FOR BRIBES, THE 11TH CIRCUIT CONCOCTED “RESOLUTION 569/875”

1. Corruptly, the 11th Circuit concocted a “resolution 569/875”. See 04/21/2009

Opinion, p.3. No record or entry of any such “resolution 569/875” can be found

to exist in the public record. Prima facie unsigned and unexecuted Official

Record [O.R.]569/875 was admittedly never enacted or adopted by Lee

County. The null and void “claim” is an eminent domain extortion and fraud-

scheme and not a “resolution”. No legislator could be identified. This Court

fabricated a resolution number.

11TH CIRCUIT CONCEALED REMOVAL OF CLOUD BY SHAM ‘CLAIM’

2. In 1998, Lee County had removed/eliminated the cloud by Lee County

eminent domain extortion and fraud-scheme O.R.569/875 pursuant to Blue

Sheet 980206 and O.R.2967/1084-1090. Therefore, the case-fixing 11th Circuit

concealed that Appellants’ perfect legal title to PID 12-44-20-01-00015.015A

was unencumbered by said forgery and free and clear. Removed sham

“claim” O.R.569/875 could not have possibly effected any permanent taking.

Here, this Court concealed that it was as if said forgery had never existed. This

Court conceded Appellants’ “unconstitutional temporary takings claim”.

THE 11TH CIRCUIT TREATED APPELLANTS DISPARATELY

3. Violative of the Equal Protection Clause, the 11th Circuit treated Appellants

disparately as compared to similarly situated Alice M.S. Robinson [see Blue

2
 Sheet 980206 and O.R.2967/1084-1090] and A. C. Roesch, who received and

subdivided his accreted lands. Subdivided accretions formed Appellants’ Lot

15A[A=Accreted]. See all 4 publicly recorded Subdivision Plats at

www.leeclerk.org. Deceptively, the 11th Circuit concealed said publicly

recorded disparate treatment. The Court concealed that Lee County did not

deliberately deprive Robinson as compared to Appellants: e.g., Robinson’s

similar riparian lot 38A was 560ft south of Appellants’ Gulf-front Lot 15A.

THE CORRUPT 11TH CIRCUIT DEFRAUDED/DEPRIVED APPELLANTS

4. The corrupt 11th Circuit concealed that Lee County, Florida, eminent domain

extortion and fraud-scheme O.R.569/875 invoked Federal subject-matter-

jurisdiction. See Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U.S. 403, 406(1879). For

Appellees’ bribes, the corrupt 11th Circuit defrauded and deliberately

deprived the Appellants of Federal adjudication of their multiple ripe

independent Federal and State claims. For Appellees’ bribes, the corrupt 11th

Circuit falsely pretended and stated that said extortion-scheme was a

“legislative act” and fabricated “ripeness requirements”.

CORRUPTLY THE 11TH CIRCUIT CONCOCTED UNIDENTIFIED AREAS

5. Appellants and Appellees had proven the platted 60’ wide designated street,

which is adjoining Appellants’ riparian Gulf-front Lot 15A in the

undedicated private Cayo Costa Subdivision. However for bribes, the

3
 corrupt 11th Circuit conspired to concoct “unidentified/undesignated areas”,

tamper with the indisputable public record evidence and witnesses for the

illegal purpose of defrauding and deliberately depriving the Appellants:

“Most of the allegations in the complaint concern the [non-existent]

1969 Lee County Resolution 569/875, which claimed the undesignated
areas on the east and west side of the Cayo Costa subdivision plat and all
accretions thereto as public land to be used for public purposes.”

Here, the 11th Circuit concealed the platted designated 60’ wide street and that

no undesignated or unidentified areas ever existed. The Judges are psycho-path

ological liars who pervert public record evidence in order to obstruct justice

and adjudication. Here, this Court extends said fraud-scheme for bribes.

