08 14846 e motion deliberate deprivations conv res
TRANSCRIPT
-
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]
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
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).
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
3/25
CERTIFIED MAIL W/ RETURN RECEIPT
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
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
4/25
CERTIFIED MAIL W/ RETURN RECEIPT
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
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
5/25
CERTIFIED MAIL W/ RETURN RECEIPT
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).
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
6/25
CERTIFIED MAIL W/ RETURN RECEIPT
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
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
7/25
CERTIFIED MAIL W/ RETURN RECEIPT
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
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
8/25
CERTIFIED MAIL W/ RETURN RECEIPT
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
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
9/25
CERTIFIED MAIL W/ RETURN RECEIPT
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.
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
10/25
CERTIFIED MAIL W/ RETURN RECEIPT
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
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
11/25
CERTIFIED MAIL W/ RETURN RECEIPT
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
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
12/25
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
13/25
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
14/25
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
15/25
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
16/25
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
17/25
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
18/25
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
19/25
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
20/25
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
21/25
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
22/25
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
23/25
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
24/25
-
8/9/2019 08 14846 E Motion Deliberate Deprivations Conv Res
25/25