08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res

8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res

1/25

BY CERTIFIED MAIL W/ RETURN RECEIPT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

Appeal No. 08-14846-FF

_________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-0228-CV-FTM-JES-SPC

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.

Defendants-Appellees.

__________________________________________

On Appeal from the U.S. District Court

for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division

___________________________________________

EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENJOIN 11TH

CIRCUIT JUDGES FROM

DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS, FRAUD, FALSE PRETENSES,

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, CONVERSION, AND THEFT

PUBLIC RECORD EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STEELES

CONCEALMENT, FRAUD, DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS, EXTORTION

THREATS, TAMPERING WITH PUBLIC RECORDS, AND WITNESSES

UNDER FALSE PRETENSES THATEMINENT DOMAINFRAUD-

SCHEME O.R.569/875 IS A RESOLUTION/LEGISLATIVE ACT

(April 22, 2009)

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, AND

DR. JORG BUSSE, Appellants,pro seP.O. Box 7561, Naples, FL 34101-7561

T: 239-595-7074; E-mail: [email protected]


2/25

CERTIFIED MAIL W/ RETURN RECEIPT

2

11TH

CIRCUIT CONCEALED APPELLANTS FREE AND CLEAR TITLE

1. Criminally, the 11th

Circuit concealed that Appellants title to their lands [PID

12-44-20-01-00015.015A] was not encumbered by Lee Countys eminent

domain extortion and fraud-scheme O.R.569/875. The Court knew that in

1998 Lee County had removed and eliminated any cloud of said forgery

O.R.569/875 under Blue Sheet 980206 and O.R.2967/1084-1090. The 11th

Circuit treated Appellants disparately from similarly-situated Cayo Costa

landowners such as, e.g., Alice M. S. Robinson, A. C. Roesch, Janet Lay, and

John Lay.

2. The 11th

Circuit concealed that Appellants perfect marketable title1

to riparian

Gulf-front Lot 15A/PID 12-44-20-01-00015.015A [i.e., the upland, the

adjoining platted designated 60 wide street, accretions, private easements,

platted alley to centerline] was an unencumbered title, free and clear from

any reasonable doubt as to any question of law or fact necessary to sustain its

validity. See In the Matter of Garfinkle, 672 F.2d 1340, 1345(11th

Cir.1983).

Only corrupt and unfit judges in the 11th

Circuits shoes could have possibly

concluded that absent any legal description, said fraud-scheme O.R.569/875

was a legislative act. Here, no reasonable and intelligentjudge couldpossibly

1Marketable title is unencumbered title, free from reasonable doubt as to any question of law or factnecessary to sustain its validity. Winkler v. Neilinger, 153 Fla. 288, 14 So.2d 403(1943); Walker v. Close,98 Fla. 1103, 125 So. 521, reh. denied, 98 Fla. 1125, 126 So. 289 (1930); Wheeler v. Sullivan, 90 Fla. 711,106 So. 876 (1925).


3/25


3

point to any fact in the public record, which would cause a reasonable person to

have a doubt. Lee County never made any affirmative claim to ownership of

the non-existent unidentified/undesignated areas, because it knew

O.R.569/875 was a scandalous sham. This Court cannot tell a scam from a

valid claim and must recuse itself in its entirety, because it obstructed

justice under 18 U.S.C. 1503 for Appellees bribes. In Florida, title is

marketable if it is:

such as to make it reasonably certain that it will not be called in question

in the future so as to subject the purchaser to the hazard of litigation.... It

must be, as is sometimes said, a title which can be sold to a reasonable

purchaser or mortgaged to a person ofreasonable prudence, and which is

not subject to such a doubt or cloud as will affect its market value.

Here the Court knew that any cloudby said eminent domainextortion-scheme

had been removed in 1998. Here, the 11th Circuit conspired not to review the

District Court's prima faciecorrupted factual finding(s) for clear error and to

independently evaluate its perverted legal conclusions. Wheeler v. City of

Pleasant Grove, 896 F.2d 1347, 1350(11th

Cir.1990)(per curiam).

3. Appellants also seek damages under the civil theft statute. Fla.Stat.Ann.

772.11 (West Supp.1990). Here, the Defendant 11th

Circuit Judges are guilty of

civil theft, because they knew that Lee Countys fraudulent land claim


4/25


4

O.R.569/875 was invalid. Based on the null and void description of lands

fraudulently claimed, any condemnation was impossible.

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL THEFT

4. The civil theft statute, Fla.Stat.Ann. 772.11, provides a civil remedy for

violations of the criminal theft statute, Fla.Stat.Ann. 8XX-XXX-XXX.037

(West Supp.1990). The criminal theft statute states:

(1) A person is guilty of theft if he knowingly obtains or uses, or

endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to,

either temporarily or permanently:(a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit

therefrom.

(b) Appropriate the property to his own use or to the use of any person not

entitledthereto.

