The following concepts create the foundational infrastructure of Legal Land Title in the United States.
1. The Codified Law: defines every subject it touches including the subject of land - from how land is Acquired to how land is Zoned.
2. The Rectangular Surveying Method: defines how land will be legally located and identified by and in the United States
3. The Constitution and its amendments: defines the structure, the powers, the limitations of the Federal government, The State governments, and their “relationship” to each other including land, defines the rights and powers of the citizens, and establishes private ownership of land, to name a few.
“The rules and regulations of the Department of the Interior for the survey of the Public Lands have the force and effect of Law” North v. Jones, 53 Ind. App. 203, 100N.E. 84 (1912)
The rectangular system of surveys did not ascertain the boundaries of the new lands. “It created them” Cox v. Hart, 260 U. S. 427 (1922)
A Government survey creates and does not merely identify sections and boundaries of land.” 43 U.S.C. 751, 752 (1982)
1. The Codified Law: defines every subject it touches including the subject of land - from how land is Acquired to how land is Zoned.
2. The Rectangular Surveying Method: defines how land will be legally located and identified by and in the United States
3. The Constitution and its amendments: defines the structure, the powers, the limitations of the Federal government, The State governments, and their “relationship” to each other including land, defines the rights and powers of the citizens, and establishes private ownership of land, to name a few.
“The rules and regulations of the Department of the Interior for the survey of the Public Lands have the force and effect of Law” North v. Jones, 53 Ind. App. 203, 100N.E. 84 (1912)
The rectangular system of surveys did not ascertain the boundaries of the new lands. “It created them” Cox v. Hart, 260 U. S. 427 (1922)
A Government survey creates and does not merely identify sections and boundaries of land.” 43 U.S.C. 751, 752 (1982)
The first bulldozer arrives on
The
duplicity game begins:
Mr. Jay Odom hired John Dowd Jr. to negotiate with us through our attorney, Karen Ward. While we are negotiating with Mr. Dowd in good Faith; Mr. Odom hires Mr. George R. Miller to file a petition for an emergency hearing without notice.
It is unknown to us if Mr. Miller knew about Mr. Dowd but it is pretty clear to us that Mr. Dowd did not know about Mr. Miller or his petition. So on Mr. Odom’s Attorney files this on August 3rd at 4:07 pm and we are served that evening about 7:30 pm.
Number 2 names “the Hammock Bay Community Development District.”
Number 3 would lead you conclude that Walter is just running around in the woods, “stopping earth-moving equipment and personnel employed by Mr. Odom from working”.
When in fact Walter was simply defending the long standing (more than 49 years) fence, trees, blueberry bushes and he property in general from being bull dozed.
Number 4 does not say that it was Walter who called for the Sheriff.
Number 6 would lead you to conclude that Walter was running around in the woods claiming ownership of some land some where, but again there is no mention of the fence.
Read this part of Number 5 and… We get served on the same day as the second bulldozer event but much later in the day at about 7:30 pm. According to the documents we have 14 ½ business hours to do all of our research to address and disprove the allegations set forth in Jays Petition. The next morning we call Karen Ward she says to come to her office at 3:00 pm, we drive to Destin, after a review she tells us that she will not go to court with us because Judge Wells does not like her and they do not get along… it’s now past 5:00 pm.
The Next morning we start calling every Real Estate Attorney in the phone book only to discover that each one has or is working for Mr. Jay Odom and therefore has a conflict of interest.
Keep in mind that Walton County was formed in 1824; so we have 181 years of history that needs to be reviewed, we need to know and understand boundary and survey law, we need to know all of the relevant criminal Law, and the rules of civil procedure.
If that were not enough, we have had no “discovery” at all from the other side, in short we do not know anything about their case, their evidence, their witnesses, nothing.
Mr. Odom, his company Freeport 860 L.L.C., nor the quasi governmental agency known as The Hammock Bay Community Development District did not file an Action of Imminent Domain. Imminent Domain is the required method and procedure by which government can acquire someone's private land.
The method used was started by an Emergency Injunction.
In the course of the last eight years the Walton County Circuit Court ruled that the Federal TRS Grid Section line that determined our lands location by our deed description was in a new location 164 feet north of the old one. This places our land on top of three of our neighbors lands and homes. This means that these homes and other improvements are encroaching; thus we no longer can qualify for Homeowners Insurance. It also means that the buildings and other improvements add value to the tax assessment of our land so our tax bill went up. At the same time the neighbors are still paying their property tax assessment as if nothing has changed. Walton County is getting paid twice. And by the rules of Law we must sue our neighbors for ejectment or lose that part of our land that now sits on top of them.
