committed so you can claim innocence and ignorance.
If this does not produce positive results, then pack your backpack and come personally to B.C.S.
We will all love to see you. Your fan club awaits you.
Can't really speak for your so called employee's, but I bet they will appreciate a visit from the boss.
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
Munoz has been challenged.
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
I have no comment on what Munoz posted, but when it comes to Fulano and his Photoshopping skills, and the wild things he makes up often out of thin
air.
I wouldn't believe Fulano if he said the sky is blue and he had a picture of a blue sky. The insane nut just doesn't have any credibility with me,
and I know many Nomad members feel the same as I do.
Now it may be the sky is really blue, but since Fulano spins, tells half-truths, and flat out lies about other "Nomad" members. How can you even
trust this dubious source from a hate forum he runs like a cult leader, and even has cult followers. ( It's a tiny cult of maybe 5 or 6 guys)
I'm sorry but Fulano is not a credible source, and anything the nut puts out shouldn't be taken seriously, but I think most Nomad members already know
that.
Fulano just is not a credible source and you should have always have a real reliable credible source to turn to instead of Fulano and his anti-Mexico
agenda.
|
|
|
ELINVESTIG8R
Select Nomad
Posts: 15882
Registered: 11-20-2007
Location: Southern California
Member Is Offline
|
|
Is Rafael’s documentary evidence falsified, if so, how? Can someone debunk them? To
determine who is not telling the truth, outside governmental investigative agencies from Mexico City will need to intervene to conduct an unbiased
investigation to determine the truth. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that someone is not telling the truth. Based on the preponderance of
documentary evidence provided by Rafael on this forum and until proven to be fabricated I must stand with him regarding his documentation. If Rafael
is later deemed not to have ownership of property at Playa Buenaventura I will humbly ask for forgiveness from the rightful owner publicly in this
forum.
|
|
|
ELINVESTIG8R
Select Nomad
Posts: 15882
Registered: 11-20-2007
Location: Southern California
Member Is Offline
|
|
Fulano also says “One of the other documents that Rafael posted is a "Certificate of no liens." This document is issued
by the local county registrar for Mulege County in Santa Rosalia. This document shows that Rafael's ownership of the property has been a matter of
public record in Mulege since at least 1999.”
“The relevant part of the document says:
Que bajo a la partida 259 del tomo 67 de la seccion primera de esta dependencia aparece inscrito titulo de propiedad No. 51829, de fecha 17 de Enero
de 1984 y registrado 23 de febrero de 1999, relativo a un lote de terreno denominado la tinaja de Armenta ubicado en el municipio de Mulege estado de
BCS, contando con una superficie total de 378.7912 hectares. Que la Secretaria de la Reforma Agraria expide al C. Rafael Muñoz Martínez.
Igualmente se hace constar que en la Partida de referencia no obran anotaciones marginales de que dicho inmueble este gravado o hipotecado por lo que
se encuentra libre de gravamen.
That under heading 259 of volume 67 of the first section of this county is inscribed deed No. 51829, dated January 17, 1984 and recorded February 23,
1999, on a plot of land called la tinaja de Armenta located in the municipality of Mulege, Baja California Sur, with a total area of 378.7912
hectares, that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued to C. Rafael Muñoz Martinez.
May it also be noted that in the reference system there are no marginal annotations that show said property is encumbered or mortgaged and this
property is free of liens.”
|
|
|
Burbs
Junior Nomad
Posts: 78
Registered: 2-13-2012
Location: Buenaventura B.C.S. Mexico
Member Is Offline
Mood: Full Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by ELINVESTIG8R
Fulano also posted this regarding the below document: Rafael Muñoz posted copies of a lot of documents on BN tonight to prove that he was the owner of
the San Buenaventura property.
This page is probably the most important. It is a letter from a judge in the Agrarian Court to a judge in a Federal Court. The letter is dated April
21, 2010 and the Agrarian Court judge is telling the Federal Court judge that he should dismiss Olivia's case for possession of the home owned by Ted
and Cheryle Clinite because she does not have any legal interest in it.
