« Health care, health care and more health care | Main | McCarty gets a lashing from Rep. Proctor on rate dereg bill opposition »

Burden of proof property tax bill becomes law

IMG_2927 At a ceremony in the Capitol Thursday, Gov. Charlie Crist signed legislation that lowers the burden of proof for property owners who challenge their tax bills. Joining Crist at the ceremony were Mark Wilson of the Florida Chamber of Commerce (at left) and John Sebree of the Florida Association of Realtors (at right).

Before HB 521 became law, the burden was on the taxpayer to prove that the appraisal was incorrect. The new standard is the preponderance of the evidence, and the change "is an added protection for taxpayers and it's good public policy," Crist said. Asked about concerns by local governents that the legislation could "handcuff" them by costing them up to $500-million, Crist said: "Florida taxpayers feel handcuffed and they need some help."

The bill will not affect pending property tax challenges, but it will affect taxpayer challenges filed with counties' Value Adjustment Boards in 2009. Challenges are usually filed in August and September. The legislators who led the charge on the bill were Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey and Rep. Carlos Lopez-Cantera, R-Miami.

-- Steve Bousquet

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jennifer Franklin-Prescott

KENNETH M. WILKINSON
RE: INTENT TO SUE; SCAM O.R. 569/875;
HB 521; FRAUD ON THE COURT
Kenneth M. Wilkinson:
1. In assessing taxes on Cayo Costa Subdivision lands, Lee County and Defendant-
Appellee Kenneth M. Wilkinson must rely on said 1912 Plat. See Plat Book 3, p. 25;
www.leeclerk.org.
2. Section 193.114, Florida Statutes (1997) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 12D-
8.007 provide that the property appraiser shall prepare the real property assessment
roll. § 193.114, Fla. Stat. (1997); Fla. Admin. Code R. 12D-8.007. In doing so, the
property appraiser refers to the recorded plats identifying the real property.
§ 177.021, Fla. Stat. (1997); Fla. Admin. Code R. 12D-8.008(1)(a)1.
Section 177.021, Florida Statutes (1997), provides as follows:
Legal status of recorded plats. -- The recording of any plats made in
compliance with the provisions of this chapter shall serve to establish the
identity of all lands shown on and being a part of such plats, and lands may
thenceforth be conveyed by reference to such plat.
Here, the U.S. Court of Appeals conceded that no identity of
“undesignated/unidentified areas” could be established, because none of the
fraudulently “claimed” lands/areas were shown on and being a part of said Plat.
3. § 177.021, Fla. Stat. (1997). Similarly, Florida Administrative Code Rule 12D 8.008
(1)(a)1 provides as follows:
Where real property has been subdivided into lots according to a map
or plat duly recorded in the office of the Clerk of Circuit Court of the county in
which the lands are located, or is a condominium or co-operative apartment,
the description of real property shall, in addition to Section, Township, Range,
be based upon reference to such map or plat. Fla. Admin. Code R. 12D-8.008
(1)(a)1.
4. In the instant case, Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson, conspired not to rely on said
Plat in assessing the Cayo Costa lands and Plaintiffs’ Lot 15A. The 1912 recording of
the referenced Plat properly established said Plat as the official county map of all
lands identified on the Plat. Plaintiffs have challenged Wilkinson’s fraudulent
tax assessments and willful misrepresentations.
5. Taxes on real property must be based on the identity of a recorded plat, and not on
fraudulent, arbitrary and capricious unrecorded subdivisions of property.
Thus, absent any other [new and duly] recorded plat, Plaintiffs were entitled to
proper and lawful apportionment of taxes and the assignment of correct and
legitimate folio/STRAP/PID numbers in reference to said 1912 Plat.
6. Here, Wilkinson’s fabricated PID 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0 was a fraudulent
STRAP number, because fictitious lot “00A0” was never platted on said Plat. See
Transcript of November 2007 Hearing in U.S. District Court.

CAYO COSTA

CROOKED MIKE SCOTT AND “LEE COUNTY” SCAM “O.R. 569/875”


TO DEFENDANT-APPELLEE CROOKED SHERIFF MIKE SCOTT:

STOP SEIZING PRIVATE PROPERTY UNDER FALSE PRETENSES OF

"LEE COUNTY" SCAM & FORGERY "O.R. 569/875"

[See www.leeclerk.org for sham Cayo Costa land "claim" "O.R. 569/875"]


See Judgment by U.S. Court of Appeals:

See PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.:

PRESCOTT, No. 08-14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631.

CAYO COSTA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT, POST OFFICE BOX 327, LAEKLAND, FL 33802


CASE NO. 2D09-3829
L.T. No.: 06-CA-3185


Jennifer Franklin Prescott and v. State of Florida,
Dr. Jorg Busse, et al., “Internal Improvement Trust Fund Bd.”,
et al.,

Plaintiffs Defendants


NOTICE OF DISPOSITIVE JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT RELIEF

[PRESCOTT, No. 08-14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631]


MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF U.S. APPELLATE JUDGMENT(S)

[PRESCOTT, No. 08-14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631]

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO 08/19/2009 COURT “ORDER”
1. Hereby, the Plaintiffs respond to the above Court and its “August 19, 2009” “Order”.

NOTICE OF DISPOSITIVE JUDGMENT AND CLARIFICATION
2. The Plaintiffs gave Notice of said Dispositive Judgment(s) by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. See PRESCOTT, No. 08-14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631 [see also BUSSE, No. 08-13170, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 5055, 2009 WL 549782]. Here, the Plaintiff-Appellants had prevailed in their §§ 1983, 1985 civil rights actions and vindicated their fundamental Constitutional and/or Federal Statutory rights to exclude governments and own/enjoy their riparian Gulf-front lands and private easements [STRAP 12-44-20-01-00015.015A”] in the residential private undedicated Cayo Costa Subdivision on Cayo Costa Island in Lee County, Florida. Here, said Federal Appellate Court adjudged Plaintiffs the unimpeachable owners, because “Lee County” had never asserted nor legally recorded said counterfeit “claim” “O.R.569/875”, which Lee County knew had never legally existed. Here, said U.S. Court of Appeals adjudged that no title and/or interest ever transferred to “Lee County”, because on its face sham “claim” “O.R.569/875” was not any writing, instrument, muniment, and/or title transaction.

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS GRANTED PLAINTIFFS PERMANENT RELIEF
3. Said U.S. Court of Appeals adjudged and declared the Plaintiff-Appellants the unimpeachable record owners of their Constitutionally protected riparian Cayo Costa properties, because, e.g., the 1912 Subdivision Plat of Survey did not show the fictitious “park” nor the fraudulently “claimed” and forged “lot 00A0” and/or “block 00001”. In particular, said Federal Appellate Court declared:

”I. BACKGROUND
A. Current Action
The Appellants are owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision in Lee County, Florida. On May 5, 2008, the Appellants filed the present pro se complaint against numerous state and county officials n1 alleging that they had violated the Appellants' constitutional rights with respect to their Cayo Costa property. … The Appellants' Lot 15A is on the west side of the Cayo Costa subdivision on the Gulf of Mexico and is adjacent to land that was claimed through Resolution 569/875 to create the Cayo Costa State Park.”
“We note that the district court has now warned the Appellees that their conduct may warrant sanctions in the future if continued.”

PRESCOTT, No. 08-14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631.