Ironically if we do not pay our property tax we could lose the right to even fight this, so as before we paid them.
This is the same Circuit Court that gave Mr. Jay Odom the 35 million dollar loan in 2002, then moved, reshaped, and relocated the original Federal section line in 2010.
We suggest that we have learned that this Court may not have had the authority to do that. Not because it did not have jurisdiction over the people but because it lacks the jurisdiction over the subject of the location of Section Lines established by Federal survey and contained in the TRS grid, yet it did it anyway; and we suggest that this is a violation of our Constitutional rights.
Mr. Jay Odom hired John Dowd Jr. to negotiate with us through our attorney, Karen Ward. While we are negotiating with Mr. Dowd in good Faith; Mr. Odom hires Mr. George R. Miller to file a petition for an emergency hearing without notice.
It is unknown to us if Mr. Miller knew about Mr. Dowd but it is pretty clear to us that Mr. Dowd did not know about Mr. Miller or his petition. So on Mr. Odom’s Attorney files this on August 3rd at 4:07 pm and we are served that evening about 7:30 pm.
Number 2 names “the Hammock Bay Community Development District.”
Number 3 would lead you conclude that Walter is just running around in the woods, “stopping earth-moving equipment and personnel employed by Mr. Odom from working”.
When in fact Walter was simply defending the long standing (more than 49 years) fence, trees, blueberry bushes and he property in general from being bull dozed.
Number 4 does not say that it was Walter who called for the Sheriff.
Number 6 would lead you to conclude that Walter was running around in the woods claiming ownership of some land some where, but again there is no mention of the fence.
Read this part of Number 5 and… We get served on the same day as the second bulldozer event but much later in the day at about 7:30 pm. According to the documents we have 14 ½ business hours to do all of our research to address and disprove the allegations set forth in Jays Petition. The next morning we call Karen Ward she says to come to her office at 3:00 pm, we drive to Destin, after a review she tells us that she will not go to court with us because Judge Wells does not like her and they do not get along… it’s now past 5:00 pm.
The Next morning we start calling every Real Estate Attorney in the phone book only to discover that each one has or is working for Mr. Jay Odom and therefore has a conflict of interest.
Keep in mind that Walton County was formed in 1824; so we have 181 years of history that needs to be reviewed, we need to know and understand boundary and survey law, we need to know all of the relevant criminal Law, and the rules of civil procedure.
If that were not enough, we have had no “discovery” at all from the other side, in short we do not know anything about their case, their evidence, their witnesses, nothing.
Mr. Odom, his company Freeport 860 L.L.C., nor the quasi governmental agency known as The Hammock Bay Community Development District did not file an Action of Imminent Domain. Imminent Domain is the required method and procedure by which government can acquire someone's private land.
The method used was started by an Emergency Injunction.
In the course of the last eight years the Walton County Circuit Court ruled that the Federal TRS Grid Section line that determined our lands location by our deed description was in a new location 164 feet north of the old one. This places our land on top of three of our neighbors lands and homes. This means that these homes and other improvements are encroaching; thus we no longer can qualify for Homeowners Insurance. It also means that the buildings and other improvements add value to the tax assessment of our land so our tax bill went up. At the same time the neighbors are still paying their property tax assessment as if nothing has changed. Walton County is getting paid twice. And by the rules of Law we must sue our neighbors for ejectment or lose that part of our land that now sits on top of them.
Ironically if we do not pay our property tax we could lose the right to even fight this, so as before we paid them.
This is the same Circuit Court that gave Mr. Jay Odom the 35 million dollar loan in 2002, then moved, reshaped, and relocated the original Federal section line in 2010.
We suggest that we have learned that this Court may not have had the authority to do that. Not because it did not have jurisdiction over the people but because it lacks the jurisdiction over the subject of the location of Section Lines established by Federal survey and contained in the TRS grid, yet it did it anyway; and we suggest that this is a violation of our Constitutional rights.
