11th circuit fraud of undesignated areas res

8/9/2019 11th Circuit Fraud of Undesignated Areas res

1/23

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

Appeal No. 08-14846

_________________________

D. C. Docket No. 08-00364-CV-FTM-JES[29]-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 MOTIONS TO STAY AND VACATE ALL ORDERS

BECAUSE THE COURT CONCOCTED UNDESIGNATED AREAS, WHICH

NOREASONABLECIRCUIT COULD HAVEPOSSIBLYFOUNDTO EXIST

ON THE SELF-AUTHENTICATING CAYO COSTA SUBDIVISION PLAT

NOTICE OF THIS CIRCUITS CONCEALMENT, FRAUD AND

FABRICATIONS OF UNDESIGNATED AREAS

(April 22, 2009)

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT,

DR. JORG BUSSE, Appellants

P.O. Box 7561, Naples, FL 34101-7561

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


2/23


3/23

CONCEALMENT OFEMINENT DOMAINEXTORTION/FRAUD-SCHEME O.R.569/875

CONSPIRACY TO MISREPRESENT UNDESIGNATED AREAS

2

THE COURT CONCOCTED UNIDENTIFIED/UNDESIGNATED AREAS

1. In its 04/21/2009 Opinion [# 08-13170-BB], this Circuit concocted:

Most of the allegations in the complaint concern the 1969 Lee County

Resolution 569/875, which claimedthe undesignated areas on the east andwest side of the Cayo Costa subdivision plat and all accretionsthereto as

public land to be used for public purposes.

Pursuant to the referenced self-authenticating 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat

[PB3, p. 25], this Court conspired to conceal that

a. No undesignated areas existed on the west side of the Cayo Costa

subdivision plat;

b. No undesignated areas existed on the east side of the Cayo Costa

subdivision plat;

c. No un-numberedand unlettered areas existed on the west side of the Cayo

Costa subdivision plat;

d. No accretions to undesignated areas or accretions to un-numbered

and unlettered areas existed, and the claim was fraudulent;

e. Nopublic purpose ornecessity were possible;

f. No Resolution 569/875 existed; O.R.569/875 did not contain any resolution

number.

g. Therefore, condemnation [inverse or direct] was impossible and said claim

an eminent domain fraud and extortion-scheme, which invoked Federal

subject-matter-jurisdiction. See Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U.S. 403,


4/23



3

406(1879). This Court falsely pretended that said eminent domain fraud-

scheme constituted a legislative act. No legislatorever signed and executed

said fraudulent claim. It concealed the ripeness of Appellants claims.

THIS COURT CONSPIRED TO REPEAT ITS CONCOCTIONS

2. In its 03/05/2009 Opinion [# 08-14846-FF], this Circuit conspired to repeat its

concoctions in order to deceive the public and Appellants over and over:

there were also a number of unidentified areas on the eastern and

western edges of the subdivision. The Board laid claim to all of these non-

designated parcels and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of thepublic for public purposes. Id., p. 2.

This Circuit again conspired to conceal that on the referenced Plat

a. No non-designated parcels and no unidentified areas existed or appeared

on the western edges of the subdivision Plat;

b. No non-designated parcels and no unidentified areas existed on the

eastern edges of the subdivision Plat;

c. The Board admittedly never executed and signed the fraudulent claim to

the fictitious areas and parcels pursuant to the public record;

d. Nopublic purpose was possible or was ever identified.

THIS CIRCUIT EXTENDS THEEMINENT DOMAINFRAUD-SCHEME

3. This Circuit is extending said eminent domainfraud and extortion-scheme in

exchange for Appellees bribes and deliberately depriving the Appellants of

theirfundamentalConstitutionally-protected rights under the 1st, 14

th, 4

th, 5

th,


5/23



4

and 7th

Amendments, and 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1988 [18 U.S.C. 241,

242], and 28 U.S.C. 455.

THIS COURT CONCEDED APPELLANTS OWNERSHIP

4. In its 03/05/2009 and 04/21/2009 Opinion(s), the 11th

Circuit conceded that

Plaintiff-Appellants are record title holders of Lot 15A [PID 12-44-20-01-

00015.015A] in the privateundedicated residential Cayo Costa Subdivision and

successors-in-interest [and title] to the original Subdivision

Developer/Subdivider A. C. Roesch. The subdivided Cayo Costa land parcels

were conveyed in reference to the 1912Plat in Lee County Plat Book 3, p. 25.