CAYO COSTA

RE: CROOKED DAVID PAUL RHODES; INTENT TO SUE;
CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AND DEPRIVE;
DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS UNDER FORGERY “O.R.569/875”


CROOK D. P. RHODES:

You have been concealing the prima facie criminality, illegality, nullity, and frivolity of forged and barred “claim” “O.R.569/875”, which you knew never legally existed nor had been legally recorded. See Florida’s Marketable Record Title Act(s). Your sham arguments [see ## 09-11305; 09-10752] were for the unlawful purpose of defrauding and deliberately depriving Appellants, and obstructing justice and Federal Appellate Court Judgment(s). Here, your arguments were devoid of any legitimate legal and/or factual basis and any chance of success, because the U.S. Court of Appeals had already declared and adjudged Appellants the unimpeachable owners of their Constitutionally protected property [riparian lands and private easements].
See PRESCOTT, No. 08-14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631; see also BUSSE, No. 08-13170, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 5055, 2009 WL 549782.

Because said “claim” “O.R.569/875” was on its face a sham, the U.S. Court of Appeals had adjudged and declared Appellants the owners of their riparian Gulf-front lands and private easements in the undedicated residential Cayo Costa Subdivision on Cayo Costa Island.

Furthermore, you knew that Florida’s Appraisal Professionals had independently and conclusively evidenced the prima facie nullity and illegality of said scam “O.R.569/875” and that Appellee KENNETH M. WILKINSON had falsely pretended said scam to be a “title transaction” and/or instrument, which was factually and legally impossible as adjudged by the 11th Circuit.

You knew that no “O.R.569/875”, “resolution”, “regulation”, and/or “legislative act” had ever legally existed and that no title to Appellants’ riparian Gulf-front lands and private easements ever transferred to “Lee County” as adjudged and declared by said U.S. Court of Appeals.
Said purported fraudulent “claim” of “unidentified” “areas” was a prima facie hoax, which you conspired to extend for the illegal purpose of obstructing justice under false pretenses of “frivolity”.

The Appellant adjudged Gulf-front land and easement Owners seek your criminal and/or civil prosecution for, e.g., fraud, deliberate deprivations [of, e.g., Appellants’ Constitutional rights to exclude and own their properties], conspiracy, obstruction of justice.
Govern yourself accordingly!

Respectfully submitted,
_________________________________
/S/JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT
Plaintiff, pro se, and declared unimpeachable Owner of said riparian Lot 15A
P.O. BOX 845, Palm Beach, FL 33480
T: 561-400-3295
_____________________________________
/S/JORG BUSSE, M.D., M.M., M.B.A.
State Certified Residential Appraiser
Licensed Real Estate Broker
Plaintiff, pro se, and declared unimpeachable Owner of said riparian Lot 15A
P.O. Box 11124, Naples, FL 34101-11124;
JRBU@aol.com; T: 239-595-7074

CAYO COSTA

Palm Beach County Property Appraiser's Office
Gary Nikolits, CFA
301 North Olive Avenue, 5th Floor
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-4705

Dear Mr. Nikolits:

Thank you for the call by your Office on Friday, August 21, 2009, 3:39 PM. As a State Certified Residential Appraiser, Licensed Real Estate Broker, and Florida owner of Constitutionally-protected property, Ms. Prescott and myself [and other landowners] blew the whistle on Kenneth M. Wilkinson’s crimes.

Like so many other professionals in the United States, your Office was so kind to educate Ms. Prescott about the prima facie nullity and illegality of “Lee County” sham “land” “claim” and scam “O.R.569/875”, which Wilkinson knew never legally existed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals adjudged and declared Ms. Prescott and myself the unimpeachable record owners of riparian Gulf-front land parcel 15A [“STRAP 12-44-20-01-00015.015A”]. However, crooked Wilkinson continues to obstruct said Judgment and justice by publishing fraudulent and false property data in order to deliberately deprive “Cayo Costa” landowners under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242. See, e.g., www.leepa.org.

In response to your kind call, we are attaching an e-mail friendly copy of our Response to the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida.

Respectfully submitted,
_________________________________
/S/JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT
Plaintiff, pro se, and declared unimpeachable Owner of said riparian Lot 15A
P.O. BOX 845, Palm Beach, FL 33480
T: 561-400-3295
_____________________________________
/S/JORG BUSSE, M.D., M.M., M.B.A.
State Certified Residential Appraiser
Licensed Real Estate Broker
Plaintiff, pro se, and declared unimpeachable Owner of said riparian Lot 15A
P.O. Box 11124, Naples, FL 34101-11124;
JRBU@aol.com; T: 239-595-7074

CAYO COSTA

Sue Weott, CFE
Appraisal Supervisor
Escambia County Property Appraiser's Office
213 West Garden Street
Pensacola, FL 32501-5799


RE: Governmental Corruption and Lee County Fraud-Scheme ‘O.R.569/875’;
U.S. Court of Appeals warned KENNETH M. WILKINSON

Dear Ms. Weott:

Thank you for our conversation on August 21, 2009, approx. 1:30 pm, regarding crooked Appraiser KENNETH M. WILKINSON and his Attorneys at DENT & JOHNSON [SHERRI L. JOHNSON, et al.].

The U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit had “warned” Defendant-Appellee corrupt Lee County Property Appraiser KENNETH M. WILKINSON. See PRESCOTT, No. 08-14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631; see also BUSSE, No. 08-13170, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 5055, 2009 WL 549782.

Defendant-Appellee WILKINSON had conspired to conceal the prima facie criminality, illegality, and nullity of "Lee County" sham "claim" and scam "O.R.569/875" [see Exhibit below], which was never legally recorded. Wilkinson concealed that said forged “claim” never legally existed. On its face said fake “claim” was devoid of any “Lee County” execution, seal, legal description, ascertainable boundaries, and color. In March 2009, said U.S. Court of Appeals had declared/adjudged the fraudulently “claimed” “areas”/”land” to be “unidentified”, because said fictitious “unidentified” “areas” were never legally described, and because said forgery “O.R.569/875” had never legally existed nor been legally recorded.
At the 2009 FCIAAO Conference, Ms. JOHNSON deceived the public and professionals. See JOHNSON’S “Legal Update”. Multiple Complaints against Ms. JOHNSON are pending.

On 04/21/2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit had declared Plaintiff-Appellants the unimpeachable owners of riparian Gulf-front Lot 15A [S-T-R-A-P 12-44-20-01-00015.015A], because “Lee County” never asserted any “claim”, and because any “claim” would have been barred by Florida’s Marketable Record Title Act(s), which had automatically quieted and perfected Appellants’ title to their riparian lands, the adjoining designated street, and private easements in the residential undedicated Cayo Costa Subdivision. See www.leeclerk.org: Lee County Plat Book 3, p. 25 (1912).

”I. BACKGROUND
A. Current Action
The Appellants are owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision in Lee County, Florida. On May 5, 2008, the Appellants filed the present pro se complaint against numerous state and county officials n1 alleging that they had violated the Appellants' constitutional rights with respect to their Cayo Costa property. … The Appellants' Lot 15A is on the west side of the Cayo Costa subdivision on the Gulf of Mexico and is adjacent to land that was claimed through Resolution 569/875 to create the Cayo Costa State Park.”
“We note that the district court has now warned the Appellees that their conduct may warrant sanctions in the future if continued.”

PRESCOTT, No. 08-14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631.

