Monday, March 1, 2010

If At First You Don't Succeed

When I was unable to get any information from the city on the easement taken from my property for the new road extension, I filed open records requests with both the city and the county--and received a receipt for some fencing.


Anonymous said...

ml wants you to think she's stupid part 2

mary lou voluntarily gave the land to the city, not an easemnt but outright deed. she signed the deed herself. there was no condemnation, she gave a strip of land about 30 by 600 feet

in return she got a fence
600ft of frontage on a new street
access to water,sewer and electricity
a curb

and most important, a commitment from the city to support a zoning change to commercial which was done later

all this likely doubled or tripled her land value making her house and land worth perhaps 3 million or more, a sweet deal indeed

and now she wants you to think it was done without her knowledge or consent? what hogwash!

perhaps she is indeed stupid

ML said...

Please go back to the beginning of this blog and read the post entitled "My Story".

I never signed any document/s like what is described in the comment above. Any such document with my signature on it is fraudulent and/or forged.

City employees actually told me I'd have to pay substantial fees to hook our house up to city water and sewer services, so I kept us on our well and septic system. We have had city electric service and curbs since our house was built in 1988 (while I was still married).

The local newspaper actually noted in an article that I attended the zoning change hearing and actively protested it. I also filed protests with local and state officials over the fact that the city never notified me of the proposed zoning change or hearing, and I fired the attorney who was supposed to be representing me at the time for deliberately concealing this hearing from me and lying to me about it when I did find out about it 2 hours before it was supposed to take place. (The city manager also initially lied to me about the fact that the hearing actually involved my property.)

Anonymous said...

mary lou is both lying AND BEING DECEPTIVE

she signed the deed, a public record anyone can see. she got the curb sewer etc on MILAM street about 2002

and yes, you have to pay to hook up your house to services but the house is on another street and is completely irrelevent to this matter.

what is relevent is that she was substantially enriched by the deeding of the land for milam street

it is sheer idiocy to challenge the zoning change, it makes no sense whatsoever.

she isnt

nearly as ingorant as she wants you to think...she LOVES THE THOUGHT OF BEEING A VICTIM EVEN IF SHE HAS TO MAKE IT ALL UP

ML said...

I can see that I need to clear up a few points. My land was annexed by the city a few years before the new road extension that borders it was constructed. However, I never received any sort of notification from the city that my land was being annexed; I found out about it when I wrote to the city to complain about a fire hydrant that was installed in the middle of our front yard.

In my complaint to the city, I threatened to send photographs of the fire hydrant in front of our house to all of the local t.v. stations. When this was received, the mayor at the time wrote me back to say that the hydrant would be moved (and it quickly was!). He also stated at that time that my ex-husband had received the official notification of the annexation and a one-time offer to connect to city water and sewer that the mayor said the city had assumed my ex- would share with me.

Later when the new road extension was put through along the side of my property through the easement in question, of course the city built the same curbing and installed the same utilities alongside my property as along the rest of the road. I was never given any notice of or input on this, and I was never offered any new access to city water or sewer service.

My ex-husband, the city, and everyone else around here knew very well that I would vigorously protest the zoning change to commercial on my property because I would not be able to afford the grossly increased property taxes that would (and did) result and would be forced out. It's clear that the fraudulent trust was set up, illegally manipulated, and filed in order to a) conceal changes in the status of my property and that around me regarding lucrative commercial development due to my property's location; b) attempt to conceal enormous increases in my property tax appraisals [more on this later]; and c) obtain my property for development without having to pay for it and without having to pay the tax penalties for taking it out of ag. use.

Anonymous said...

half truths and hogwash...again

poor mary lou cannot accept that there was no conspiracy whatsoever. when land changes ownership, ag exemptions are automatically cancelled and must be re-applied-for(half-truth)

the annexation was irrelevent to mary lou, the zoning change was relevent and , as she implies, very much to her advantage, both of these items wer published in the paper,(hogwash)

mary lou still doesnt understand that when she put her assets in an irrevocable trust, she voluntarily gave up control of the property

and assets to a trustee. she makes a huge deal of what she perceives were changes, none was relevent anyway

now she claims the trust was the suggestion of law enforcement to better solve the conspiracy of all the "related and unexplained" deaths(complete utter hogwash)