Case Law about Injunctions -
1,) “The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo until a final hearing may be held and the dispute resolved.” (City of Miami Springs v. Steffen, 423 So.2d 930. “Not to take sides” (Lieberman v. Marshall, 236 So.2d 120, 125 (Fla.1970) “The issuance of a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should be granted sparingly, and which must be based upon a showing of the following criteria: (1) The likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; (3) Substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) consideration of public interest.”(Shands at Lake Shore, Inc. v. Ferrero, 898 So.2d 1037, 1038-1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); City of Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Adver.Co., 634 So.2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
2.) “The purpose of the temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo until a finial hearing may be held and the dispute resolved”. (City of Miami Springs v. Steffen, 423 So.2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) “The status quo preserved by a temporary injunction is the last peaceable noncontested condition that preceded the controversy”. (Bowling V. National Convoy & Trucking Co., 135 So.541 (Fla.1931). “One critical purpose of temporary injunctions is to prevent injury so that a party will not be forced to seek redress for damages after they have occurred”. Lewis V.Peters, 66 So.2d 489 (Fla.1953). “The granting of a temporary injunction rests in the trial court’s sound judicial discretion, guided by established rules and principles of equity jurisprudence in view of the facts of a particular case. Decumbe v. Smith, 143 Fla. 5, 196 So. 595 (Fla.1940) (See 43A C.J.S. Injunctions % 314 (1978)) Additionally the harmed “may occasionally be able to prove a temporary or permanent taking under the due process clause”.
3.) “Every injunction shall specify the reasons for entry…” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610 Santos v. Tampa Med. Supply, 857 So.2d 315, 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003): see also Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). “Clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual finding must support each of the four tines of a preliminary injunction.” “Milin v. N.W. Fla. Land, L.C., 870 So.2d 135, 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610 (1) (A) (B) (2) “Notice of a proposed injunction encompasses a reasonable opportunity to prepare and offer evidence” (See Harrison v Palm Harbor MRI, Inc., 703 So.2d 1117, 1119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Fla. High Sch. Activities Ass’n Inc. v. Benitez, 748 So.2d 358,359 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). “Reasonable notice is defined as that notice that provides a “meaningful opportunity to prepare and to defend against the allegations of the motion or complaint.” “Reasonable notice is especially important because of the heavy burden placed on a litigant who seeks to dissolve a temporary injunction after a hearing conducted with “proper” notice because any argument or evidence that could have been offered at the initial hearing cannot be the basis of a motion to dissolve the injunction as only a change of condition after entry of the temporary injunction with notice will suffice.” Pecora v. Pecora, 697 So.2d 1267, 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
4.) The 2nd DCA has held that “seven days notice of a hearing on a temporary injunction was reasonable.” Harrison v Palm Harbor MRI, Inc., 703 So.2d 1117, 1119 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1997)
5.) An order granting an injunction is an appealable non-final order, Fla.R.App.P.9.130(a)(3)(B)
“It is far better to redraw lines on a piece of paper to make them consistent with occupancy on the ground than to uproot and move all of the property owners who have in good faith erected homes, fences and other improvements in conformity with monuments on the ground, in order to make their actual occupancy and possession conform to what is erroneously shown on a piece of paper recorded in the courthouse.” Opinion of Judge Cowart: McGhee V. Young 4th DCA 606 So.2d 1215:1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10366; 17 Fla.L. Weekly D 2296))
Aug 5, 2005 Hearing Date 3:30 p.m Judge Kelvin Wells
We can not find an attorney, so we go pro-se, (in person) because if we do not make an appearance we will lose by default.
I ask for a continuance.
No “I am predisposed to hear this now” was the answer from Judge Wells. “Sit down”.
So it begins with 14 & 1/2 hours of so called “preparation”, we show copies of three documents. (the 1980 survey, the title insurance, My Location Map because our home does not appear on Jays Survey)
Mr. Odom puts on
-Mr. Brannon and his title work
-Mr. Lundy and his survey
-“Exhibit A” an aerial photograph with lines and paragraphs showing our entire property,
some of Mr. Quillian’s property, some of Mr. Odom’s property, and some of County
Highway 83 A aka Bay Loop Rd, some of Sarah Street, and some of Mr. Leo
Burnham’s property, and some of Mr. Ronnie Brannon’s property.
-The Dozer driver and other workers
-Himself
In the end there are no criminal charges issued but we are restrained from parcel 2. The injunction order signed by Judge Kelvin Wells does not comply to the structure required of the four tine test invoked in the petition, it does not maintain the status quo it disrupts it, this injunction order goes to far as it adjudicates ownership/control of real estate and dislodges a family for its home and business of more than twelve years and does so even though the Court was not properly convened to approach these last questions; (See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110 b).The description of the "reasonable time frame of 7 days" is in contrast to the 14 ½ business hours ( 1 1/2 days) of notice we had.