Here, said U.S. Court of Appeals had denied Appellee Wilkinson’s motion for sanctions and granted the Plaintiff-Appellants permanent relief. JOHNON AND WILKINSON knew that said forged and barred “claim” “O.R.569/875” was a prima facie fraud and extortion-scheme as adjudged and declared by said Federal Appellate Court. JOHNSON concealed that Appellants had successfully defended against said fraudulent and criminal “Lee County” “condemnation” “claim”.

Respectfully submitted,
_________________________________
/S/JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT
Plaintiff, pro se, and declared unimpeachable Owner of said riparian Lot 15A
P.O. BOX 845, Palm Beach, FL 33480
T: 561-400-3295
_____________________________________
/S/JORG BUSSE, M.D., M.M., M.B.A.
State Certified Residential Appraiser
Licensed Real Estate Broker
Plaintiff, pro se, and declared unimpeachable Owner of said riparian Lot 15A
P.O. Box 11124, Naples, FL 34101-11124;
JRBU@aol.com; T: 239-595-7074


EXHIBITS

CAYO COSTA

Hillsborough County Property Appraiser’s Office
Robert Turner, CFA
601 East Kennedy Blvd., 15th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
rturner@hcpafl.org
custserv@hcpafl.org

RE: Governmental Corruption and Fraud-Scheme “O.R.569/875”

Dear Mr. Hartsfield:

Thank you for the information by your Office, which further evidenced the criminality, illegality, and nullity of "Lee County" sham "claim" and scam "O.R.569/875" [see Exhibit below], which was never legally recorded. “Lee County” concealed that said forged “claim” never legally existed.

On 04/21/2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit [see PRESCOTT, No. 08-14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631; see also BUSSE, No. 08-13170, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 5055, 2009 WL 549782], had declared Plaintiff-Appellants the unimpeachable owners of riparian Gulf-front Lot 15A [S-T-R-A-P 12-44-20-01-00015.015A], because “Lee County” never asserted any “claim”, and because any “claim” would have been barred by Florida’s Marketable Record Title Act(s), which had automatically quieted and perfected Appellants’ title to their riparian lands the adjoining designated street, and private easements in the residential undedicated Cayo Costa Subdivision. See www.leeclerk.org: Lee County Plat Book 3, p. 25 (1912).

”I. BACKGROUND
A. Current Action
The Appellants are owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision in Lee County, Florida. On May 5, 2008, the Appellants filed the present pro se complaint against numerous state and county officials n1 alleging that they had violated the Appellants' constitutional rights with respect to their Cayo Costa property. … The Appellants' Lot 15A is on the west side of the Cayo Costa subdivision on the Gulf of Mexico and is adjacent to land that was claimed through Resolution 569/875 to create the Cayo Costa State Park.”
PRESCOTT, No. 08-14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631.

CAYO COSTA

SARASOTA COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
Jim Todora, MAI, CFA, CAE
2001 Adams Lane
Sarasota, FL 34237-7090
jimtodora@sarasotaproperty.org

Dear Mr. Todora:

Thank you for the information by your Office, which further evidenced the criminality, illegality, and nullity of "Lee County" sham "claim" and scam "O.R.569/875".

CAYO COSTA

Orange County Property Appraiser's Office
Bill Donegan, CFA
200 South Orange Ave. #1700
Orlando, FL 32801-3438

Dear Mr. Donegan:

Thank you for the information by your Office, which further evidenced the criminality, illegality, and nullity of "Lee County" sham "claim" and scam "O.R.569/875".

CAYO COSTA STATE PARK SCAM "O.R. 569/875"

CAYO COSTA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION


JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE,
Plaintiffs,


versus Case # 2:09-cv-341-FtM-99SPC

GERALD B. TJOFLAT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JOEL F. DUBINA, STANLEY F. BIRCH, JR, ED CARNES, ROSEMARY BARKETT, J. L. EDMONDSON, SUSAN H. BLACK, STANLEY MARCUS, R. L. ANDERSON, WILLIAM H. PRYOR, RICHARD A. LAZZARA, JOHN E. STEELE, MARK A. PIZZO, S. POLSTER CHAPPELL, UNITED STATES DEPT. OF JUSTICE, JACK N. PETERSON, S. L. JOHNSON, R. K. RUSSELL, CHAD LACH, C. B. STEVENS, CHARLIE GREEN, STEVEN CARTA, MENELAOS PAPALAS, TOBY PRINCE BRIGHAM, WILLIAM MOORE, BRIGHAM MOORE, STEVEN CARTA [HENDERSON & CARTA], RICK JESSUP, J. “RUSS” DEDRICK, K. ANDERSON, S. FLYNN, BRIAN ALBRITTON, LESLIE KING, S. LOESCH, J. P. GERSTENLAUER, A. TUCK FARRINGTON, T. K. KAHN, KAREN FORSYTH, D. M. COLLINS, D. D. STILWELL, MIKE SCOTT, et al.,
Defendants.


NOTICE OF FILING OF “DEFENDANT PROPERTY APPRAISER’S ANSWERS
TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES”, AND
MOTION TO ENJOIN ANY ENFORCEMENT OF SCAM O.R. 569/875, WHICH
WAS CONTROVERTED BY THE ADMITTED ABSENCE OF PUBLIC EASEMENTS


1. In support of the alleged fraud, corruption, case-fixing, and bribery, attached are “DEFENDANT PROPERTY APPRAISER’S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES” as filed in related/associated Case # 2:07-CV-228-FTM-29SPC, which the Plaintiffs hereby adopt by reference.
2. INTERROGATORY # 24 asked:
“Are there any easements in the public in the Cayo Costa Subdivision?”
3. Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson answered:
“Answer: There are no easements [in the public] on the Property Appraiser’s maps, nor does he have records indicating easements.”
4. Here, said Defendant admitted and conceded that there was no dedication of the platted designated roads/streets to the public indicated on the 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat in Plat Book 3, p. 25.
5. Pursuant to Lee County’s December 29, 2000 “MEMORANDUM FROM THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY [J. C. Henry]”, Lee County had conceded and admitted to
a. The private Cayo Costa easements;
b. Prima facie absence of any dedication to the public and/or encumbrance of Plaintiffs’ private lands [PID 12-44-20-01-00015.015A];
c. Prima facie absence of any “legislative act” and/or “passed resolution”.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand

1. An Order enjoining any enforcement of eminent domain extortion and fraud-scheme O.R. 569/875, because admittedly Lee County never executed said scam O.R. 569/875 and had no Cayo Costa easement interests;
2. An Order enjoining the prima facie fraudulent “claim” of uncertain and unplatted “undesignated/unidentified areas” in said forgery O.R. 569/875, which Lee County had never signed or executed.

