Professional Documents
Culture Documents
versus
Defendants-Appellees.
__________________________________________
1. Criminally, the 11th Circuit concealed that Appellants’ title to their lands [PID
1998 Lee County had removed and eliminated any cloud of said forgery
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
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 Circuit’s shoes could have possibly
was a “legislative act”. Here, no reasonable and intelligent judge could possibly
1
Marketable title is unencumbered title, free from reasonable doubt as to any question of law or fact
necessary 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).
2
CERTIFIED MAIL W/ RETURN RECEIPT
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
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
marketable if it is:
Here the Court knew that any cloud by said eminent domain extortion-scheme
had been removed in 1998. Here, the 11th Circuit conspired not to review the
District Court's prima facie corrupted factual finding(s) for clear error and to
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 County’s fraudulent land “claim”
3
CERTIFIED MAIL W/ RETURN RECEIPT
O.R.569/875 was invalid. Based on the null and void description of lands
4. The civil theft statute, Fla.Stat.Ann. § 772.11, provides a civil remedy for
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.,
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 Sheriff’s
4
CERTIFIED MAIL W/ RETURN RECEIPT
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
property back. See Senfeld v. Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Co., 450 So.2d
support, e.g., civil theft, false pretenses, fraud, and deliberate deprivations
7. In exchange for Appellees’ bribes, the 11th Circuit concealed the prima facie
extortion and fraud-scheme. Under the terms of the civil statute, the District
Court was required to find that Lee County’s and Peterson’s “claims” were
without factual or legal support. Id. at § 772.11. The 11th Circuit conspired
not to review the District Court's findings for clear error. Under Florida law, a
return, and the property is not relinquished. Senfeld v. Bank of Nova Scotia
5
CERTIFIED MAIL W/ RETURN RECEIPT
possession of their real, personal property, fence, causes of action, etc., and
demanded its return. However, Lee County criminally did not relinquish
Appellants’ rights such as, e.g., their right to own, exclude, and be free from
9. On the public record, Lee County wrote in 1999 [see “First Case”; Doc. # 89-
2]:
10. In this case, the 11th Circuit Judges and John Edwin Steele acted independently
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
6
CERTIFIED MAIL W/ RETURN RECEIPT
Circuit’s concoction that said prima facie eminent domain fraud-scheme was
was overwhelming factual and legal support and evidence of Appellants’ theft
claim.
11. Said Judges conspired to conceal that the self-authenticating public records
property. Said Judges concealed that any claim was impossible, because said
CONVERSION
Nova Scotia Trust Co., 450 So.2d 1157, 1160-61(Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1984). "[T]he
rather such possession in conjunction with a present intent on the part of the
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
7
CERTIFIED MAIL W/ RETURN RECEIPT
wrongful deprivation of the property). Here, the Defendant 11th Circuit and
13. Money can be the subject of conversion if the specific money in question can
14. For bribes, the 11th Circuit Judges conspired to award ‘damages and cost’ in
a “legislative act” and that Appellants are frivolous. See sham Opinions.
15. The 11th Circuit could logically infer from the evidence that Lee County
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
CERTIFIED MAIL W/ RETURN RECEIPT
and affirmatively claimed ownership, because it knew that said forgery was
null and void ab initio. In particular, Lee County had denied any affirmative
TREBLED DAMAGES
16. Under Florida law, damages for civil theft can be trebled. Rosen v. Marlin, 486
(Supp.1984)).
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,
‘(O)ne who has acted in bad faith, resorted to trickery and deception, or
been guilty of fraud, 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.’
and defraud the Appellants. The 11th Circuit concealed that Lee County never
matter-jurisdiction.
9
CERTIFIED MAIL W/ RETURN RECEIPT
O.R.569/875 created a cloud, because they knew that any [fictitious; purported]
cloud from said forgery had been removed in 1998 under Blue Sheet 980206
and O.R.2967/1084-1090;
boundaries;
Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat of Survey referenced in said forgery [PB 3, p. 25;
found to exist;
10
CERTIFIED MAIL W/ RETURN RECEIPT
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
9. An Order declaring O.R.569/875 null and void absent any legal description,
________________________________________
/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 Sheriff’s Office Property Seizure on Cayo Costa Lot 15A
10-30-2008; CFS # 2008-451953
11