Friday, August 28, 2009
CROOKED DAVID P. RHODES
RE: CROOKED DAVID PAUL RHODES;
INTENT TO SUE
DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS
UNDER FORGERY “O.R.569/875”
CROOK DAVID 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, and obstruction of justice.
Govern yourself accordingly!
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________
/s/JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT
Plaintiff and declared unimpeachable Owner of said private riparian lands & easements
P.O. BOX 845, Palm Beach, FL 33480
T: 561-400-3295
__________________________
/S/JORG BUSSE, M.D., M.M., M.B.A., C.P.M.
State Certified Residential Appraiser
Licensed Real Estate Broker
Mortgage Broker
Plaintiff and declared unimpeachable Owner of said riparian Lot 15A
P.O. Box 11124, Naples, FL 34101-11124;
JRBU@aol.com; T: 239-595-7074
Thursday, August 27, 2009
SUSAN H. BLACK CASE FIXING EVIDENCE
On or around August 5, 2009, Defendant-Appellee corrupt U.S. Circuit Judge Susan H. Black [see "(SFB/SHB/SM)"] fixed Appeal # 09-13189-EE:
"DISMISSED as FRIVOLOUS".
Said Appeal was then "re-opened", because Susan H. Black had declared and adjudged the Appellants the unimpeachable owners of their riparian Gulf-front lands and private easements in the undedicated private residential Cayo Costa Subdivision on 04/21/2009.
See PRESCOTT, No. 08-14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
VICTIMS OF RHODES' COVER UP OF 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
DAVID PAUL RHODES CONCEALED GOVERNMENTAL FRAUD
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
- 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;
- 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
MIAMI HERALD ON LEE COUNTY SCAM O.R. 569/875
MIAMI HERALD:
LEE COUNTY SHAM LAND CLAIM AND SCAM O.R. 569/875
READ AT:
PLAINTIFFS PREVAIL AGAINST LEE COUNTY
PLAINTIFFS PREVAIL AND SUCCESSFULLY DEFEND AGAINST LEE COUNTY SCAM
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