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

CAYO COSTA

CROOKED KENNETH M. WILKINSON CONCEALED
LEE COUNTY SCAM O.R. 569/875:

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED VICTIMS
OF FALSE, FORGED, AND UNRECORDED SCAM “O.R. 569/875”

1. The undersigned Plaintiffs-Appellants, JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT and DR. JORG BUSSE, hereby certify the following persons, victims, and/or entities to have an interest in the outcome of the above cited and related and/or associated Cases and Appeals regarding barred prima facie forgery and fraud-scheme “O.R. 569/875”. Any and all victims of said scam and forged “land” “claim” have an interest. These victims included, e.g., the Plaintiff victims identified in Case # 2:07-CV-228-FtM - [recused] John E. Steele - [recused] S. Polster Chappell.
INTERESTED CAYO COSTA RECORD OWNERS/VICTIMS
2. The 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat in Lee County Plat Book 3, p. 25, on file evidenced more than one thousand subdivided lots and/or land parcels. The record owners of said lots have an interest in the outcome in this and the related and/or associated irregular legal proceedings in the Federal, Federal Appellate, State, and State Appellate Courts.
3. The judicial Appellees, Defendants-Appellees, and/or ‘Officers of said Court(s)’ in this and/or the related Cases have an interest in the outcome.
FORGERY “O.R. 569/875” WAS UTTERLY VOID AND OF NON-EFFECT
4. Prima facie forgery “O.R. 569/875” was utterly void and of non-effect.
18 U.S.C. § 505
5. 18 U.S.C. § 505 provides:
Whoever forges the signature of any judge, register, or other officer of any court of the United States, or of any territory thereof, or forges or counterfeits the seal of any such court, or knowingly concurs in using any such forged or counterfeit signature or seal, for the purpose of authenticating any proceeding or document, or tenders in evidence any such proceeding or document with a false or counterfeit signature of any such judge, register, or other officer, or a false or counterfeit seal of the court, subscribed or attached thereto, knowing such signature or seal to be false or counterfeit, shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

6. Here, Clerk Farabee was an Officer of the Lee County, Florida, Court(s). Defendant-Appellees Lee County, FL, forged and/or counterfeited the seal of the Office of said Clerk of Lee County Courts.
7. Def.-Appellee Charlie Green knowingly concurred in using the forged and/or counterfeited signature and/or seal of the Lee County Clerk of Courts for the illegal purpose of authenticating fake document/“claim” “O.R. 569/875”.
8. Defendant-Appellee Kenneth M. Wilkinson and/or his Attorneys tendered in evidence forged document “O.R. 569/875” with a false and/or counterfeit signature and/or false or counterfeit seal of said Clerk of Courts Farabee subscribed or attached thereto, knowing such seal or signature to be false.
9. Said counterfeit seal subscribed and/or attached to forged “claim” “O.R. 569/875” is a counterfeit and/or false seal, which was illegally ‘lifted’ from another paper and/or transferred for the purpose of fraud and deceit.
“O.R. 569/875” FRAUD UPON THE COURT(S)
10. Under false pretenses that said barred and fake “claim” of un-platted and unidentifiable uncertain “undesignated areas” was a resolution, the ‘Officers of the Court’ perpetrated a fraud upon the State, State Appellate, Federal, and Federal Appellate Courts in order to unlawfully obtain Constitutionally-protected property within the Cayo Costa Subdivsion as platted in 1912 absent any title transaction or court judgment. See Plat Book 3, p. 25.
11. Forged “claim” “O.R. 569/875” was neither intended nor executed as a resolution by any purported legislator. For the illegal purpose of defrauding the Plaintiff-Appellant(s) and the owners of more than one thousand subdivided and platted Cayo Costa land parcels, the Defendant-Appellees and ‘Officers of the Court’ materially misrepresented as genuine said counterfeited paper “O.R. 569/875”, which had no legal effect whatsoever.
PHYSICAL COUNTERFEITING OR SHAM “CLAIM” O.R. 569/875
12. Here, the Defendant-Appellees physically counterfeited “O.R. 569/875”. In particular, the Appellees “lifted” and/or transferred, e.g., the
a. Handwritten date [“10th”; “December”]
b. Deputy Clerk’s handwriting; and
c. Clerk’s Seal.
13. The Defendant-Appellees altered the words in forged “land” “claim” “O.R. 569/875”. At common law, one need not have physically counterfeited an instrument to be convicted of forgery, see In re Count De Toulouse Lautrec, 102 F. 878 (7 Cir. 1900). Here, the falsely pretended recording of a spurious instrument purporting to have legal efficacy was willful and for the illegal purpose of defrauding the Plaintiff(s) and said interested Cayo Costa Subdivision lot owners.
14. Fake “claim” “O.R. 569/875” constituted a "falsely made, forged, altered, counterfeited and/or spurious" paper. "Falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited" is substantially synonymous and refers to the crime of forgery. Greathouse v. United States, 170 F.2d 512, 514 (4 Cir. 1948)."
15. Judicial Defendant-Appellees Steele and Polster Chappell disallowed the Plaintiff-Appellant(s) to assert the nullity, falsity, illegality, and [physical] forgery of fake “claim” “O.R. 569/875”. Said Appellees Steele and Polster-Chappell had recused themselves. Any and all of Steele’s and Polster Chappell’s orders, judgments, and/or rulings were tainted and invalid.
MEMORANDUM
16. The term "forgery" has been viewed in the light of its common law meaning: "A forged writing was defined in Greathouse as one 'which falsely purports to be the writing of another person than the actual maker.' Greathouse, supra, 514.
“FEDERAL” FORGERY
17. The Supreme Court defined what it termed 'the concept of "federal" forgery' as its common law counterpart. Gilbert v. United States, 370 U.S. 650, 655, 82 S.Ct. 1399, 1402, 8 L.Ed.2d 750, 754 (1962).
FORGERY AND FALSITY OF FAKE “CLAIM” O.R. 569/875
18. The Supreme Court has noted that " '(f)orgery, or the crimen falsi, * * * may with us be defined (at common law) to be, "the fraudulent making or alteration of a writing to the prejudice of another man's right" * * *.' 4 Blackstone, Commentaries (Christian ed. 1809), 247-248." Gilbert v. United States, 370 U.S. 650, 657 n.10, 82 S.Ct. 1399, 1403, 8 L.Ed.2d 750 (1962). Significantly then, "(a)n essential element of the crime of forgery is making the false writing * * *." United States v. Maybury, 274 F.2d 899, 903 (2 Cir. 1960) (emphasis added). See Carr v. United States, 278 F.2d 702, 703 (6 Cir. 1960), ("The word 'forgery' is commonly defined as the false making or materially altering, with intent to defraud, of any writing, which, if genuine, might apparently be of legal efficacy or the foundation of a legal liability."); Marteney v. United States, 216 F.2d 760, 763 (10 Cir. 1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 953, 75 S.Ct. 442, 99 L.Ed. 745 (1955), ("The words (falsely made and forged) relate to genuineness of execution..."). See also R. Anderson, 2 Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure § 634 at 412-13 (1957); Cunningham v. U.S., 272 F.2d 791 (4 Cir. 1959); United States v. Smith, 262 F. 191 (7 Cir. 1920).
FALSE PRETENSES THAT FORGED “O.R. 569/875” WAS INSTRUMENT
19. The alteration of supporting documents giving rise to the issuance of a fake ‘instrument’ amounts to the crime of false pretenses. See, e.g., Lemke v. United States, 211 F.2d 73, 14 Alaska 587 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 1013, 74 S.Ct. 866, 98 L.Ed. 1136 (1954). Here, the Appellees, e.g., forged STRAP “12-44-20-01-00000.00AO” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”.
POST-RECUSAL JUDGMENT(S)/ORDERS WERE VOID [MANDAMUS]
20. In 2008, Defendants-Appellees John E. Steele and S. Polster Chappell had recused themselves. Both U.S. District Judge Steele and Magistrate Polster Chappell concealed said barred, forged, and false “land” “claim” “O.R. 569/875” and Appellants’ exclusive perfect marketable un-encumbered record title to riparian Gulf-front Lot 15A. In exchange for Appellees’ bribes, said Appellees perverted scam “O.R. 569/875” into a “legislative act”, which however could have never possibly passed any title to Lee County. All pre-recusal orders, rulings, and/or judgments were tainted and automatically null & void in these corrupted proceedings. The Appellees concealed the interested persons and victims of said forgery and barred “claim”.
21. Accordingly, the judgment(s) of the Court of Appeals and U.S. District Court are null and void and the Case(s) must be remanded to the District Court for further proceedings regarding said conclusively proven fraud and the nullity, falsity, and forgery of fake “land” “claim” “O.R. 569/875”.