Fla.Stat. at Sec. 812.014(1)(1985).

5. Here, the 11th

Circuit knew that Appellants substantial fence and personal

property on said riparian Gulf-front Lot 15A was property of another, i.e.,

Appellants property. Defendants Lee County were guilty of civil theft,

because the record contained independent evidence of criminal intent on

Defendants, Lee County, part to commit civil theft. The self-authenticating

public records, business records, and surrounding circumstances of the case

could be found to prove Defendants mental intent. See Brewer v. State, 413

So.2d 1217, 1219-20(Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1982). See Exhibit: Lee County Sheriffs


5/25


5

Office Property Seizure on Cayo Costa Lot 15A, 10-30-2008; CFS # 2008-

451953.

6. Here, a jury could reasonably find that Defendants Lee County had no right

whatosoever to Appellants property and then refused to give Appellants

property back. See Senfeld v. Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Co., 450 So.2d

1157(Fla.3d D.C.A. 1984). Here, there was sufficient public-record-evidence to

support, e.g., civil theft, false pretenses, fraud, and deliberate deprivations

under color of said forgery.

11th

CIRCUIT CONCEALED INVALIDITY OF FRAUDULENT CLAIM

7. In exchange for Appellees bribes, the 11th

Circuit concealed the prima facie

invalidity of said fraudulent claim and conspired to extend Lee Countys

extortion and fraud-scheme. Under the terms of the civil statute, the District

Court was required to find that Lee Countys and Petersons claims were

without factual or legal support. Id. at 772.11. The 11th

Circuit conspired

not to review the District Court's findings forclear error. Under Florida law, a

conversion occurs in violation of the criminal theft statute when a person

[here, Appellant(s)] who has a right to possession of property demands its

return, and the property is not relinquished. Senfeld v. Bank of Nova Scotia

Trust Co., 450 So.2d 1157, 1161(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984); see Rosenthal Toyota,

Inc. v. Thorpe, 824 F.2d 897, 901(11th

Cir.1987).


6/25


6

THE JUDGES CONCEALED APPELLANTS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

8. Here, Appellants had a fundamental Constitutionally-protected right to the

possession of their real, personal property, fence, causes of action, etc., and

demanded its return. However, Lee County criminally did not relinquish

Appellants property. The Appellee Federal Judges conspired to conceal

Appellants rights such as, e.g., their right to own, exclude, and be free from

governmental and judicial abuse and said deliberate deprivations.

9. On the public record, Lee County wrote in 1999 [see First Case; Doc. # 89-

2]:

Based on this [non-existent] research, we [Defendant-Appellees Lee

County] conclude that the public may have a valid claim to the accretedlands [accreted onto non-existent undesignated un-numbered and

unlettered areas which could not be found to exist] on the Gulf side of

the Cayo Costa Subdivision. Moreover, it is the Boards policy to retain

[fictitious]public lands for public purposes rather than relinquish those

[non-existent] interests to private entities [to whom they legally belong].

JUDICIAL FRAUD/CONCOCTION OF LEGISLATIVE ACT

10. In this case, the 11th

Circuit Judges and John Edwin Steele acted independently

in conspiring to concoct a legislative act. Said Federal Judges conspired to

deliberately deprive the Appellants under 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, obstruct

justice under 18 U.S.C. 1503, even though they knew that eminent domain

extortion and fraud-scheme O.R.569/875 did not entitle Lee County to keep

Appellants fundamental Constitutionally-protected property. Here, the 11th


7/25


7

Circuits concoction that said prima facieeminent domainfraud-scheme was

a legislative act was clearly erroneous. Prima facie forgery O.R.569/875

was overwhelming factual and legal support and evidence of Appellants theft

claim.

11. Said Judges conspired to conceal that the self-authenticating public records

within the 4 corners of Appellants Briefs and Complaints evidenced no

affirmative claim by Lee County. Implicitly, the public records recognized

that Lee Counnty never affirmatively asserted any claim to Appellants

property. Said Judges concealed that any claim was impossible, because said

extortion-schemelacked a legal description.

CONVERSION

12. In Florida, a conversion is an unauthorized act, which deprives another of his

identifiable property permanently or for an indefinite time. Senfeld v. Bank of

Nova Scotia Trust Co., 450 So.2d 1157, 1160-61(Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1984). "[T]he

essence ofconversion is not the possession of property by the wrongdoer, but

rather such possession in conjunction with a present intent on the part of the

wrongdoerto deprive the person entitled to possession of the property, which

intent may be, but is not always, shown by demand and refusal." Id. at 1161.

See also National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Carib Aviation, Inc., 759 F.2d

873, 878(11th

Cir.1985)(the essence of conversion under Florida law is the


8/25


8

wrongful deprivation of the property). Here, the Defendant 11th

Circuit and

District Court Judges conspired to deliberately deprive and defraud the

Appellants of their property. Lee County conspired with the Appellees to

destroy and/or seize Appellants property on and substantial fencing of

Appellants riparian Gulf-front Lot 15A.