The relevant part in Spanish is: Ahora bien, de la revision a los autos del juicio agrario del cual emana el acto reclamado, puede observarse que los
terrenos del amparista, no se encuentran incluidos en el ejido La Purisima, puesto que dicho predio cuenta con titulo de propiedad amparado con el
numero 432949expedido por la Secretaria de la Reforma Agraria.
However, upon review of the trial transcript of the Agrarian Court, one can observe that the lands claimed by the amparista (Olivia), are not a part
of ejido La Purisima, since this property has a separate property title identified by number 432949, issued by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform.
[Edited on 3-24-2012 by ELINVESTIG8R] |
Munoz lost this LIE of amparo against the order of the court in favor of Olivia. This is when in Nov. of 2011 the houses were awarded and the eviction
happened.
R. Munoz why don't you show thre final papers on this amparo and also show the review of your lost amparo? Include the other structures that were
included.
Let's not live in the past, let's live in the present!
|
|
|
Burbs
Junior Nomad
Posts: 78
Registered: 2-13-2012
Location: Buenaventura B.C.S. Mexico
Member Is Offline
Mood: Full Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by ELINVESTIG8R
Based on the general locating latitude and longitude Fulano figured out regarding Rafael’s
property title Number 432949 at N26° 39', W111° 50' it is a property at Playa Buenaventura and not in the Mexico State of Veracruz as alleged.
Per Fulano, “The property description further describes the property as being in the Municipality of Mulegé bounded by the ocean to the North, the
ejido La Purisima to the South and East, and a property named El Frijol to the West. This also clearly describes San Buenaventura.”
Copy and paste the coordinates into Google earth and see where it takes you. I am in Rafael’s corner regarding his documents.
Can anyone dispute these facts with other documents? Put them out here for evaluation. It appears that Rafael posted his because he does not fear they
will be debunked. Can anyone debunk what he has posted?
THIS IS THE DOCUMENT
[Edited on 3-24-2012 by ELINVESTIG8R] |
This document of title is a fake.
*Munoz show that your other title #51829 for the same or equivelant property. Display(#51829) for everyone and explain how two titles are better than
one title!
*Look at the signatures how dark they are compared to the rest of the copy. A sign that they have been scanned and placed on the copy.
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
Munoz, It's show and tell time!!
|
|
|
ELINVESTIG8R
Select Nomad
Posts: 15882
Registered: 11-20-2007
Location: Southern California
Member Is Offline
|
|
Since I have no knowledge about Mexico property matters I will defer to Fulano. He says, "By the way, everybody has been asking Mark Burbey to show
the document that proves they "own" Playa Buenaventura. The letter from the Agraian judge to the Federal judge, which Muñoz posted on BajaNomads, has
a description of that document.
"mismo que celebró a través de su comisariado ejidal, con MARIA OLIVIA HIGUERA AGUILAR y MICHAEL J. GEORGE un contrato de asociación con participation
mediante el cual el ejido concesionó a favor de los asociados la playa Buenaventura."
This says that the La Purisima ejido, on the one hand, and both Maria Olivia Higuera Aguilar and her then husband, Michael J. George, on the other
hand, created a concession with participation where Olivia and Michael George operate the Buenaventura beach concession and pay the ejido a share of
the revenues.
This is problematic in many ways. First of all, as already stated above, the ejido did not own the property, so the concession should be null and
void. Secondly, a concession does not transfer title to the real estate. So even if the ejido did own the land at Buenaventura, title to the houses
Olvia says she "owns" should revert to the ejido, not Olivia. Third, the "concession" was granted to both Olivia and Mike George. I understand they
later divorced and Mike George died. But, there is no paper trial showing how Olivia ended up with Mike George's interest in the concession. Mexico is
not a community property country. Unless there is some documentation showing Mike George transferred his interest in the "concession" back to Olivia,
she only owns an undivided interest in the "concession." The heirs of Mike George own the other interest in it.