Respectfully submitted,
______________________________ _______________________
/s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott /s/Dr. Jorg Busse
SIGNATURES, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
P.O. Box 11124, Naples, FL 34101-11124; T: 239-595-7074; jrbu@aol.com

FL0300_.252 [101.74 Acres; 09/02/1902; # 17664; R.H.; S 12];
FL0900_.171 [158.50 Acres; 10/22/1895; # 11887; A.R.; SS 12, 13];
FL0300_.294 [150.67 Acres; 12/20/1902; # 17808 J.M.; S 7];
[FL0910_.410 [121.39 Acres; 10/26/1896; # 17355; O.R.; S 13];
[FL1100_.397 [107.68 Acres; 12/17/1906; # 18262; I.M.; SS 7, 8, 17].


SEE ALSO REFERENCED UNITED STATES SURVEYS (U.S. B.L.M.)
[e.g., 1972; 1960; 1956; 1876]


CC: Board of Forensic Document Examiners
Federal Bureau of Investigation
State Attorney
Crooked Kenneth M. Wilkinson
Crooked Charlie Green
Crooked Mike Scott

CAYO COSTA

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________

No. 09-13187-E
__________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:09-CV-00341-CV-FTM-34/UA- [RECUSED] SPC


JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

GERALD B. TJOFLAT, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.
_____________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division
___________________________

PREVAILING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EXPENDITURES


NOTICE OF FRAUDULENT CLOSURE OF CASE # 09-13186-E

PURSUANT TO COURT-INFORMANT’S REPORT


(August 7, 2009)


PLAINTIFFS PREVAILED AND WERE ENTITLED TO COST
1. The Supreme Court has admonished the courts to ensure that a request for attorney's fees does “not result in a second major litigation.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 1941, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1983). In the context of the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (section 1988), the Supreme Court has made clear that a plaintiff is "prevailing" if he proves "his entitlement to some relief on the merits of his claims, either in the trial court or on appeal." Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 757, 100 S. Ct. 1987, 1989, 64 L. Ed. 2d 670(1980)(per curiam) (emphasis added). He or she need not prevail on all legal issues. Id. Furthermore, it is well established that a party need not obtain relief on every claim or legal theory it propounds in order to be considered "prevailing" under a fee-shifting statute. Here, Plaintiff-Appellants were entitled to an award of fees, expenses and/or costs pursuant to this Court’s 04/21/2009 Judgment. See Prescott v. State of Florida, No. 08-14846-FF, 2009 WL 1059631 (11th Cir. April 21, 2009).
11th CIRCUIT DECLARED APPELLANTS’ ENTITLEMENTS TO OWN
2. Here, the U.S. Court of Appeals adjudged and declared Plaintiff-Appellants the unimpeachable record owners of their riparian Cayo Costa lands and private street and alley easements, because “Lee County” had never asserted any “claim”. Even if, arguendo, “Lee County” would have asserted a colorless sham “claim”, said scam lacked any color, execution, legal description, and/or boundaries, and was barred under, e.g., Florida’s Marketable Record Title Acts. Here, the 11th Circuit reached the merits, exercised jurisdiction, and declared Appellants’ perfected entitlement to exclude Appellee-Governments and own/enjoy their riparian Gulf-front-land-parcel 15A and their private street and alley easements in the residential private undedicated Cayo Costa Subdivision. See Prescott v. State of Florida, No. 08-14846-FF, 2009 WL 1059631 (11th Cir. April 21, 2009).
PLAINTIFFS RECEIVED THE DEMANDED PERMANENT RELIEF
3. The prevailing party test is "whether he or she has received substantially the relief requested [declaratory] or has been successful on the central issue [ownership/ title to riparian Gulf-front-Lot 15A and the private easements ]," Watkins v. Mobile Housing Board, 632 F.2d 565, 567(5th Cir. Unit B 1980), or, stated another way, whether "plaintiffs' lawsuit was a catalyst motivating defendants to provide the primary relief sought in a manner desired by litigation." Robinson v. Kimbrough, 652 F.2d 458, 465 (5th Cir.1981). Here, Plaintiffs received the demanded declaratory relief. Pursuant to binding precedent, the 11th Circuit declared Plaintiff-Appellants the unimpeachable record owners of their riparian upland, adjoining street, accretions thereto, and private street and alley easements in the undedicated private residential Cayo Costa Subdivision. West Peninsular Title Co. v. Palm Beach County, 41 F.3d 1490(11thCir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5thCir.1959). Here, Plaintiffs’ lawsuits were a catalyst motivating Defendants Lee County to propose settlement and comply with the Judgment(s) by the U.S. Court of Appeals.
LAZZARA & STEELE MADE MOCKERY OF COURT PROCEEDINGS
4. Defendant-Appellee recused U.S. District Judge John E. Steele and objectively partial and corrupt named party Defendant Richard A. Lazzara made a mockery of the proceedings, because Steele and Lazzara falsely pretended that prima facie frivolous, null-and-void, and illegal “land” “claim” and/or scam “O.R.569/875” was purportedly a “legislative act” and/or “resolution” and that Appellants’ claims-for-relief were “frivolous”. In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, Steele and Lazzara concealed that said prima facie colorless, forged, barred, and non-asserted “claim” “O.R.569/875” was never signed, executed, sealed, and/or recorded as admitted by the Defendants and adjudged by the 11th Circuit.
APPELLEE GOVERNMENTS’ LITIGIOUS POSITIONS
5. The United States' and State’s general posture in these Cases and/or Appeals has been disturbing. Here since at least 2006, Appellee-Governments took prima facie frivolous, irrational, fraudulent, and litigious positions throughout the litigation. Defendant-Governments' frivolous contentions and litigating postures were unwarranted and unnecessarily prolonged the litigation. At every turn, said Governments used all of their considerable resources in opposing Plaintiffs' highly meritorious contentions and conclusive evidence of Appellants’ unimpeachable marketable perfected title to their riparian Gulf-front-land-parcel 15A and their platted private easements in the undedicated private residential Cayo Costa Subdivision on Cayo Costa Island. See PB 3, PG 25.
6. From pretrial discovery through successive Appeals, said Defendant-Governments moved to obstruct justice and 11th Circuit Judgment(s), pervert the truth, corrupt the tainted proceedings, defraud, and deliberately deprive the Appellants under false pretenses that Appellants were “frivolous” when they blew the whistle on Lazzara’s and Steele’s extra-judicial collateral fraud and crimes.
APPELLANTS WERE AUTHORIZED TO RECOVER EXPENDITURES
7. Appellants were authorized to recover three types of litigation expenditures. First, a prevailing party opposing the United States in any civil action may be awarded costs. The second and third types of expenditures are fees and other expenses, which a district court must award to a party who prevails against the United States in any civil action, when the government fails to demonstrate that its position was substantially justified. Here pursuant to said 04/21/2009 11th Circuit Judgment, absolutely nothing could have possibly justified said fraudulent, unwarranted, and false pretenses that prima facie frivolous, null-and-void, and illegal sham “claim” and/or scam “O.R.569/875” was a “resolution” and/or “legislative act”. Here, Appellees concealed that no resolution and/or legislative act could have possibly transferred any title to said riparian land-parcel 15A and the private “Cayo Costa” street and alley easements to “Lee County” as adjudged by the 11th Circuit.
LAZZARA FRAUDULENTLY FIXED APPELLANTS’ CASES FOR BRIBES
8. Brazenly, objectively partial, unfit, and corrupt Judge Richard A. Lazzara fixed and shut down Appellants’ “Fifth Case” [Case # 2:09-cv-341-FtM-99[RECUSED]SPC] on June 4, 2009 in exchange for Defendants’ bribes. Lazzara instructed the Clerk of District Court not to file and/or reverse the filings of Plaintiff-Appellants’ Pleadings, Responses, and Motion for Summary Judgment against Richard A. Lazzara. Plaintiffs immediately re-filed said illegally rejected Pleadings as their “Notice(s) of Appeal” so that corrupt Defendant-Appellee Lazzara could not escape/evade prosecution by said unlawful means of obstructing justice and Plaintiff-Appellants’ Federal Court access. On June 4, 2009, Lazzara knew that the 11th Circuit had declared Appellants the unimpeachable exclusive owners of their Gulf-front lands and private street and alley easements in undedicated private “Cayo Costa”.
U.S. POSITION WAS SUBSTANTIALLY UN-JUSTIFIED & FRAUDULENT
9. The U.S. District Court, and Appellee corrupt U.S. District Judges R. A. Steele and R. A. Lazzara knew first hand that Defendant Governments’ position(s) were fraudulent, frivolous, and substantially un-justified. Here, the prima facie illegality, nullity, and frivolity of sham “claim” “O.R.569/875” turned upon not merely what was the law, but what was the conclusive evidence on record regarding the facts. By reason of Court proceedings [see, e.g., Transcript of November 2007 Hearing before recused and objectively partial Appellee corrupt Magistrate S. Polster-Chappell], conferences, and other pretrial activities, the District Court had conclusive insights in addition to the record of prima facie null-and-void and illegal fake “claim” “O.R.569/875”. Here, e.g., forged and fraudulently “claimed” “lot 00A0” and “block 00001” were never platted and/or subdivided [see PB 3, PG 25], which all Defendant-Appellee corrupt and unfit Judges [e.g., Steele, Lazzara] and Magistrates [Chappell; Pizzo] knew and concealed in exchange for bribes.
10. Here, the Appellee corrupt Judges knew that the fictitious “resolution” [prima facie scam “O.R.569/875”] was a “condemnation” fraud/coercion/extortion-scheme [“racket”], which could easily and readily be verified by the Defendant Governments and Officials. More than one thousand (1,000) docket entries/pleadings in State, State Appellate, Federal, and Federal Appellate Courts later, said Appellees brazenly continue their charade and mockery.
AUGUST 2009 CLOSURE UNDER FALSE PRETENSES OF FRIVOLITY
11. In August 2009, an informant within the U.S. Court of Appeals informed Plaintiff-Appellants that the 11th Circuit “closed” Appellants’ Case # 09-13186-E for the illegal purpose of “rubber-stamping” Lazzara’s fraudulent and false allegations that Plaintiffs’ claims-for-relief and causes of action were purportedly “frivolous”. Two of the Judges involved in said extra-judicial collateral fraud, deliberate deprivations, and obstruction of justice were reportedly Defendant-Appellees Susan H. Black and Stanley F. Birch. Here, both objectively partial and unfit Black and Birch were named party Defendants and absolutely obligated to recuse themselves pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455, and § 455(b)(5)(i). Appellants filed Judicial Complaints and demanded investigation of said judicial corruption and crimes by, e.g., the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
BIRCH KNEW THAT NO RESOLUTION HAD LEGALLY EXISTED
12. Defendant-Appellee Stanley F. Birch [Appeal # 08-13170] knew that the “areas” fraudulently “claimed” in colorless, null-and-void, and illegal scam “O.R.569/875” were “unidentified” [id., p.2], and that the fictitious “resolution” [prima facie unsigned, unrecorded, unexecuted, colorless, and barred scam “O.R.569/875”] had never legally existed, and that Lee County had never asserted any “claim”. See Busse v. Lee County, Fla., 317 F.App’x 968, 973(11th Cir.2009)(Appeal # 08-13170-BB); M.D. Fla. Case # 2:07-cv-228-FtM-JES[recused, objectively partial and corrupt John Edwin Steele]-SPC[recused, objectively partial and unfit Sheri Polster-Chappell].
13. In particular, Defendant-Appellee Stanley F. Birch asserted and knew