Appellant asserts that the Hammock Bay Community Development District is a quasi governmental entity formed under Fl. St. 190 and that the injunction involves this agency, it’s authority, and it’s limitations. Thus wrongfully influencing the court in the first place and when granted constitutes a “taking” without due process and violation of both the US Constitution and the State of Florida's Constitution. As a direct consequence of the injunction it is impossible to restore this land to its rightful owner therefore damages may well be due as sovereign immunity may provide no protection because “liability is usually established simply upon proof that the injunction was vacated.” “Parker Tampa Two”, 544 So.2d at 1021: National Sur. Co. v. Willys-Overland, Inc., 103 Fla. 738, 138 So. 24 (Fla. 1931); Shea v. Central Diagnostic Serv., Inc., 552 So.2d 344, 346 (Fla. 5th DCA)
“That damages for a wrongful injunction under this statue (60.07) were limited to the amount of the bond unless the injunction was obtained maliciously or in bad faith”, We so assert. “Parker Tampa Two”, 544 So.2d at 1021
“If the actions of the agency constituted a total taking a business would be entitled to business loss damages only if it had been located on the property for five years”, We so assert. %73.071(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995); see Department of Transp. V. Fortune Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 532 So.2d 1267, 1269-1270 (Fla.1988)
Mr. Ramey was either incompetent or untruthful. An appeal could have and should have been filed in the first 30 days from issuance.
After 30 days, that ability is waived. Without our knowledge (at the time) we lost this option by relying on Ramey's determination that we had no recourse in August
Judge Wells instructs our opponent to write his order and tells them on page 56 line 16 “Let him have a look at it” but does not tell them to allow for review and comment from us before summiting it for his signature. On August 10, 2005 We are served with a copy of the proposed order. We have not found an attorney as yet, we call and leave a message requesting a call back because we have noticed an important error in the “proposed” order they have written. As written, it says we are restrained from “Exhibit A” not just “parcel 2”. The call is not returned and no change is made.
-On August 11, 2005, just six days after the hearing, Judge Wells signs the injunction order as written, maybe he read it before he signed it and “knew” the difference, maybe not.
-Now, by written signed order of the court, we are restrained from everything shown in “Exhibit A”. Look at page 56 lines 16, thru 19 of the transcript for clarity.
But before you do we have this comment about the “Official” Transcript.
When we received our copy the first thing we noticed was there was no record of our motion for a continuance. We called the court reporter and confront her, and she told us that she was not able to include that because the Judge had not yet “technically” convened the hearing in her mind, but she did remember hearing the motion.
Lesson: If you are in court, Any Attorney is better than no Attorney even if you need a specialized Attorney.
Lesson: I have also learned that sarcasm does not translate well in the sterile environment of a Legal transcript, example page 56 lines 2 & 3. So select your words with this in mind. If I had any experience with this I surely would have phrased my response differently.
Lesson: I should have stated my motion repeatedly in the body of the trial and again near the end do not let fear stop you.
.
1,) “The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo until a final hearing may be held and the dispute resolved.” (City of Miami Springs v. Steffen, 423 So.2d 930. “Not to take sides” (Lieberman v. Marshall, 236 So.2d 120, 125 (Fla.1970) “The issuance of a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should be granted sparingly, and which must be based upon a showing of the following criteria: (1) The likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; (3) Substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) consideration of public interest.”(Shands at Lake Shore, Inc. v. Ferrero, 898 So.2d 1037, 1038-1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); City of Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Adver.Co., 634 So.2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
2.) “The purpose of the temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo until a finial hearing may be held and the dispute resolved”. (City of Miami Springs v. Steffen, 423 So.2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) “The status quo preserved by a temporary injunction is the last peaceable noncontested condition that preceded the controversy”. (Bowling V. National Convoy & Trucking Co., 135 So.541 (Fla.1931). “One critical purpose of temporary injunctions is to prevent injury so that a party will not be forced to seek redress for damages after they have occurred”. Lewis V.Peters, 66 So.2d 489 (Fla.1953). “The granting of a temporary injunction rests in the trial court’s sound judicial discretion, guided by established rules and principles of equity jurisprudence in view of the facts of a particular case. Decumbe v. Smith, 143 Fla. 5, 196 So. 595 (Fla.1940) (See 43A C.J.S. Injunctions % 314 (1978)) Additionally the harmed “may occasionally be able to prove a temporary or permanent taking under the due process clause”.