THE 11TH CIRCUIT CONCEDED TO APPELLANTS’ OWNERSHIP

6. In its April 21, 2009, Opinion, the 11th Circuit conceded that

“The Appellants are owners of [riparian Gulf-front] Lot 15A [PID 12-
44-20-01-00015.015A] in the [undedicated private] Cayo Costa
subdivision in Lee County, Florida.” Op., p. 2.
“The Appellants’ [riparian Gulf-front] Lot 15A is on the west side of
the Cayo Costa subdivision on the Gulf of Mexico…” Op., p.3.

THE 11TH CIRCUIT PERVERTS THE INDISPUTABLE PUBLIC RECORD

7. The 11th Circuit perverted said extortion-scheme O.R.569/875 into a

“legislative act” to defraud and deliberately deprive Appellants of their

Constitutionally-guaranteed rights under the 1st, 4th, 14th, 5th, 7th, and 11th

Amendments, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988, 28 U.S.C. § 455, 18 U.S.C. §§

241, 242. The corrupt 11th Circuit concealed that Appellants’ riparian Gulf-

4
 front lands and vested riparian rights are fundamental Constitutionally-

protected property. Appellants and Appellees had evidenced Appellants’

pursuit of the exclusive remedy of invalidation and damages in State Court

for Appellees’ “unconstitutional temporary takings” of Appellants’

fundamental Constitutionally-protected property [PID 12-44-20-

0100015.015A; private Cayo Costa easements; riparian rights; causes of

action]. Federal judicial Defendant-Appellees Steele and Polster-Chappell had

removed Appellants’ State action to Federal Court. However for bribes, the

corrupt 11th Circuit concealed Appellants’ pursuit of invalidation of said

forgery in Lee County Circuit Court, Case # 06-CA-3185.

CONCEDEDLY, THE FEDERAL COURT WARNED APPELLEES

8. The 11th Circuit noted

“that the district court has now warned the Appellees that their conduct
may warrant sanctions in the future if continued.” See Op., p.12.

Here, concealment of the nullity of O.R.569/875 and deliberate deprivations

under false pretenses that O.R.569/875 is a “legislative act” are crimes for

which the 11th Circuit Judges and [Appellees] have no immunity.

THE COURT CONCEALED JURISDICTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1343

9. This Circuit conspired to conceal that the Plaintiff-Appellants predicated

jurisdiction over their ripe independent causes of action on, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §

1343(3) as the source of the District Court's jurisdiction to hear their 42 U.S.C.

5
§§ 1983, 1985, 1988 claims. Section 1343(3) grants to the Federal courts

jurisdiction to hear claims alleging state deprivation(s) of Constitutional

rights or rights secured by Federal statutes providing for equal rights. Said

well-proven Federal statutory rights included 28 U.S.C. § 455 and mandatory

recusal of, e.g., Def.-Appellees Steele, Polster-Chappell, Lazzara, and Pizzo.

Here, Steele and Polster-Chappell concealed that the indisputable "facts

alleged in the [Appellants’] complaint[s] satisfy the jurisdictional

requirements of the statute." Southpark Square Ltd. v. City of Jackson, 565 F.2d

338, 341 n.2(5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S.946, 98 S.Ct.2849, 56L.Ed.2d

787(1978). Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S.738, 744 n.9, 95

S.Ct.1300,1306, n.9(1975). See also Doc. # 87, in which Steele himself asserted

42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a jurisdictional basis for Appellant(s)’ suit(s). In his sham

05/05/2008 Opinion and Order, on p. 6, Appellee Steele had stated:

“The [Busse’s] Third Amended Complaint asserts the Court has

jurisdiction based on the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983), 28 U.S.C.
§ 1343, Articles 3 and 4 of the United States Constitution, and
Amendments 4 and 5 of the United States Constitution (Doc. #288,
¶7)…” No ripeness requirements ever attached.

Here, the 11th Circuit conspired with Steele to defraud Appellant(s) of their

causes of action under false pretenses of a concocted “legislative act” and

extortion-scheme O.R.569/875. The 11th Circuit and Steele conspired to

conceal that no ripeness requirements could have possibly attached to

6
 Appellants’ Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment claims under the

indisputable public record evidence in this case. The 11th Circuit and Steele

knew that public use was impossible absent any legal description, boundaries,

public purpose/use, and necessity in said forgery O.R.569/875. The 11th Circuit

concealed that the public never had any access to said undedicated Subdivision.