“of his [Appellant(s)] third amended complaint in his [Appellant(s)] civil rights action against various state and local governmental entities and officials in Florida, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.”

Id., p. 2 [page numbers omitted].
In said Complaint, Plaintiff-Appellant(s) had conclusively evidenced the prima facie nullity, illegality, and frivolity of said barred and forged “claim” of “unidentified” and unplatted “areas” “O.R.569/875”. Here in exchange for Defendants’ bribes, Birch concealed that the Federal Courts had subject matter jurisdiction over Appellants’ Federal claims and jurisdiction over the Federal agents. Birch concealed that Appellants successfully defended against any unlawful and unauthorized “condemnation” “claims”, and that no title to Appellants’ Gulf-front-land-parcel 15A ever transferred to “Lee County” as adjudged and declared by the 11th Circuit on 04/21/2009.
BLACK HAD DECLARED APPELLANTS UNIMPEACHABLE OWNERS
14. Defendant-Appellee Susan H. Black [Appeal # 08-14846] knew and declared/adjudged that “[t]he Appellants are [unimpeachable] owners of [riparian Gulf-front] Lot 15A [STRAP 12-44-20-01-00015.015A”] in the Cayo Costa subdivision in Lee County, Florida.”, because prima facie null-and-void, illegal, and forged “claim” “O.R.569/875” had never legally existed. See Prescott v. State of Florida, No. 08-14846-FF, 2009 WL 1059631 (11th Cir. April 21, 2009); M.D. Fla. Case # 2:08-cv-364-FtM-JES[recused, objectively partial and corrupt John Edwin Steele]-SPC[recused, objectively partial and unfit Sheri Polster-Chappell].
THE APPELLEES HARASSED APPELLANTS
15. Under Rule 11, Federal courts are required to distinguish between contentions that often have no "reasonable basis in law or fact" and those also injected without any legitimate purpose but to harass. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Advisory Committee's Note. Sanctions under Rule 11 are meant to eliminate frivolity and harassment, not attorney zealousness. Said Defendant Governments had, at one time or another, entire teams of different attorneys working on the Cases, who conspired to conceal the prima facie frivolity, nullity, and illegality of said scam “O.R.569/875”. Naturally, the Plaintiffs had to respond in kind with their own forces. Louis v. Nelson, 646 F. Supp. 1300, 1308-09 (S.D. Fla. 1986); see also Golden Eagle Distributing Corp. v. Burroughs Corp., 801 F.2d 1531, 1540(9th Cir.1986).
APPELLEES HARASSED AND CRIMINALLY COERCED APPELLANTS
16. Here without any legitimate purpose, Defendant-Appellees injected the prima facie fraudulent, frivolous, null-and-void, and illegal “claim” “O.R.569/875”, which all Defendants knew was a scam, for the illegal purpose of harassing the Appellants and coercing them to refrain from prosecuting the Defendants and Federal agents.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Appellants demand
1. An Order awarding Plaintiff prevailing parties said expenditures under § 1988;
2. An Order enforcing said 04/21/2009 Judgment by said U.S. Court of Appeals, in which the 11th Circuit granted Appellants permanent declaratory relief and declared Appellants the unimpeachable exclusive record-title-holders of Appellants’ riparian Gulf-front-Lot15A and their private “Cayo Costa” street and alley easements [see Prescott v. State of Florida, No. 08-14846-FF, 2009 WL 1059631(11th Cir. April 21, 2009); see Lee County Plat Book 3, p. 25 within four corners of Appellants’ Complaints and Briefs (www.leeclerk.org)];
3. An Order recusing objectively partial and corrupt U.S. Judge R. A. Lazzara for shutting down and fixing Appellants’ Case on June 4, 2009 in exchange for bribes, defrauding, and deliberately depriving Appellants of their entitlements under said 04/21/2009 Judgment;
4. An Order voiding any and all tainted orders by objectively partial and corrupt Defendant-Appellee Lazzara, because Lazzara perpetrated a fraud on the courts when he falsely pretended that scam “O.R.569/875” was a “resolution” even though Lazzara knew that no such purported “resolution” had ever “legally existed”, and that “Lee County” never had any interest in/title to Appellants Gulf-front-Lot 15A and said private “Cayo Costa” street and alley easements as adjudged on 04/21/2009;
5. An Order enjoining any and all sanctions against Appellants pursuant to said 04/21/2009 Judgment, in which said Federal Court warned the Appellees and denied their motion for sanctions, because their “claim” of purported title transfer absent any trial/judicial-due-process/court judgment was frivolous, illegal, and for the improper purpose of defrauding and deliberately depriving the Appellants under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242.