I'll bet Rafael has as copy of Olivia's concession with the ejido. It would have been introduced as evidence in several of the many court hearings."
|
|
|
Oddjob
Banned
Posts: 330
Registered: 7-30-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Cypress
Munoz, It's show and tell time!! |
Cypress, what is your stake in this? You keep putting in your 2 cent comments as if you actually have some real knowledge about the situation. Did you
form your opinion like other M&O supporters by stopping by and having a beer and a burger? ***************************
[Edited on 3-25-2012 by BajaNomad]
|
|
|
ELINVESTIG8R
Select Nomad
Posts: 15882
Registered: 11-20-2007
Location: Southern California
Member Is Offline
|
|
Fulano conducted an investigation and found the following:
"Well, well, well. If you want something done right, you just have to do it yourself. Fulano went into the records of the Secretaria de la Reforma
Agraria and found an official letter, dated September 10, 2009, that says Rafael Munoz's title to Playa Buenaventura is false, and orders the public
records to reflect that his title is null and void. The official reason stated is that Rafael never completed the procedures necessary to finalize the
issuance of a proper title. Furthermore, the government cannot find any evidence that he even paid for it. The letter also acknowledges that there is
a federal investigation of Muñoz by the Mexican attorney general's office for the crimes of forgery and using false documents.
http://www.sra.gob.mx/sraweb/datastore/transparencia/resoluc...
"En tal razon, y al considerarse que la enajenacion del predio que nos ocupa no ha sido consumada en todos sus terminos toda vez que el titulo de
propiedad que obra en al expediente adminstrativo numero 142524 ha sido desconocido resulta infundado...."
For this reason, and in consideration that the alienation of the property under consideration has not been completely consummated in all respects, the
title to the property under consideration in administrative file number 142524 is unrecognized and unfounded..."
The letter does not say the land belongs to ejido La Purisima. It seems to indicate it is still national land, as there is mention that Muñoz made an
inquiry long ago of how much it would cost to buy the land out of its National land status.
By the way, the letter also says there is another property with the same number, 432949, that was issued to Bertha Lopez Castillo August 31, 1993 for
a property called "Beristain M-D L-14" located in Ahuazotepec, Puebla. Then they did some more digging at the Secretaria de la Reforma Agraria and
found another page with the same number, 432949, but the page was blank. So, reading between the lines, whatever happened, it was done with the help
of inside people at the Secretaria de la Reforma Agraria. They probably did not suspect that anyone would notice two properties with the same number."
[Edited on 3-24-2012 by ELINVESTIG8R]
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Thanks, it all helps ... 
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
Oddjob, My two centavos? Just my thoughts on the issue. You got a problem with free speech? Step up to the plate. Your two bits are just as good a s
mine. Go for it.
|
|
|
toneart
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4901
Registered: 7-23-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Skeptical
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Oddjob
| Quote: | Originally posted by Cypress
Munoz, It's show and tell time!! |
Cypress, what is your stake in this? You keep putting in your 2 cent comments as if you actually have some real knowledge about the situation. Did you
form your opinion like other M&O supporters by stopping by and having a beer and a burger? *************************** |
None of us have a stake in this except the Principals, who are involved. It serves the Nomads as entertainment. Nothing more. It is
akin to reading a novel of intrigue.
The tragedy is that real people with real lives (those who do have a stake in this) are undoubtedly suffering a lot of stress. As in any such
situation, right or wrong, the Principals involved seem to believe that they are right.
There are varying degrees of legal entitlement (or not). The same for the morality (or not) in the principals' stands. Shades of gray, at best.
Nothing is settled because it is still ongoing.
My question is: Why do the Principals care what we Nomads think? This is not a court of law. It would seem to me that anything they post here could be
used by one another as incriminating evidence. I don't see how it serves any of them beneficially. Public Opinion is irrelevant!