THE COURT CONCEALED JURISDICTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1331

10. Here, the 11th Circuit Judges conspired to conceal that Plaintiff-Appellants also

had a direct cause of action under the eminent domain clause, just

compensation clause, 14th, 4th, 7th, 1st, and 11th Amendments, and that the

District Court had Federal question jurisdiction over the State eminent domain

fraud issues under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The district court had jurisdiction over

Appellants’ said claims pursuant to the general Federal question statute, 28

U.S.C. § 1331, for it was evident that their claims involved substantial Federal

disputes [under the 1st, 4th, 14th, 7th, 5th, and 11th Amendments]. Mobil Oil Corp.

v. Coastal Petroleum Corp., 671 F.2d 419, 422-23(11th Cir. 1982). Appellees

Lee County had also cited Mobil Oil in their Appellate Brief on pp. ii, 7.

ARSON/FIRES, SEIZURE, AND PROPERTY/FENCE DESTRUCTION

11. The 11th Circuit conceded that Appellees’ 2008 fires and/or arson in

residential private Cayo Costa destroyed Appellants’ property, which invoked

7
 Federal jurisdiction under the 4th, 14th, 7th, and 1st Amendments. No ripeness

requirements could have possibly attached. This Circuit was objectively biased.

THIS COURT CONCEALED THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF CONDEMNATION

12. This Court concealed the absolute impossibility of condemnation, inverse or

direct, in this case. Eminent domain extortion and fraud-scheme O.R.569/875

“claimed”” undesignated” “un-numbered” and “unlettered” areas, which were

never platted and did not exist. Unexecuted and unsigned O.R.569/875 lacked

a legal description and boundaries and any area determination was impossible.

This Court concealed that the “description” in sham O.R.569/875 was null and

void. Fraudulently, this Court concocted “200 Acres” absent any boundaries.

See 03/05/2009 Opinion. While this corrupt Court falsely stated “200 Acres”,

Appellee Wilkinson fabricated “107 Acres”. This Court deceived the public

and misapplied Eide, Reahard, Tinney, Greenbriar, Lake Jackson to said

eminent domain fraud-scheme.

THIS COURT CONCEALED WEST PENINSULAR PRECEDENT

13. In West Peninsular Title Co. v. Palm Beach Cty., 41 F.3d 1490(11th Cir.

1995)1, 11th Circuit Chief Judge Edmondson co-wrote:

“And, plaintiffs’ “arbitrary and capricious” due process claim is ripe.

Plaintiffs accused the County of applying an arbitrary and capricious
action ... Plaintiffs’ claim was ripe as soon as the County applied the
1
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/41/41.F3d.1490.93-4449.93-4104.html
Volume 41, The Federal Reporter, 3d Ed. [Nov., 1994 – Jan., 1995]

8
 ordinance … See Eide v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 724 n.13(11th
Cir. 1990).”
“But the County insists that adjoining landowners own the strip parcels,
citing Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959), as an
alternative to 16.33 Acres.”

Here for Appellees’ bribes, this Court conspired to pervert binding

precedent of West Peninsular, Murrell, 16.33 Acres, and Eide, supra.

Furthermore, Lee County itself had cited 16.33 Acres in its Appellate Brief on

pp. ii, and 7. With particularity, Murrell cited Caples v. Taliaferro, 197 So

861(Fla. 1940). The Florida Supreme Court held in Caples v. Taliaferro, that

title to the entire street vests in the owner of the abutting lots within the

subdivision. Here, Appellant abutting Cayo Costa lot owners held perfect title

to said entire designated 60’ wide street.

THIS COURT CONCEALED DESIGNATED STREET TO DEFRAUD

14. This Court and the Appellees conspired to conceal that in the “First Case” in

Doc. # 5, Lee County conceded the fraud and absence of “undesignated

areas”:

“The [Appellant(s)’] lot is clearly outlined on the plat map as a 50’ x

130’ lot bounded by a street…” “In order for for one to have riparian
rights, there must be an actual water boundary of the land in connection
with which such rights are claimed. Axline v. Shaw, 35 Fla. 305, 310, 17
So. 411, 412(1895).”