3.) “Every injunction shall specify the reasons for entry…” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610 Santos v. Tampa Med. Supply, 857 So.2d 315, 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003): see also Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). “Clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual finding must support each of the four tines of a preliminary injunction.” “Milin v. N.W. Fla. Land, L.C., 870 So.2d 135, 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610 (1) (A) (B) (2) “Notice of a proposed injunction encompasses a reasonable opportunity to prepare and offer evidence” (See Harrison v Palm Harbor MRI, Inc., 703 So.2d 1117, 1119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Fla. High Sch. Activities Ass’n Inc. v. Benitez, 748 So.2d 358,359 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). “Reasonable notice is defined as that notice that provides a “meaningful opportunity to prepare and to defend against the allegations of the motion or complaint.” “Reasonable notice is especially important because of the heavy burden placed on a litigant who seeks to dissolve a temporary injunction after a hearing conducted with “proper” notice because any argument or evidence that could have been offered at the initial hearing cannot be the basis of a motion to dissolve the injunction as only a change of condition after entry of the temporary injunction with notice will suffice.” Pecora v. Pecora, 697 So.2d 1267, 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
4.) The 2nd DCA has held that “seven days notice of a hearing on a temporary injunction was reasonable.” Harrison v Palm Harbor MRI, Inc., 703 So.2d 1117, 1119 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1997)
5.) An order granting an injunction is an appealable non-final order, Fla.R.App.P.9.130(a)(3)(B)
“It is far better to redraw lines on a piece of paper to make them consistent with occupancy on the ground than to uproot and move all of the property owners who have in good faith erected homes, fences and other improvements in conformity with monuments on the ground, in order to make their actual occupancy and possession conform to what is erroneously shown on a piece of paper recorded in the courthouse.” Opinion of Judge Cowart: McGhee V. Young 4th DCA 606 So.2d 1215:1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10366; 17 Fla.L. Weekly D 2296))
Aug 5, 2005 Hearing Date 3:30 p.m Judge Kelvin Wells
We can not find an attorney, so we go pro-se, (in person) because if we do not make an appearance we will lose by default.
I ask for a continuance.
No “I am predisposed to hear this now” was the answer from Judge Wells. “Sit down”.
So it begins with 14 & 1/2 hours of so called “preparation”, we show copies of three documents. (the 1980 survey, the title insurance, My Location Map because our home does not appear on Jays Survey)
Mr. Odom puts on
-Mr. Brannon and his title work
-Mr. Lundy and his survey
-“Exhibit A” an aerial photograph with lines and paragraphs showing our entire property,
some of Mr. Quillian’s property, some of Mr. Odom’s property, and some of County
Highway 83 A aka Bay Loop Rd, some of Sarah Street, and some of Mr. Leo
Burnham’s property, and some of Mr. Ronnie Brannon’s property.
-The Dozer driver and other workers
-Himself
In the end there are no criminal charges issued but we are restrained from parcel 2. The injunction order signed by Judge Kelvin Wells does not comply to the structure required of the four tine test invoked in the petition, it does not maintain the status quo it disrupts it, this injunction order goes to far as it adjudicates ownership/control of real estate and dislodges a family for its home and business of more than twelve years and does so even though the Court was not properly convened to approach these last questions; (See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110 b).The description of the "reasonable time frame of 7 days" is in contrast to the 14 ½ business hours ( 1 1/2 days) of notice we had.
Appellant asserts that the Hammock Bay Community Development District is a quasi governmental entity formed under Fl. St. 190 and that the injunction involves this agency, it’s authority, and it’s limitations. Thus wrongfully influencing the court in the first place and when granted constitutes a “taking” without due process and violation of both the US Constitution and the State of Florida's Constitution. As a direct consequence of the injunction it is impossible to restore this land to its rightful owner therefore damages may well be due as sovereign immunity may provide no protection because “liability is usually established simply upon proof that the injunction was vacated.” “Parker Tampa Two”, 544 So.2d at 1021: National Sur. Co. v. Willys-Overland, Inc., 103 Fla. 738, 138 So. 24 (Fla. 1931); Shea v. Central Diagnostic Serv., Inc., 552 So.2d 344, 346 (Fla. 5th DCA)
“That damages for a wrongful injunction under this statue (60.07) were limited to the amount of the bond unless the injunction was obtained maliciously or in bad faith”, We so assert. “Parker Tampa Two”, 544 So.2d at 1021
“If the actions of the agency constituted a total taking a business would be entitled to business loss damages only if it had been located on the property for five years”, We so assert. %73.071(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995); see Department of Transp. V. Fortune Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 532 So.2d 1267, 1269-1270 (Fla.1988)
Mr. Ramey was either incompetent or untruthful. An appeal could have and should have been filed in the first 30 days from issuance.