13. Money can be the subject of conversion if the specific money in question can

be identified. Allen v. Gordon, 429 So.2d 369, 371(Fla. 1st D.C.A.1983).

Conversion can occur when money is disbursed without authorization. Eagle v.

Benefield-Chappell, Inc., 476 So.2d 716, 718(Fla. 4th D.C.A.1985).

14. Forbribes, the 11th

Circuit Judges conspired to award damages and cost in

order to defraud and deliberately deprive the Appellants under false

pretenses that eminent domainextortion and fraud-scheme O.R.569/875 was

a legislative act and that Appellants arefrivolous. See sham Opinions.

CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE AND DEFRAUD

15. The 11th

Circuit could logically infer from the evidence that Lee County

conspired with the Appellees to commit civil theft and conversion by

deliberately depriving Appellants of their property underfalse pretenses that

O.R.569/875 was an apparent title even though Lee County had removed and

eliminated the cloud of said forgery in 1998 under Blue Sheet 980206 and

O.R.2967/1084-1090. Lee County never signed and executed the sham claim


9/25


9

and affirmatively claimed ownership, because it knew that said forgery was

null and void ab initio. In particular, Lee County had denied any affirmative

claim to Appellants Defendant attorney(s) at Brigham Moore.

TREBLED DAMAGES

16. Under Florida law, damages forcivil theft can be trebled. Rosen v. Marlin, 486

So.2d 623, 624(Fla. 3d D.C.A.1986)(interpreting Fla.Stat. Sec. 812.035(7)

(Supp.1984)).

FLORIDA LAW CONTROLS

17. State law provides the rule of decision in a diversity action. Erie Railroad v.

Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 822, 82 L.Ed. 1188(1938). Here,

Florida law controls.

18. The equitable doctrine ofunclean hands provides that:

(O)ne who has acted in bad faith, resorted to trickery and deception, or

been guilty offraud, injustice or unfairness will appeal in vain to a

court of conscience, even though in his wrongdoing he may have kept

himself strictly within the law.

Here, Lee County resorted to trickery and deception to deliberately deprive

and defraud the Appellants. The 11th

Circuit concealed that Lee County never

had any meritorious cognizable claim/defense but conspired to extend said

eminent domainextortion and fraud-scheme, which invoked Federal subject-

matter-jurisdiction.


10/25


10

WHEREFORE, the Appellants demand as a matter of law

1. An Order enjoining the 11th

Circuit Judges from conspiring to deliberately

deprive the Appellants of their property by falsely pretending that

O.R.569/875 created a cloud, because they knew that any [fictitious; purported]

cloudfrom said forgery had been removed in 1998 under Blue Sheet 980206

and O.R.2967/1084-1090;

2. An Order declaring the publicly-recorded title to Appellants riparian Gulf-

front Lot 15A [PID 12-44-20-01-00015.015A] free and clear of any

encumbrance by eminent domainextortion and fraud-scheme O.R.569/875;

3. An Order declaring said forgery devoid of any legal description and

boundaries;

4. An Orderdeclaring this Courts area determination of 200 Acres fraudulent

and deceptiveabsent any legal description;

5. An Orderdeclaring this Court incompetent to intelligently construe the 1912

Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat of Survey referenced in said forgery [PB 3, p. 25;

www.leeclerk.org], because no unidentified/undesignated areas could be

found to exist;

6. An Order declaring O.R.569/875 prima facie unexecuted, unsigned,

unsealed, not notarially acknowledged and without any legal effect


11/25


11

whatsoever, and in particular so, in light of the 1998 Blue Sheet 980206 and

O.R.2967/1084-1090;

7. An Order for recusal of the entire 11th

Circuit based on its well-proven

deliberate deprivations and fraud;

8. An Order automatically staying all previous proceedings as corrupted and

fixed in exchange for Appellees bribes;

9. An Orderdeclaring O.R.569/875 null and voidabsent any legal description,

boundaries, legitimate subject matter, Lee county execution, seal, signatures,

resolution number, eminent domain authority orpurpose,public use/purpose.

________________________________________

/s/ Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Appellant

SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 845, Palm Beach, FL 33480-0845, T: 561-400-3295

____________________________________________

/s/Jorg Busse, M.D., M.B.A., M.M., Appellant

SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 7561, Naples, FL 34101-7561, T: 239-595-7074

EXHIBITS

Lee County Sheriffs Office Property Seizure on Cayo Costa Lot 15A

10-30-2008; CFS # 2008-451953


12/25


13/25


14/25


15/25


16/25


17/25


18/25


19/25


20/25


21/25


22/25


23/25


24/25


25/25

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	judicialfraud
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res

Documents