Respectfully submitted,
_________________________________
/S/JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT
Plaintiff, pro se
P.O. BOX 845, Palm Beach, FL 33480
T: 561-400-3295

___________________________________
/S/JORG BUSSE, M.D., M.M., M.B.A.
Plaintiff, pro se
P.O. Box 11124, Naples, FL 34101-11124;
JRBU@aol.com; T: 239-595-7074


EXHIBITS

Lee County Plat Book 3, p.25: Platted legal descriptions of Appellants’ Gulf-front-Lot 15A and private “Cayo Costa” street and alley easements, which Appellants own free and clear pursuant to said 04/21/2009 Judgment. See also www.leeclerk.org.

Appellants’ June 4, 2009, Responses and Pleadings as docketed


CC: Federal Bureau of Investigation

` Florida Department of Law Enforcement

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel

Rahm Emanuel

U.S. Department of Justice

Lee County Clerk of Court

CAYO COSTA

CAYO COSTA GATE: CORRUPTION AND COLLUSION [SCAM “O.R.569/875”]


THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS GRANTED APPELLANTS PERMANENT RELIEF [04/21/2009; # 08-14846-FF]
1. On April 21, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reached the merits, exercised Federal jurisdiction, and granted Plaintiff-Appellant(s) the permanent relief demanded in the “Third Amended Complaint” [Doc. ## 282; 288; “First Case”] and in State Court [2006-CA-003185; July 2006 “Petition/Action for Declaratory Relief”]. Defendant-Appellee John Edwin Steele had ordered and asserted on May 5, 2008:

“Under Florida law a riparian or littoral owners owns to the line of the ordinary high water mark on navigable waters [“Gulf of Mexico”], and the riparian or littoral property rights include the vested right to receive accretions to the property. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Sand Key Assocs., Ltd., 512 So.2d 934, 936-7 (Fla. 1987); Brannon v. Boldt, 958 So.2d 367, 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). These rights constitute [fundamental Constitutionally-protected] property, and cannot be taken or destroyed by the government… Lee County v. Kiesel, 705 So.2d 1013, 1015(Fla. 2d DCA 1998).”

[Doc. # 338; p. 8; “First Case”: 2:07-cv-228-FtM-JES[RECUSED]-SPC[RECUSED]; recused Appellee John E. Steele].
Here, said 05/05/2008 Order conclusively affirmed Federal jurisdiction of Defendants’ deliberate deprivations of certain, final, and Appellants’ ripe legal claims/causes-of-action of their declaredly fundamental Constitutionally-protected “vested right(s) to receive accretions to” riparian Gulf-front-Lot 15A in private undedicated Cayo Costa.

PATENTLY CLEAR COLLUSION, DECEIT, AND COLLATERAL FRAUD
2. Through collusion, deceit, and collateral extra-judicial fraud, Defendant-Appellees “claimed” uncertain and admittedly “unidentified” “lands” in the private undedicated residential Cayo Costa Subdivision on Cayo Costa Island, Lee County, Florida, and defrauded and deliberately deprived the Appellants of their patently clear fundamental Constitutional rights to exclude Defendant Governments and own/enjoy their Constitutionally-protected property without malicious governmental interference and fraudulent “ownership” “claims” under barred, frivolous, null-and-void, and illegal “O.R.569/875”, which all Defendant-Appellees knew/concealed never legally existed. Even if [hypothetically] “Lee County” would have asserted any “claim” to Appellants’ riparian Gulf-front-Lot 15A [which on the face of forged “claim” “O.R.569/875” “Lee County” never did], the fraudulently “claimed” title transfer would have required judicial-due-process/proceedings in a court-of-law. Because no trialjudicial /proceedings had ever occurred, non-existent “claim” and scam “O.R.569/875” was a brazenly frivolous, unrecognized, and perverted “defense/claim” that no reasonable, fit, and impartial juror/judge/person in the Appellees’ shoes could have possibly argued under any existing law. Plain and short, the Appellee Judges obstructed justice and fixed Appellants’ cases in exchange for Defendants’ bribes.

THE 11TH CIRCUIT DISPOSITIVELY DECLARED APPELLANTS THE OWNERS
3. With particularity, said Federal Appellate Court dispositively declared Appellants the unimpeachable exclusive record-owners of riparian Gulf-front-land-parcel 15A [U.S. Rectangular Survey System: Section-Township-Range; A-Plat: Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25; undedicated residential private Cayo Costa Subdivision (1912): “12-44-20-01-00015.015A”], because Florida’s Marketable Record Title Acts had automatically quieted Appellants’ perfected marketable record title to their riparian upland, the entire width of their adjoining street and accretions thereto. West Peninsular Title Co. v. Palm Beach County, 41 F.3d 1490(11thCir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5thCir.1959). Appellants’ Gulf-front-land-parcel 15A had been platted and subdivided in 1912, i.e., almost a century ago. The purported 1969 fake “claim” [forgery “O.R.569/875”] was on its face frivolous and a non-arguable scam. Any reasonable, fit, and impartial judge would have immediately identified “O.R.569/875” as a prima facie hoax and sanctioned the Defendant-Appellees for collusion, deceit, and fraud on the courts.

AUGUST 2009 BRIBERY [CASE-FIXING ATTEMPTS IN CASE # 09-13187-E]
4. Pursuant to Court insiders/informants, in August 2009 Federal Judges again attempted to “dismiss” and fix Appellants’ Case # 09-13187-E in exchange for Defendants’ bribes. In particular, Federal Judges slandered Appellants as “frivolous”, because Appellants had conclusively evidenced the prima facie frivolity, nullity, and illegality of absolutely barred, unsigned, unrecorded, unsealed, and ‘colorless’ forged “land” “claim” “O.R.569/875”, which all Federal Judges knew never legally existed.