After 30 days, that ability is waived. Without our knowledge (at the time) we lost this option by relying on Ramey's determination that we had no recourse in August
Judge Wells instructs our opponent to write his order and tells them on page 56 line 16 “Let him have a look at it” but does not tell them to allow for review and comment from us before summiting it for his signature. On August 10, 2005 We are served with a copy of the proposed order. We have not found an attorney as yet, we call and leave a message requesting a call back because we have noticed an important error in the “proposed” order they have written. As written, it says we are restrained from “Exhibit A” not just “parcel 2”. The call is not returned and no change is made.
-On August 11, 2005, just six days after the hearing, Judge Wells signs the injunction order as written, maybe he read it before he signed it and “knew” the difference, maybe not.
-Now, by written signed order of the court, we are restrained from everything shown in “Exhibit A”. Look at page 56 lines 16, thru 19 of the transcript for clarity.
But before you do we have this comment about the “Official” Transcript.
When we received our copy the first thing we noticed was there was no record of our motion for a continuance. We called the court reporter and confront her, and she told us that she was not able to include that because the Judge had not yet “technically” convened the hearing in her mind, but she did remember hearing the motion.
Lesson: If you are in court, Any Attorney is better than no Attorney even if you need a specialized Attorney.
Lesson: I have also learned that sarcasm does not translate well in the sterile environment of a Legal transcript, example page 56 lines 2 & 3. So select your words with this in mind. If I had any experience with this I surely would have phrased my response differently.
Lesson: I should have stated my motion repeatedly in the body of the trial and again near the end do not let fear stop you.
.
Civil Rights Violations
On September 17th of 1787, the Constitution of the United States of America was signed by the Continental Congress. This document written by the founders of this country, and establishes the basic structure and functions of the federal government, grants certain specified rights called constitutional rights to the American people, and places limits on the powers and activities of our federal and state governments. The term "U.S. Constitution" also includes amendments. The first ten amendments to the Constitution are referred to as the Bill of Rights. More amendments have been added and is an example of how the Law grows and changes.
The 5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation (the subject is due process)
The 11th Amendment: passed on March 4th 1794 - ratified on February 7th, 1795; the first amendment to the Constitution after the Bill of Rights, was adopted following the Supreme Court's ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S.. 419 (1793). In Chisholm, the Court ruled that federal courts had the authority to hear cases in law and equity brought by private citizens against state (the subject is Sovereign immunity and tort liability of government)
The 14th Amendment: passed on July 9th,1866 - ratified on June 13th 1866: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (the subject is due process)
It seems well settled that the underlying concept of due process is that government may not behave arbitrarily and capriciously, but must act fairly according to established rules. Today most rulings have replaced the word capriciously with the word irrational.
There seems to be two categories of due process: substantive and procedural. Under substantive due process, the content of the law must itself be fair. A Cornell Law web site states “the Supreme court will examine the content of a law to determine whether it violates fundamental rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution” but gave no case site.
Under procedural due process, the rules by which a law is constructed and implemented must be fair.
Tort is a legal term and is defined as: “ A private or civil wrong or injury, other than a breach of contract, for which the court will provide a remedy in the form of an action for damages. A violation of a duty imposed by general law or otherwise upon all persons occupying the relation to each other which is involved in a given transaction.There must always be a violation of some duty owing to the plaintiff, and generally such duty must arise by operation of the law and not by mere agreement of the parties. Three elements of every tort action are: Existence of a legal duty from the defendant to the plaintiff, breach of that duty, and damages as a proximate result.” (Blacks Law Dictionary 5th ed. pg. 1335).
The 5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation (the subject is due process)
The 11th Amendment: passed on March 4th 1794 - ratified on February 7th, 1795; the first amendment to the Constitution after the Bill of Rights, was adopted following the Supreme Court's ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S.. 419 (1793). In Chisholm, the Court ruled that federal courts had the authority to hear cases in law and equity brought by private citizens against state (the subject is Sovereign immunity and tort liability of government)
The 14th Amendment: passed on July 9th,1866 - ratified on June 13th 1866: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (the subject is due process)
It seems well settled that the underlying concept of due process is that government may not behave arbitrarily and capriciously, but must act fairly according to established rules. Today most rulings have replaced the word capriciously with the word irrational.
There seems to be two categories of due process: substantive and procedural. Under substantive due process, the content of the law must itself be fair. A Cornell Law web site states “the Supreme court will examine the content of a law to determine whether it violates fundamental rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution” but gave no case site.