Said 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat depicts a designated 60 wide street

along the Gulf of Mexico. Appellants hold perfect title to the designated

street adjoining their upland. Since the 1912 Subdivision there have been

substantial accretions to Appellants private adjoining street. Appellants are

the record fee-simple-owners of the platted designated 60 wide street and

accretions thereto.

APPELLANTS OWN ENTIRE WIDTH OF THE DESIGNATED STREET

5. In Caples v. Taliaferro, 144 Fla. 1, 197 So. 861, 862, the Supreme Court of

Florida approved the rule that 'when a street or highway is platted on the margin

of the grantor's [here A. C. Roesch] land, a conveyance of the lands bordering the

street carries the fee to the entire width of the street. This rule, sound in


6/23



5

principle, is controlling here. See Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458(5th

Cir.1959); 4 Fla.Jur. Boundaries, Sec. 7. Here, the private undedicated

designated street along the Gulf of Mexico was platted on the margin of A.

C. Roeschs Cayo Costa Subdivision land. Appellant Grantees lands bordered

said private undedicated designated street. Here, Appellants own the platted

adjoining privatedesignatedstreet along the Gulf of Mexico.

APPELLANTS OWN ADJOINING ALLEY TO THE CENTERLINE

6. It has long been settled in Florida that a person who purchases a lot with

reference to a plat of the subdivision takes title to the center of that portion of

the street abutting his lot. Smith v. Horn, 70 Fla. 484, 70 So. 435, 437. The

second rule was stated in these terms: 'In the case of areas set aside on a plat for

multiple common uses, abutting owners have an easement with other purchasers

in the subdivision for whatever uses may be indicated under the circumstances.

Here, all Cayo Costa easements are private rights-to-use said designated streets

and alleys, i.e., Constitutionally-protected property. The public has no access.

Thus, public use was impossible. The undesignated un-numbered and

unlettered areas claimed in eminent domain fraud-scheme O.R.569/875 do

not exist on said Plat. Only a record or entry of a designated 60 wide street

could be found to exist on the west side of said Subdivision.


7/23



6

LEE COUNTY CONCEDED ABSENCE OF UNDESIGNATED AREAS

7. In the First Case; Doc. # 5, Lee County conceded the fraud and absence of

undesignatedareas: 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 Alice

M. S. Robinson, because they own their upland, adjoining platted designated

street, and accretions thereto. Thus, there was 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 markof 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. Appellants own riparian Gulf-

front lot 15A, which extends to the ordinary high water markof the Gulf of

Mexico. The 11th

Circuit conceded that Appellants are the owners ofriparian

Gulf-front Lot 15A. See 04/21/2009 Opinion.


8/23



7

LEE COUNTY CONCEDEDPURSUIT OF STATE REMEDIES

8. Furthermore, Lee County conceded Federal subject-matter-jurisdiction and

pursuit of state remedies: In paragraph 46, Plaintiff admits to his companion

law suit now pending in state court [Case # 06-CA-3185]. Should Lee County

be joined, the County, in the interest of judicial economy, will remove the case

to this Court. Judicial Defendant-Appellees Steele and Polster-Chappell

removed Appellants said state action to Federal Court.

LEE COUNTY CONCEDEDENTITLEMENT TO RELIEF/INVALIDATION

9. Lee County conceded: A motion made under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency

of the complaint and cannot be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that the

plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355

U.S. 41, 43-46(1951). Here, Appellants proved that they were entitled to the

exclusive relief of invalidation and damages for the concededly validly

pleaded unconstitutional temporary takings under false pretenses of

eminent domainfraud and extortion-scheme O.R.569/875. See Corn v. City of

Lauderdale Lakes, 816 F.2d 1514, 1517(11th

Cir.1987); Anthony v. Franklin

County, 799 F.2d 681, 684(11th

Cir.1986).

THIS COURT CONCEALS APPELLANTS EXCLUSIVE TITLE

10. This Court concealed that title to said platted adjoining designated street vests

in the Plaintiff-Appellant abutting property owners and that the undesignated


9/23



8

areas fraudulently claimed in O.R.569/875 never existed. Here, eminent

domainfraud-scheme O.R.569/875 lacked a legal description and ascertainable

boundaries and effected an unconstitutional temporary taking.

Condemnation [inverse and/or direct] and any title transfer to Lee County were

impossible. This Court concocted State remedies and perverted the

indisputable public record evidence for Appellees bribes.