Here, Appellants had the equal riparian rights of similarly-situated Alice M.

S. Robinson, because they perfectly own their upland, adjoining platted

9
 designated street, and accretions thereto pursuant to the public record.

Furthermore, Lee County had removed the cloud of forgery O.R.569/875 in

1998. This Court concealed/perverted said removal. Therefore, Appellants’

title was free and clear and unencumbered by said fraud-scheme.

THE COURT PERVERTED THE PUBLIC RECORD AND PLAT

15. Here, the 11th Circuit Judges conspired to conceal that there was a designated

street and an actual water boundary. In particular, Lee County conceded:

“Florida law states: ‘The land to which the owner holds title must
extend to the ordinary high water mark of the navigable water in order
that rights may attach.” Here, the Federal Courts conspired to conceal
that Appellants own the platted adjoining designated 60’ wide street and
the accretions thereto, which extend to the ordinary high water mark of
the platted natural boundary of the “Gulf of Mexico”.

16. Here, the Federal Courts criminally concealed that Appellants own riparian

Gulf-front Lot 15A free and clear of said forgery, which extends to the

ordinary high water mark of the “Gulf of Mexico”. The 11th Circuit

conceded that Appellants are the owners of riparian Gulf-front Lot 15A.

THE COURT PERVERTED AUTHORITIES BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

17. Steele and Polster-Chappell conspired to conceal the binding precedent cited

by Florida’s Attorney General in, e.g., AGO ## 78-118, and 78-125 regarding

platted designated streets in subdivisions.

10
 THE COURTS SANCTIONED APPELLANTS TO SILENCE THEM

18. Steele unlawfully sanctioned the Appellant(s) in order to obstruct justice and

the exclusive remedy of invalidation of said forgery. Steele conspired with

the Appellees and law enforcement to threaten and intimidate the Appellant

whistle-blowers and witnesses to Steele’s crimes of, e.g., false pretenses,

deliberate deprivations, fraud, and extortion. Under public policy, Steele and

Polster-Chappell have no judicial immunity for their crimes.

STEELE SLANDERED APPELLANTS AS FRIVOLOUS TO GAG THEM

19. The Judges conspired to slander Appellants as, e.g., frivolous, litigious, and/or

vexatious.

MANDATORY RECUSAL

20. Here, recusal was absolutely mandatory, because the U.S. District Court and

11th Circuit Judges conspired to conceal the nullity and unconstitutionality of

eminent domain extortion and fraud-scheme O.R.569/875. The Judges had no

immunity for their “extrajudicial” crimes of, e.g., deliberate deprivations,

obstruction of justice, fraud, extortion, concealment, etc.

21. For bribes, the Federal Judges conspired with the Appellees to conceal that

said prima facie forgery was never signed, enacted, passed or enacted. The

11th Circuit conspired to falsely pretend that “unidentified/undesignated”,

“unnumbered” and/or “unlettered” “areas” were platted and/or existed in the

11
undedicated private Subdivision. Said Judges concealed that Lee County

fraudulently conveyed interest in ‘lands which have accreted to the lots of Ms.

Robinson’. Corruptly, this Circuit deceived the public, because it knew that

Lee County never had any interest in any platted Cayo Costa lands by virtue of

eminent domain extortion and fraud-scheme O.R.569/875. This Circuit has

acted like common criminals in robes who are drunk with power. It has trashed

the Florida and Federal Constitutions and express prohibitions against

confiscation of private lands except for public use. Fake O.R.569/875 never

stated any particular public use/purpose or necessity. It did not even legally

describe any platted Subdivision lands. This Court lacks the intelligence to tell a

designated street from “unidentified/undesignated areas”. This criminal Court

concealed that all platted Subdivision areas were lots, streets, or alleys. All lots,

streets, and alleys belong to A. C. Roesch and his successors-in-title. Title to the

accretions runs with the uplands. The upland titles include fee simple ownership

of the designated street and accretions. This Court perverts fundamental

principles of real property law in order to defraud and deliberately deprive. The

Appellants have a fundamental Constitutional right to redress their grievances

with the objective partiality and unfitness of the Federal Courts. Appellee

Steele had disallowed the Appellants to assert the nullity and illegality of

O.R.569/875 in order to cover up Cayo Costa Gate.

