FLORIDA TIITF ROAD
EASEMENTS
Lies of the Sate of Florida
Help Information For Eminent Domain
Attorneys
By Pastor G. Reckart
Florida Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust
Fund (TIITF);
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP);
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
Am I angry? Am I mad? No, I am just irritated that government has abused the old and the young with these Murphy Act road reservations and I think enough is enough. So, I busied myself to question authority and found a lot of liars and distorters from the TIITF Board to FDEP and FDOT, to City Hall, to the County Commission, to the Court House, and to the Courts of Appeal. I have written many letters to various government officials and all I got back was lies and distortations. I knew then the only way to cure the lies in high places was to go on the internet and expose them. So, all my pages concerning TIITF reservations has one goal and purpose: TO LEGALLY BRING THEM TO AN END! I do sincerely apologize to the judges and attorneys I anger. All it takes for me to remove these pages from the internet is Governor Bush correcting the lies and corruption in government concerning Murphy Act TIITF reservations.
Florida Statute 253.82(1)(a) was a victory for the people of Florida when it was enacted. Those who had a Murphy Act road reservation as a cloud on their title could obtain a stream-lined release with little cost, whereas the normal release has a FDEP $300 nonrefundable application fee. This does not count the cost of a required updated survey, title search for the TIITF deed and number, which can well amount to over $2,000. The stream-lined method cost only the filing fee of the Tax Collector's certificate which is about $10. But few knew of F.S. 253.82(1)(a) and availed themselves of the release therein. Releases that were requested by compliance of this Statute were denied. Releases of Murphy road reservations at this time could easily be obtained by filing an application with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), providing no road project was underway. FDEP would forward the application to FDOT and here a decision was made if a road easement reservation existed or needed for an existing transportation plan. Applying the rules of FDOT up to 1978, if the parcel contained less the ten acres, a reservation was not considered to exist so releases were issued summarily with no additional test applied. But there were thousands of Murphy Act parcels that had TIITF reservations on them and there was no ten acre clause. These wanted a stream-lined way to obtain a release that did not cost thousands of dollars. A Bill was introduced in the Florida Senate and the Florida House of Representatives in 1984 to provide an easy release method (Ch.84-197). But this legislative initiative was to be rail-roaded with lies and fraud by FDEP and the office of General Counsel.
I will post page one of the legal opinion of this statute that was issued in 1989 that railroads the release:
The "Summary of Answer" begins the lies and fraud. Claiming that the release provided in the Statute did not exist at all to property owners whose current deed descended from a previous Murphy deed. This opinion is a lie! I have found no where in the legislative record, the short title to the bills, or committee notes this fraudlent interpretation. No where in F.S. 253.82(1)(a) is the idea mentioned or floated, that a person's deed determined if the release provided was valid. FDEP does not reference legislative intent in any of its Legal Opinion. Why? Why must they conjure up these lies? Why not have honesty in government and government employees. There is no honesty because the attitude of FDEP is to win in court by deceiving and lying to jury and judges. How can these lies slip by the eyes of judges and lawyers? It is because the people of Florida are represented by Florida Bar lawyers who are inept in this area of eminent domain. The Florida Bar has all these smart men leading committees, heading up the legal system, among the membership of which are nearly all the judges in the State, but they have never had a select committee to review this issue and bring justice to the court room. The Florida Bar should be ashamed of itself. It is not performing its duty to the people of Flordia. If they did, they would have gotten to the bottom of this injustice and put out a legal opinion of its own compatiable to my findings in this web site. But they won't because I have insulted a few paying members. The legal union that controls lawyers and the court room is corrupt. That is the only conclusion I can reach.