NOJUDICIAL IMMUNITYFOR THIS CIRCUITS CRIMES

11. This Courts crimes of, e.g., false pretenses, deliberate deprivations,

misprision of felonies are an emergency, because they further irreparably

harm the Appellants and public, who are being deceived. Impartiality and

integrity of the public record must be restored speedily under public policy.

CAYO COSTA GATE

12.Criminally, this Circuit covers up the Lee County eminent domain extortion

and fraud-scheme and perverts the Florida and Federal Constitutions, which

expressly prohibited said fraud-scheme. This Courts concoction of a

legislative act was a crime, which invalidated all rulings/orders and

corrupted the judicial proceedings. The Appellants are entitled to de novo en

banc proceedings and oral argument before another impartialCircuit, which

does not pervert the truth and said 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat.


10/23



9

WHEREFORE based on the self-authenticating public record evidence,

Appellants demand

1. An Order recusing the entire Circuit under 455 based on said fabrications,

because no reasonable, impartial, andfitCircuit could havepossiblyconcealed

the platted 60 wide designated street and concocted undesignated areas;

2. An Order recusing the entire Circuit based on said fabrications, because no

reasonable, impartial, and fit Circuit could have possibly concocted that any

undesignated or unidentified areas appeared on eminent domain fraud-

scheme O.R.569/875;

3. An Order staying and vacating all Orders by this Court as corrupted and

perverted pursuant to the self-authenticating public record evidence;

4. An Orderdeclaring that the Federal Courts had patently clear subject-matter-

jurisdiction overeminent domain fraud and extortion-scheme O.R.569/875

under Boom Co., supra;

5. An Order invalidating eminent domain extortion and fraud-scheme

O.R.569/875, because siad claim was fraudulent and deceived the public;

6. An Order declaring that Appellants pursued state remedies in Lee County

Circuit Court [# 06-CA-3185] for years;


11/23



10

7. An Order adjudicating Appellants unconstitutional temporary takings

claims, substantive due process, procedural due process, equal protection,

and other claims under the 1st, 4

th, 5

th, 7

th, and 14

thAmendments;

8. An Order declaring that Lee County removed any cloud by eminent domain

fraud and extortion-scheme O.R.569/875 pursuant to O.R.2967/1084-1090 and

Blue Sheet 980206;

9. An Orderremoving the involved Judges for refusing any de novo review and

fabricating undesignatedand unidentifiedareas for Appellees bribes;

10. An Orderprosecuting the Judges who awarded damages and cost against the

Appellants forextortion and fraud, because no reasonable and impartialjudge

in this Circuits shoes could have possiblyconcealed the prima facie evidence

of the invalidity and illegality ofeminent domainfraud and extortion-scheme

O.R.569/875 and obstructed justice.

________________________________________

/s/ Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Appellant,pro se

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, pro se

SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT

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

EXHIBITS:

Self-authenticating 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat [PB 3, p. 25]


12/23



11

Eminent domainextortion and fraud-scheme O.R.569/875

Lee Countys removal ofcloudby said fraud-scheme: Blue Sheet 980206

First Case; Doc. # 5: Lee Countys concession offraud of undesignated areas

CC: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Florida Department of Law Enforcement

U.S. Dept. of Justice

Eric Holder

Media


13/23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

JORG BUSSE,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 2007 CV 228 FtM 29 SPC

LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, and its

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, and

THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, and

STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES

OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND,

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION,

Defendants.

________________________________________________/

DEFENDANT LEE COUNTYS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE

TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED; OR

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; OR

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Comes now Defendant, LEE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, by and

through its counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 12(e), and 56(b) and moves the Court to

dismiss the referenced matter and as grounds would state:

1. Plaintiffs complaint, filedpro se and read most generously, is an apparent attempt

to enhance the value of the Plaintiffs real property by attaching to it littoral or riparian rights.

(a) As Plaintiff avers at paragraph 3(b), and more fully describes at paragraphs

16 and 66, Plaintiffs lot abuts not a waterway, but an alleyway or street.

(b) Beyond Plaintiffs mere assertions of littoral rights, no averment presented,

however poorly pleaded, establishes any factual basis that Plaintiffs lot abuts a waterway; therefore,


14/23

2

no riparian rights attach per Florida law.

(c) In the absence of any littoral rights, Plaintiff cannot claim any right to a dock

permit denied to him by Lee County as averred in paragraphs 79 and 80.