12
 ADOPTION BY REFERENCE

22. By reference the Appellants include any and all Briefs and Pleadings in the

Federal Courts in this Petition for Re-Hearing En Banc, and including, e.g.,

their attached 03/06/2009 Petition for Hearing En Banc, Emergency Motions

for Protective Order, to Stay and Vacate, and Memorandum regarding

Obstruction of Justice. As a matter of law all Federal Court orders are

automatically stayed, because they are based on judicial fraud/extortion and

false pretenses that eminent domain extortion and fraud-scheme O.R.569/875

is a “legislative act” or “resolution”. This Court has conspired to pervert the

short and plain truth that O.R.569/875 was null and void ab initio.

23. This Court obstructed justice for the pro se Appellants. The Federal Courts

fabricated lack of jurisdiction over State eminent domain issues and the

“unconstitutional temporary takings” under fraud-scheme O.R.569/875 and

other independent ripe Federal claims, but reached and perverted the merits

by fabricating a “legislative act”/”resolution 569/875”. If [merely

hypothetically] the Federal Courts would have lacked jurisdiction [which they

did not under, e.g., West Peninsular, Boom, Corn, Anthony, supra], they were

prohibited from perverting the merits. Appellants’ concededly “validly”

pleaded legal claims turned on the nullity, illegality, and fraud of

O.R.569/875. While obstructing proper inquiry, discovery, and the parties’

13
 responses, the Federal Courts perverted the merits, concealed that

O.R.569/875 was a fraud-scheme, and obstructed adjudication on

Appellants’ highly meritorious merits and highly cognizable ripe

independent Federal claims.

24. In its typical irrational mode of operation, this Court’s Opinions fatally

conflicted with each other. While in # 08-13170-BB, the Court awarded

damages to threaten the Appellants and obstruct justice, it denied Appellee

Wilkinson’s sanctions in 08-14846-FF while asserting similarity of said cases.

Here, the falsely alleged frivolity was impossible under binding precedent of,

e.g., Boom, Anthony, Corn, because the exclusive remedy was invalidation of

eminent domain fraud-scheme O.R. 569/875 and damages for the conceded

temporary taking under false pretenses of said forgery.

25. Without any rational explanation, this Circuit refused to recuse itself in toto.

However, no reasonable and fit Circuit could have possibly found and

concluded that prima facie unexecuted and defective O.R.569/875 [the cloud

of which had been removed] was a “legislative act”. Its property description

was null and void, and no legislator ever executed it. This Court willfully

misconstrued the 1912 Plat in order to obstruct justice. This Court concealed

that the natural monument/boundary of the platted “Gulf of Mexico”

superseded any dimensions/measures. Appellants’ publicly recorded

14
 conveyance called for the “Gulf”, which the Judges perverted in exchange for

Appellees’ bribes. The State eminent domain issues must be heard by an

impartial Circuit, which does not conspire to pervert the public record and

conceal the nullity and illegality of O.R.569/875 which violates the express

prohibitions of the Florida and Federal Constitutions. Violative of Florida’s

Sunshine Laws, this Court conspired to operate in secrecy absent any

evidence to support its fabrications of a “legislative act” and/or “resolution”.

Unless this Court can produce reliable and competent proof of said

fabrications, it must be prosecuted for obstructing justice and case-fixing in

exchange for Appellees’ bribes.

______________________________ ___________________________
/S/JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT /S/DR. JORG BUSSE
P.O. BOX 845, Palm Beach, FL 33480 P.O. Box 7561, Naples, FL 34101
T: 561-400-3295 T: 239-595-7074; JRBU@aol.com

15