Now for page two of the illegal opinion:
FDEP claims there is a conflict between Subsection (1) and Subsection (5). I say this is all baloney. There is no conflict! There is a conflict because they want to make one to issue their own interpretation. Take away the alleged conflict and the Legal Opinion would be shortend to one page and two paragraphs. But the idea of a conflict lays the foundation for the lies FDEP will spin. They will influence judges with this legal gobblygook about the duty of courts to harmonize conflicts within the same statute. This would lead a judge to believe he has a duty to interpret 253.82 (1)(a) in the manner FDEP conjured up, so he will enforce subsection (5) to the point of canceling subsection (1)(a). This is fraud upon the court. A judge should first determine if a conflict existed. He should avail himself of all arguments and points of view before he renders his opinion. To refuse arguments on appeal and issue opinions without comment is injustice. The judge(s) should not allow FDEP or others to prostitute his ears with false legal opinions, or in private discussion in his chambers, or while on a fishing trip. He should sit and judge according to law, fact, proper interpretation, and fairness. I say to any judge who reads my materials. Get the facts and you will see that FDEP is lying and perverting the truth in their so-called 1989-10 legal opinion. Which "legal opinion" is nothing more then an illegal opinion.
On page two FDEP tries to destroy subsection (1)(a) by falsifying interpretation of the words: "state held subsurface rights." See, they have to falsify the interpretation because a right held, is a right held by a reservation upon a deed. If there is no deed reserving the subsurface interest, then the interest does not exist until property on which a reservation will be asserted is deeded out. If there is no deed, there is no reservation. To overcome this language in subsection (1)(a) of the statute, FDEP tries to introduce the "theory" that the releases apply only to properties owned by the state but not deeded out and upon which no reservation was ever asserted. How come they did not present the short title to the bills that enacted this legislation? How come they never spoke one word of legislative intent? In short, there is no reservation on a deed that does not have in the chain of title a Murphy Act deed. But, according to FDEP the State still held interest and rights to these lands although there is no legal document they took back these lands and cite the certificate numbers proving they did. The mention of subsurface rights has to do with 1911 law that requires reservation of such rights is baloney. How come there is no legislative notes of the committees that states this? How come FDEP has not provided these notes and records to back up their claims? They did not because they do not exist! This they think gives them the right to advance their own theory and lawyers and judges should take it because it is their legal opinion.
This falsehood is easily exposed as subsection (1)(a) makes no mention of this theory. The subsection reads in such a way that something is being released that is held by the state. What is being released? All rights in the land including subsurface rights. This is just that simple. Why would they be releasing rights if according to FDEP illegal interpretation they were really trying to clarify "quality of title" with no RELEASE INTENDED OR IMPLIED. This means, even those who did not have a Murphy Deed in the chain of title had no procedure for release, since according to FDEP the 1911 theory gives no release at all to any reservation.
Give me a break! (1)(a) talks about a release of state owned rights and FDEP says no, they weren't going to release anything! This is blatant lying and fraud. Then, DFEP floats the lie that if there is a release, it would apply to wild deeds, or on property whose title did not come from a Murphy Act conveyance. When this lie was first told me many years ago by Jack Wolff at FDEP, I ask him to show me one case where a release was granted per F.S. 253.82(1)(a) to a wild deed owner, or to an owner whose title did not come from a Murphy conveyance, but yet was state owned under the Murphy Act. Mr. Wolff told me there was no such release ever obtained that he was aware of! Now why would the legislature enact a law that gave NO ONE a release per the subsection? FDEP is good at lying and twisting.
Now for page three of the illegal opinion:
The Kortum case, the Kortum case, the Kortum case: yes, where FDEP passed its lies and deceived lawyers and the court. Now that is a real boast. They cheated a citizen with their lies. They got away with it. And this set a court precedent that other judges will refer to in their own decisions. Now how's that for placing corruption in the legal system and Westlaw? I don't blame the judges to much, they were lied to, deceived, and they felt they could trust FDEP to be an honorable government agency. In addition, the lawyers who drew up this false Legal Opinion were members of the legal union, the Florida Bar. Surely the brotherhood would not be off the square on this and so they slam down the gavel and sealed the lies to be the truth. Kortum lost because of lies, distortations, lawyers who were inept, and deceived judges. Boy that is something to boast about, ...FDEP. But right there in their legal opinion they could not resist the first legal case in Florida where they achieved results in their favor using fraud.