Under procedural due process, the rules by which a law is constructed and implemented must be fair.
Tort is a legal term and is defined as: “ A private or civil wrong or injury, other than a breach of contract, for which the court will provide a remedy in the form of an action for damages. A violation of a duty imposed by general law or otherwise upon all persons occupying the relation to each other which is involved in a given transaction.There must always be a violation of some duty owing to the plaintiff, and generally such duty must arise by operation of the law and not by mere agreement of the parties. Three elements of every tort action are: Existence of a legal duty from the defendant to the plaintiff, breach of that duty, and damages as a proximate result.” (Blacks Law Dictionary 5th ed. pg. 1335).
We have mentioned the fires, so that explains why some documents are “gone”.
We have mentioned the County Surveyors Office; But there is no explanation of why all of it’s records are “gone”.
And now add these facts to this equation:
We requested to read several Walton County Court Cases - all properly noted in the Docket Books and related to Land Boundary issues. We were told that, “Those Cases were checked out and not returned so we do not have copies of them for you to read”.
The Clerk did not even know who checked the files out or when.
More missing public records, related to the TRS grid.
We have mentioned the County Surveyors Office; But there is no explanation of why all of it’s records are “gone”.
And now add these facts to this equation:
We requested to read several Walton County Court Cases - all properly noted in the Docket Books and related to Land Boundary issues. We were told that, “Those Cases were checked out and not returned so we do not have copies of them for you to read”.
The Clerk did not even know who checked the files out or when.
More missing public records, related to the TRS grid.
This is part of the Plaintiff's Exhibit from the 1st 2005 hearing for a restraining order. During a deposition at a later date, Mr. Odom testified that he produced it and later he testified that his staff actually produced it. The green line is the location of the Section line as claimed by Mr. Odom and the yellow outline is the route of the East main entrance for Hammock Bay Subdivision that he wanted to build in 2005. The proposed road was within the Hammock Bay CDD boundary description for improvements. The 35 Million Dollar CDD Bond Money is best described as “public money”.
For the sake of clarity we will show you the fenced land we acquired in 1993; shown in black. c This white line is the location of the section line when we moved in and as proven by the 1956 Fl. DOT survey. c The yellow area is Parcel 2, the land subject to the Special Warranty Deed issued to Adel our predecessor in title from the State of Florida in 1956. Parcel 2 is also the area of the “Champion Paper Co. agreement of 1993. The question before the Court: is the green line the section line or is the white line the section line established in 1826 by the BLM
Now here is parcel 1, c and here is parcel 2, c the green line is where Mr. Odom claims the section line is located the area above this line, shown in white is 38 feet wide, 660 feet long, the only area he did not sue us for. c However we are in fact restrained or enjoined from everything you see in this exhibit, top to bottom side to side by written order of the Court. We assert that there is not a Sheriff in Walton County that would not enforce this order to the letter; no matter what argument was offered.
Note the Section corner ID now circled in blue this is not the correct location. c The green line is where Jay Odom claims the Section line is located. c…c Notice that it passes through our commercial buildings c now circled in blue and our home c, that was constructed in the 1940’s, also now circled in blue. This green line is tied to the ACC “Placed Reference Monuments” discussed before. Jay Odom has 3100 + acres but he has sued us for all of the land south of the green line to the bottom red line, the area now shaded red or about 2.55 acres. c The purple circles show the homes of our neighbors. c The yellow outline is East main entrance to the Hammock Bay Subdivision and is one of the roads Jay Odom wants to build with public money.
This will show you the practical result of the final order of the Walton County Circuit Court in Oct of 2009. The Green line is now the new location of the Section line, the white dotted line is the old location. Note the impact to the gold areas and the neighbors home as our property is forced north. c The transparent purple area is the area of double taxation. c Note the overlaps onto areas outlined in gold show land size reduction or loss. Notice that now our home and our business “sit” on both sides of the “New Jogged Section Line”. Parcel 1 is selected by the Court as “the actual” location of the boundary by agreement with Champion Paper in 1993 & we are guilty of trespass on Parcel 2 which is given to Mr. Odom. But the real and unanswered questions remain; is this the original location of the 1826 BLM section line and can a County Judge do this?
We suggest that the answer is no. We suggest that this was done not because it is what the law says should be done (case law) but because it was expedient and the missing Federal law is not there to stop it.
Expedient for the Walton County Commission, expedient for the Hammock Bay Community Development District, expedient for Mr. Jay Odom, expedient for the City of Freeport, and expedient for the State of Florida.
