11th circuit obstructs justice, 18 usc sec. 1503, res

8/9/2019 11th Circuit Obstructs Justice, 18 USC Sec. 1503, res

1/14

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

Appeal No. 08-14846-FF

_________________________

D. C. Docket No. 08-0364-CV-FTM-JES-SPC

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.

Defendants-Appellees.

__________________________________________

On Appeal from the U.S. District Court

for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division

___________________________________________

MEMORANDUM REGARDING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

NOTICE THAT THE

11th

CIRCUIT OBSTRUCTS JUSTICE UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1503 AND

FALSELY PRETENDS THAT EXTORTION/FRAUD-SCHEME

O.R.569/875 IS A LEGISLATIVE ACT

(April 22, 2009)

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, AND

DR. JORG BUSSE, Appellants,pro seP.O. Box 7561, Naples, FL 34101-7561

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


2/14


3/14


4/14

2

THE 11TH

CIRCUIT JUDGES ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE

1. The omnibus clause of the obstruction of justice statute subjects to criminal

liability any individual who "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any

threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or

endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

The omnibus clause is essentially a catch-all provision which generally

prohibits conduct that interferes with the due administration of justice. See

United States v. Brand, 775 F.2d 1460, 1464-65(11th Cir.1985). 18 U.S.C. Sec.

1503. The omnibus clause is broad enough to encompass "any act committed

corruptly, in an endeavor to impede or obstruct justice." Brand, 775 F.2d at

1465; see United States v. Silverman, 745 F.2d 1386, 1393(11th

Cir.1984);

United States v. Griffin, 589 F.2d 200, 203 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S.

825, 100 S.Ct. 48, 62 L.Ed.2d 32(1979).1

Here corruptly, the 11th

Circuit by

threatening communications, and, e.g., award of damages and sanctions

obstructed the due administration ofjustice.

THE CORRUPT 11TH

CIRCUIT DEFRAUDED/DEPRIVED APPELLANTS

2. 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

1 The Eleventh Circuit, in the en banc decision Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209(11th Cir.1981),

adopted as precedent decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981.


5/14

3

Appellees bribes, the corrupt 11th

Circuit defrauded and deliberately

deprived the Appellants of Federal adjudication of their multiple ripe

independentFederal 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.

THE 11TH

CIRCUIT FALSELY STATED UNIDENTIFIED AREAS

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

which is adjoining their riparian Gulf-front Lot 15A in the undedicated

private Cayo Costa Subdivision. However forbribes, the corrupt 11th

Circuit

conspired to concoct unidentified areas, tamper with the indisputable

public record evidence and witnesses for the illegal purpose ofdefrauding and

deliberately depriving the Appellants.

THE 11TH

CIRCUIT PERVERTS THE INDISPUTABLE PUBLIC RECORD

4. Appellants and Appellees 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; causes of action]. Federal judicial Defendant-

Appellees Steele and Polster-Chappell had removed Appellants Stateaction


6/14

4

to Federal Court. However forbribes, the corrupt 11th

Circuit concocted that

Appellants did not pursue State remedies.

11TH

CIRCUIT CONCEALED CLOUD REMOVAL AND CLEAR TITLE

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

eminent domainextortion/fraud-scheme O.R.569/875 pursuant to Blue Sheet

980206 and O.R.2967/1084-90. 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 O.R.569/875 and free and clear. Here, the

corrupt 11th

Circuit perverted said extortion-scheme O.R.569/875 into a

legislative act in order to defraud and deliberatelydeprive the Appellants of

theirConstitutionally-guaranteed rights under the 1st, 4

th, 14

th, 5

th, 7

th, and 11

th

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

U.S.C. 241, 242.

THE 11TH

CIRCUIT THREATENS TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE

6. The individual corruptcase-fixing Judges in the 11th

Circuit must be convicted

under the omnibus clause because it was proven that the 11th

Circuit (1)

corruptly or by threats, (2) endeavored, (3) to influence, obstruct, or impede

the due administration of justice. Brand, 775 F.2d at 1465; United States v.

Perkins, 748 F.2d 1519, 1528(11th

Cir.1984); Silverman, 745 F.2d at 1392.


7/14

5

"Corruptly" describes the specific intent of the crime and can vary in meaning

with the context of the section 1503 prosecution. Brand, 775 F.2d at 1465.

THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WAS FORESEEABLE

7. The Defendant 11th

Circuit Judges knowingly and intentionally undertook an

action from which an obstruction of justice was a reasonably foreseeable

result. Silverman, 745 F.2d at 1393. Although it is not required to prove that the

defendant had the specific purpose of obstructing justice, Silverman, 745 F.2d

at 1393, it should be established that the conduct was prompted, at least in part,

by a "corrupt motive." Brand, 775 F.2d at 1465; United States v. Howard, 569

F.2d 1331, 1336 n. 9(5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 834, 99 S.Ct. 116, 58

L.Ed.2d 130(1978). Here, the 11th

Circuits corrupt motive was to fix

Appellants Cases in exchange for Appellees bribes and to falsely pretend

that sham land claim O.R.569/875 was a legislative act absent any legal

description, boundaries, execution, signatures by Lee County, seal, notarial

acknowledgment, vote count, resolution number, etc.

THE 11TH

CIRCUIT IS LIABLE

8. The "endeavor" element of the offense describes any attempt or effort to

obstruct justice. See Brand, 775 F.2d at 1465. It is not necessary that an

individual succeed in actually obstructing justice to violate section 1503.

Osborn v. United States, 385 U.S. 323, 333, 87 S.Ct. 429, 434-35, 17 L.Ed.2d


8/14

6

394 (1966); United States v. Fields, 838 F.2d 1571, 1575(11th

Cir.1988). As the

Eleventh Circuit noted in Silverman, "a section 1503 offense is complete when

one corruptly endeavors to obstruct or impede the due administration of

justice; the prosecution need not prove that the due administration of justice

was actually obstructed or impeded." 745 F.2d at 1395(emphasis original).

11TH

CIRCUIT INTERFERES WITH ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

9. The final element of a section 1503 violation describes the characteristics of the

conduct prohibited by the statute. Under the omnibus clause, an individual is

prohibited from engaging in any activity constituting an effort to influence,

obstruct, orimpede the due administration of justice. The action taken by the

defendant does not need to directly and immediately obstruct justice to be

prohibited by section 1503. The defendant's conduct must be such, however,

that its natural and probable effect would be the interference with the due

administration of justice. Fields, 838 F.2d at 1573; Silverman, 745 F.2d at 1393;

see Brand, 775 F.2d at 1465(statute only proscribes conduct "which produces or

which is capable of producing an effect that prevents justice from being duly

administered")(emphasis original); Perkins, 748 F.2d at 1528-29 (false

statement must be such that it could have "effect of impeding justice" to

constitute violation of statute); Griffin, 589 F.2d at 204(same); Howard, 569


9/14

7

F.2d at 1335(statute only proscribes conduct which impedesjustice or is

capable of having the effect of impeding justice).

10. Here, the 11th

Circuit was prohibited from obstructing justice and falsely

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

was a legislative act. No reasonable, intelligent, fit, and impartialCircuit

could have possibly found and concluded that eminent domain extortion and

fraud-scheme O.R.569/875 was anything but a sham claim under false

pretenses. Therefore, this entire Circuit was objectively partial and unifit and

must be recused.

THIS COURT CONCEALED WEST PENINSULAR PRECEDENT

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

Cir.

1995)2, 11

thCircuit 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

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.

2http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/41/41.F3d.1490.93-4449.93-4104.htmlVolume 41, The Federal Reporter, 3d Ed. [Nov., 1994 Jan., 1995]


10/14

8

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

12. 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 Alice M. S. Robinson,

because they perfectlyown their upland, adjoining platted designated street,

and accretions thereto pursuant to the public record on file. Furthermore, Lee

County had removed the cloud of forgery O.R.569/875 in 1998. This Court

concealed and perverted said removal. Therefore, Appellants title was free

and clear and unencumbered by said fraud-scheme.

THE COURT PERVERTED THE PUBLIC RECORD AND PLAT


11/14

9

13. 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 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.

14. 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 ofriparianGulf-front Lot 15A.

THE COURT PERVERTED AUTHORITIES BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

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

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

platted designated streets in subdivisions.

THE COURTS SANCTIONED APPELLANTS TO SILENCE THEM

16. Appellee Steele had 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 Steeles crimes of,

e.g., false pretenses, deliberate deprivations, fraud, and extortion. Under


12/14

10

public policy, Steele and Polster-Chappell have nojudicial immunity for their

crimes.

____________________________ _____________________________

/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; [email protected]


13/14


14/14

11th circuit obstructs justice, 18 usc sec. 1503, res

Documents