So, the idea subsection (1)(a) was just trying to "clarify the quality of title" is a big fat lie! Everything built upon that lie is still a lie, every court ruling relying upon the FDEP legal opinion is a lie. (1)(a) releases all rights in the land including state held subsurface rights. It is just that simple. ALL RIGHTS ARE RELEASED. Adding "including subsurface rights" only clarifies the interest being released is the total bundle of rights. Can I get a judge to see the simplicity in this simple truth?
Now, FDEP tries to wrap up their fraud and lies by saying that subsection (5) somehow squashes any interpretation of release of the state's interest in (1)(a). Subsection (5) says:
"Nothing herein affects the validity of previous conveyances of Murphy Act lands by the board of trustees or previous reservations or restrictions in such conveyances."
The release mentioned in subsection (1)(a) assumes there are valid reservations held by the State. The statement: "The interest of the state in any land which was acquired by the state under chapter 18296, Laws of Florida, 1937" indicates the State has valid reservations contained in a previous deeded out conveyances. If this is not true, then subsection (5) referring to "validity of previous conveyances" could never be applied to subsection (1)(a). But, FDEP applies subsection (5) to (1)(a) in a manner to say the release should not apply to prior conveyances or previous reservations and restrictions in such conveyances. This is a contradiction to the illegal opinion rendered in 1989. On the one hand they say (1)(a) releases interest of the State obtained via the 1938 Murphy Act, only on property not deeded out, on which there are no reservations or restrictions in the chain of title. Now they apply subsection (5) as if there are reservations intended in subsection (1)(a). This is a direct contradition!
The perverted twist they place on (5) is inexcuseable. Here is a copy of my email to the General Counsel at FDEP. It is self explanatory:
June 8, 2006
To: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Gregory Munson
General Counsel
Harold G. Vielhauer
Deputy General Counsel
Dear Mr. Munson:
Dear Mr. Vielhauer:
I am in receipt of the letter dated June 5, 2006 concerning the 1989-10 Legal Opinion of F.S. 253.82. I have reviewed the legal opinion.
I was shocked at the outright lying in this opinion and the obvious fraud upon the people of Florida intended by it. I did not read a single word of legislative intent in the opinion. Nor did I read an accurate interpretation of the words:
"The rights that are released under this subsection are all rights in the land, including state-held subsurface rights."
The word "released" indicates something held. What was held? Road right-of-way easements and subsurface rights.
The sentence is clear. Under this subsection "all rights in the land" were to be released.
The writer of the 1989 opinion outright lied.
The mention of "state-held subsurface rights" was not placed in this subsection refering to earlier deeds as the writer stated. It was not placed in the subsection to "clarify the quality of title received by the taxpayer in the absence of a Murphy Act deed." This is all lies.
The legislative intent of this subsection was to release "ALL RIGHTS" including subsurface rights.
Paragraph 5 has also been applied in a false way.
This subsection is simply saying that deeds previously conveyed cannot be made invalid because of 253.82 and the foregoing four subsections. (5) does not apply to (1)(a) only! The issue here is the fraudulent interpretation by the General Counsel to persuade courts and attorneys not to allow release of the interest of the state. This is contrary to the very words of the statute.
The legislative intent of F.S. 253.82 (1)(a) does not question or challenge the validity of any prior conveyance. To apply subsection (5) to this subsection and imply a release per (1)(a) challenges the validity of a prior conveyance is lying and fraud.
I intend to do research on the legislative intent of this statute.
I believe FDEP is practicing this fraud to insure these interest of the state to be released ARE NOT RELEASED! Contrary to the intent of the law itself.
I believe it is time FDEP corrects this injustice to the citizens of Florida.
I am asking for an up-dated opinion that corrects the lies, perversion, twist of interpretation, and outright fraud.
I would like to hear from you on this matter.
Thank you for reading this email. I will send a copy to General Counsel Gregory Munson.
Gary Reckart
4006 N. Marguerite Street
Tampa, Florida 33603
HERE IT IS AUGUST 25, 2006 AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL OF FDEP! KNOW WHY? THEY KNOW THEY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT IN THEIR LIES AND DO NOT WANT A PUBLIC RECORD OF ANY KIND ADDRESSING THESE LIES.
_______________________________________________________________
It is time the courts send the message to FDEP that its lies will not pervert justice in the court room.
Pastor Reckart