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
No comments:
Post a Comment