COLLUSION: HOAX OF “RESOLUTION” / “O.R.569/875”
5. After approximately more than one thousand (1,000) docket entries/pleadings/tainted rulings in the State, State Appellate, Federal, and Federal Appellate Courts since 2006, Defendant-Appellees continue to conceal the prima facie nullity, illegality, and frivolity of the fraudulently alleged “resolution”, which Defendant-Appellees knew “Lee County” never enacted, adopted, and/or passed, and which could not have possibly divested Appellants of their declaredly perfected marketable clear title to said riparian Lot 15A as adjudged by said U.S. Court of Appeals on 04/21/2009.

CROOKED APPELLEE-JUDGES PERVERTED THE TRUTH
6. Objectively partial and corrupt Appellee U.S. District Judges John Edwin Steele, Richard A. Lazzara, Mark Allan Pizzo, and Sheri Polster-Chappell perverted the truth that Lee County never had any interest in and/or title to Appellants’ Gulf-front-Lot 15A, their adjoining street and the accretions thereto as declared by the U.S. Court of Appeals on 04/21/2009. Pursuant to said 1912 Plat, Lee County never had any possessory or non-possessory interest in Appellants’ adjoining street and accretions thereto. As adjudged on 04/21/2009 and by the Lay Court [John Lay and Janet Lay v. State of Florida, D.O.A.H. Case ## 01-1541, 01-1542; Final Order; et al.; on file], Lee County and/or the public never had any access to said prima facie undedicated private Cayo Costa Subdivision. See PB 3, PG 25; www.leeclerk.org.

APPELLEES COERCED APPELLANTS TO REFRAIN FROM PROSECUTION
7. Through, e.g., arson/life-threatening fires, property seizure [Fourth Amendment claims-for-relief/causes-of-action], property and fence destruction, Defendant-Appellees threatened and coerced the Appellants to refrain from prosecuting the Defendants for deliberately depriviong and defrauding the Appellants under false pretenses of said fake/forged “resolution” [prima-facie-scam “O.R.569/875”. Pursuant to said 04/21/2009 Judgment/Mandate, Plaintiff-Appellants successfully defended against fraudulent and frivolous governmental “condemnation” “claims”, which the Appellees knew had no basis in fact and/or law, but were brazenly frivolous and unrecognized by the law.

CRIMINAL TRESPASS ONTO LOT 15A BY THOUSANDS OF STRANGERS
8. Each year, Defendant Governments admittedly have tens of thousands of strangers criminally trespass onto Appellants’ said lands in exchange for said strangers’ fees [revenue] to said Governments. In order to unlawfully “quiet” the Appellants, Defendant-Appellees burnt down Appellants’ said Gulf-front lands in 2008, destroyed their fencing, and had the Lee County Sheriff’s Office and Park Rangers seize and remove Plaintiffs’ property from their riparian land-parcel 15A. Corruptly, said judicial Appellees deliberately deprived Appellants of judicial review of said conclusively evidenced deliberate deprivations and fraudulent/criminal acts under false pretenses that said scam “O.R.569/875” was an instrument and/or conveyed a fictitious interest in uncertain/”unidentified” land to “Lee County”, which Defendants knew was legally and factually absolutely impossible. While crooked Federal Judges J. E. Steele and S. Polster-Chappell recused themselves, objectively partial, corrupt, and named party Defendant-Appellee Judges Richard A. Lazzara and Mark Allan Pizzo deliberately deprived the Appellants of said Appellees’ absolutely mandated recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 455, so that they could improperly preside over their own prosecution in exchange for Defendants’ bribes.

FOR BRIBES, LAZZARA AGAIN FIXED APPELLANTS’ CASES ON JUNE 4, 2009
9. When on June 4, 2009, the Plaintiffs had filed their “Responses”, “Pleadings”, and “Motion for Summary Judgment”, which conclusively evidenced Lazzara’s and Pizzo’s extra-judicial and collateral fraud and the prima facie frivolity, nullity, and illegality of said scam “O.R.569/875”, Lazzara again fixed Appellants’ Case on 06/04/2009 fraudulently claiming that Appellants had not responded to his objectively corrupted and frivolous order(s). Lazzara had used the same illegal tactics around February 10 in order to fix a related/associated Case.

THE JUDICIAL APPELLEES ARE LIABLE FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
10. The judicial Appellees have no immunity for said crimes and their wrongful obstruction of justice. Patently clearly, they were liable for injunctive relief from said collateral extra-judicial fraud, and the Federal Courts had jurisdiction over said Federal Judges and their deliberate deprivations, extrinsic fraud, false pretenses, and said concealments under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988 [18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242]. Patently clearly, the Federal Appellate Courts had jurisdiction over Appellants’ “Appeals pursuant to judicially created exceptions to the finality rule. Cohen v. Benef. Ind. LoanCo., 337U.S.541, 69S.Ct.1221, 93L.Ed.1528(1949); Atlantic Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 890 F. 2d 371, 376 (11th Cir. 1989); Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148, 157, 85 S. Ct. 308, 312, 13 L.Ed.2d 199 (1964). Here, said extra-judicial extrinsic fraud, serial bribery, case-fixing, and fraud on the Courts created exceptions to said finality rule. Unlawfully, the Federal Appellate Court had fixed Appellants Appeals ## 09-10464; 09-10745; 09-10746; 09-10747.

THE APPELLEES MADE A MOCKERY OF TAINTED JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
11. Here, Appellees have been thumbing their noses at said law and serially forcing Appellants into appealing over and over said extra-judicial collateral fraud, collusion, and deceit, and the brazenly frivolous “claim” that prima facie unsigned, un-asserted, colorless, unexecuted, unrecorded sham “claim” “O.R.569/875” was a “resolution” and/or “legislative act”, which all Judges knew was entirely immaterial and irrelevant to Appellants’ perfected unimpeachable ownership of riparian Lot 15A as adjudged/declared by the 11th Circuit on 04/21/2009. By coercing Appellants to appeal over and over and pay fees, Appellees are in effect criminally coercing Appellants to refrain from prosecuting said Defendant-Appellees for their crimes, deliberate deprivations, and obstruction of justice. Moreover, Federal Judges imposed sanctions/fees/cost against Appellants to threaten Appellants and extend “eminent domain”/”condemnation” “racket” fraud/coercion/extortion-scheme “O.R.569/875”, which all Judges knew never legally existed. Here, Federal Judges made a mockery of the judicial process. Here, Appellants were indisputably entitled to fair, just, and impartial Federal proceedings and Federal adjudication of all of Appellants’ well-pleaded causes-of-action and civil-rights-deprivations. Dispositively, the 11th Circuit had reached the merits, exercised Federal jurisdiction, and declared Appellants the unimpeachable owners of their riparian upland, adjoining street and accretions thereto. Here, the Federal Courts were estopped from imposing sanctions against Appellants as conclusively evidenced by said April 21, 2009 Judgment/Mandate. Appellants seek full enforcement of said Judgment and the clear entitlements based on it and injunctive relief from any obstruction of justice and said Declaration and Judgment of Appellants’ paramount exclusive ownership of their riparian land-parcel 15A.

The comments to this entry are closed.