Having said that, they are all airing their own dirty laundry for us to read. If you are entertained, share the popcorn. If you are not, don't read
it!
[Edited on 3-25-2012 by BajaNomad]
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
Amen.
|
|
|
Oddjob
Banned
Posts: 330
Registered: 7-30-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | None of us have a stake in this except the Principals, who are involved. It serves the Nomads as entertainment. Nothing more. It is
akin to reading a novel of intrigue.
The tragedy is that real people with real lives (those who do have a stake in this) are undoubtedly suffering a lot of stress. As in any such
situation, right or wrong, the Principals involved seem to believe that they are right.
There are varying degrees of legal entitlement (or not). The same for the morality (or not) in the principals' stands. Shades of gray, at best.
Nothing is settled because it is still ongoing.
My question is: Why do the Principals care what we Nomads think? This is not a court of law. It would seem to me that anything they post here could be
used by one another as incriminating evidence. I don't see how it serves any of them beneficially. Public Opinion is irrelevant!
Having said that, they are all airing their own dirty laundry for us to read. If you are entertained, share the popcorn. If you are not, don't read
it! |
If those that are involved in this choose to air it out here that's their business, but there is a difference between reading it and posting ******
comments about it (Cypress) by those that are not part of it.
[Edited on 3-25-2012 by BajaNomad]
|
|
|
XPBRes
Junior Nomad
Posts: 66
Registered: 2-11-2012
Location: SoCal
Member Is Offline
Mood: SOULFUL
|
|
Entertaining you say, I agree this is a fascinating story. You on this board have as much or more information than we ever had. I would hope all of
you could see the dilemma a few Americans had. We fell in love with a beautiful location. It was to be a new beginning to our future dreams.
Mike was a great salesman and all of us believed in him and his good work ethic. We had 10 years without a thought that it was going to be anything
but a great place to live out our lives. It was said that Mike is dead, I don't think so, I have heard that he has a place in Guaymas-San Carlos.
As much as I don't think Mark has been wrong about some of his statements: should have stayed, stuck it out and fought back. When we started Mike had
a small house, restaurant and a few palapas. The renters made that beach without Mark. We stuck it out for 15 years, he hasn't been there that long
yet and comes across as a squatter and nothing more.
Now I ask you nomads knowing all you do could you have made a decision about this that would have given you a good outcome. If we had stayed and
fought we would have Munoz beating down our door. We stop paying Olivia and she sues us for breaking a lease. It took us over a year to make decision;
maybe it was a wrong one if you believe Mark.
From what I just read on these last pages it shows that neither one of them had a right to make a lease or allow us to build. I am just as confused
and sad as I was 10 years ago.
My only goal here was to share with nomads that it’s not that easy to figure this stuff out. Most of us make choices based on experience and not
emotion. I think that in this case we fell in love with a location and trusted people that may not have had our best interest.
Mark can continue to bash me I will never stop sharing my thoughts and knowledge about this.
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
Oddjob,
|
|
|
surfer jim
Super Nomad
Posts: 1891
Registered: 8-29-2003
Location: high desert
Member Is Offline
|
|
 
|
|
|
Pompano
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8194
Registered: 11-14-2004
Location: Bay of Conception and Up North
Member Is Offline
Mood: Optimistic
|
|
Does this thread qualify for Godwin's Law" yet??"
Mike Godwin, formulator of the "law"
"Godwin's law" is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage.
It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving N-zis or Hitler approaches.
In other words, Godwin observed that, "given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some
point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the N-zis."
Now...I could say that I distinctly remember that somewhere in this messy morass somebody mentioning
Hitler or the N-zis...
...but I could be wrong.  ..and I'll be damned if I am going to wade
thru all this STUFF.
Has there been any such comparison?...and who is Hilter here?
I do what the voices in my tackle box tell me.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
48
49
50
51
52
..
83 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