2. In paragraph 46, Plaintiff admits to his companion law suit now pending in state

court. LEE COUNTY is not yet a party in that suit (Case No. 06CA-3185). Should LEE COUNTY

be joined, the County, in the interest of judicial economy, will remove the case to this Court.

3. In Plaintiffs state case, his complaints utilize attachments of copies of his lot

description from public records including aerial photos which clearly depict his lots location as

platted and as it exists today over 1200 feet from the Gulf of Mexicos waters. (Those attachments

are attached here as exhibits A and B to the Memorandum of Law).

4. In the alternative, the aforesaid notwithstanding, and reading Plaintiffs complaint

most generously, the averments remain so vague or ambiguous that defendant, LEE COUNTY,

cannot reasonably frame a responsive pleading. To wit: the majority of the numbered paragraphs

state various legal holdings from state and federal courts, Florida statutory law, administrative rules,

and opinions of the Florida Attorney General (see paragraphs 7, 9, 11, 13, 15). Other averments

simply make statements apparently based on the Plaintiffs readings of various authorities, legal or

otherwise (see paragraphs 20, 21, etc.). While, for instance, paragraph 10 appears to state a cause

of action, no facts are presented to support the allegation. In sum, Plaintiffs complaint is neither

short or plain or sufficient enough to allow a responsive pleading.

5. In the alternative, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b), since LEE COUNTY is

submitting matters outside the pleadings, for example exhibits A and B, the Court shall treat the

matter as a motion for summary judgment. Vanero v. City of Tampa, 830 F. Supp. 1457, 1458


15/23

3

(1993)(J. Kovachevich).

6. Plaintiff has apparently named and served both Lee County and its Board of

County Commissioners as defendants. By statute, the proper party in interest is simply Lee

County. Therefore, Defendant moves to dismiss its Board of County Commissioners.

WHEREFORE, LEE COUNTY moves this Court to dismiss the complaint or, in the

alternative, order the Plaintiff to file a petition for relief that, even minimally, meets the Rules of

pleading; or grant the Defendant, LEE COUNTY, summary judgment.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

A motion made under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint and cannot

be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him

to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1951).

Plaintiff claims riparian rights. As the Florida Supreme Court articulated in 1895, in a suit

to enjoin trespass upon riparian rights, the allegations of the bill must be clear and precise as to the

title. Axline v. Shaw, 35 Fla. 305, 309, 17 So. 411, 412 (1895). TheAxline court then examines

the claimants deed as to the boundaries of the subject real property: In order for one to have

riparian rights, there must be an actual water boundary of the land in connection with which such

rights are claimed. Idat 310, 17 So. at 413. TheAxline court concludes: Such a boundary is land,

and not water, and does not confer riparian rights under our statute. Id. at 305, 17 So. at 412.

SinceAxline, the statutory definition of Florida sovereignty lands now extends to the ordinary

high water mark. 253.141(1) Fla. Stat. (2006). Plaintiffs deed (attached as exhibit A) simply

conveys lot 15A. The lot is clearly outlined on the plat map as a 50' x 130' lot bounded by a street

right-of-way of 60 feet (attached exhibit B). Lot 15A is not bounded by water of any sort. Lot


16/23

4

15A does not extend to the shore as inAxline, or even the ordinary high water mark as depicted

on the plat. 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. 253.141(1) Fla. Stat.

(2006).

Since there are no riparian rights appurtenant to the Plaintiffs lot, the complaint is fatally

deficient and must be dismissed.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jack N. Peterson

JACK N. PETERSON

Assistant County AttorneyFlorida Bar No. 0832774

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY, that a true and correct copy of Lee Countys Motion to Dismiss has

been furnished by U.S. Mail to: Jorg Busse, Plaintiff, Post Office Box 1126, Naples, FL 34106-1126;

Reagan Kathleen Roane, Assistant General Counsel, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Number 35,

Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000; and Kenneth W. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser, 2480

Thompson Street, Fort Myers, FL 33901, on this 1st day of May, 2007.

By: /s/ Jack N. Peterson

Jack N. Peterson

Assistant County Attorney

Florida Bar No. 0832774

DAVID M. OWEN

LEE COUNTY ATTORNEYS OFFICE

2115 Second Street

Post Office Box 398

Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398

Telephone No. (239) 533-2236

Facsimile Phone No. (239) 485-2118

[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


17/23


18/23


19/23


20/23

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 89-2 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 5 of 10


21/23


22/23


23/23

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 89-2 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 4 of 10

11th circuit fraud of undesignated areas res

Documents