In support of this assertion we offer this: In the finial judgment the judge offers no case law what so ever to support his decision. and We assert that they are all wanting us to just give up and go away because this case exposes the negligence of Walton County, and the State of Florida in the maintenance of the original Federal TRS Grid. This case also exposes the gapping hole in the Foundational Infrastructure of Legal Land Title in The United States created by the lack of a Federal law requiring maintenance of the TRS grid in every County in each of the 37 Public Land States.
Consider for a moment if it is logical for the Florida Appeals Court to consider these issues non-controversial when this proves that any County Judge can move Federally established section line locations around at will, despite stacks of State and Federal Case Law that flatly says otherwise and without proper jurisdiction.
As a consumer you had better be very, very careful when and where you purchase real estate because as we have said “You can end up like us”. If you work for a lending institution that funds real estate consider how this effects you and your company if the land you finance can be moved “under” other land, resized, or even disappear.
This then is why we need your help, together we can put a stop to this.
For the sake of clarity we will show you the fenced land we acquired in 1993; shown in black. c This white line is the location of the section line when we moved in and as proven by the 1956 Fl. DOT survey. c The yellow area is Parcel 2, the land subject to the Special Warranty Deed issued to Adel our predecessor in title from the State of Florida in 1956. Parcel 2 is also the area of the “Champion Paper Co. agreement of 1993. The question before the Court: is the green line the section line or is the white line the section line established in 1826 by the BLM
Now here is parcel 1, c and here is parcel 2, c the green line is where Mr. Odom claims the section line is located the area above this line, shown in white is 38 feet wide, 660 feet long, the only area he did not sue us for. c However we are in fact restrained or enjoined from everything you see in this exhibit, top to bottom side to side by written order of the Court. We assert that there is not a Sheriff in Walton County that would not enforce this order to the letter; no matter what argument was offered.
Note the Section corner ID now circled in blue this is not the correct location. c The green line is where Jay Odom claims the Section line is located. c…c Notice that it passes through our commercial buildings c now circled in blue and our home c, that was constructed in the 1940’s, also now circled in blue. This green line is tied to the ACC “Placed Reference Monuments” discussed before. Jay Odom has 3100 + acres but he has sued us for all of the land south of the green line to the bottom red line, the area now shaded red or about 2.55 acres. c The purple circles show the homes of our neighbors. c The yellow outline is East main entrance to the Hammock Bay Subdivision and is one of the roads Jay Odom wants to build with public money.
This will show you the practical result of the final order of the Walton County Circuit Court in Oct of 2009. The Green line is now the new location of the Section line, the white dotted line is the old location. Note the impact to the gold areas and the neighbors home as our property is forced north. c The transparent purple area is the area of double taxation. c Note the overlaps onto areas outlined in gold show land size reduction or loss. Notice that now our home and our business “sit” on both sides of the “New Jogged Section Line”. Parcel 1 is selected by the Court as “the actual” location of the boundary by agreement with Champion Paper in 1993 & we are guilty of trespass on Parcel 2 which is given to Mr. Odom. But the real and unanswered questions remain; is this the original location of the 1826 BLM section line and can a County Judge do this?
We suggest that the answer is no. We suggest that this was done not because it is what the law says should be done (case law) but because it was expedient and the missing Federal law is not there to stop it.
Expedient for the Walton County Commission, expedient for the Hammock Bay Community Development District, expedient for Mr. Jay Odom, expedient for the City of Freeport, and expedient for the State of Florida.
In support of this assertion we offer this: In the finial judgment the judge offers no case law what so ever to support his decision. and We assert that they are all wanting us to just give up and go away because this case exposes the negligence of Walton County, and the State of Florida in the maintenance of the original Federal TRS Grid. This case also exposes the gapping hole in the Foundational Infrastructure of Legal Land Title in The United States created by the lack of a Federal law requiring maintenance of the TRS grid in every County in each of the 37 Public Land States.
Consider for a moment if it is logical for the Florida Appeals Court to consider these issues non-controversial when this proves that any County Judge can move Federally established section line locations around at will, despite stacks of State and Federal Case Law that flatly says otherwise and without proper jurisdiction.
As a consumer you had better be very, very careful when and where you purchase real estate because as we have said “You can end up like us”. If you work for a lending institution that funds real estate consider how this effects you and your company if the land you finance can be moved “under” other land, resized, or even disappear.
This then is why we need your help, together we can put a stop to this.
Above - the 2 page restraining order issued on Aug. 5th, 2005