UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

[“TRANSFERRED” FROM: U.S. D.C., SOUTHERN DISTRICT, W. PALM BEACH DIV.]

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE,

Plaintiffs,

versus Civil Rights Case # 2:09-CV-00791-FtM-CEH-SPC

ROGER ALEJO; KENNETH M. WILKINSON; JACK N. PETERSON; ROGER

DESJARLAIS; LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; LEE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT
BOARD; LORI L. RUTLAND; STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND; STATE OF FLORIDA,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; CHAD LACH; CHARLES
“BARRY” STEVENS; REAGAN KATHLEEN RUSSELL; KAREN B. HAWES;
ROGER DESJARLAIS; CHARLIE GREEN; BOB JANES; BRIAN BIGELOW; RAY
JUDAH; TAMMY HALL; FRANK MANN; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY(S); SEAN
P. FLYNN; E. KENNETH STEGEBY; DAVID P. RHODES; A. BRIAN ALBRITTON;
CYNTHIA A. PIVACEK; JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.; STEVEN CARTA; MIKE
SCOTT; HUGH D. HAYES; GERALD D. SIEBENS; STATE OF FLORIDA
ATTORNEY GENERAL; WILLIAM M. MARTIN; PETERSON BERNARD; SKIP
QUILLEN; TOM GILBERTSON, NEWS PRESS, R. LENGERICH,

Defendants.

EMERGENCY MOTION
_______________________________________________________________________/

EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENJOIN THE CASE-FIXING ON RECORD AND

CONSPIRACY OF CASE-FIXING BY “LEGAL WHORE” SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF OBJECTIVELY CORRUPT & PARTIAL

“LEGAL WHORE” CHAPPELL WHO ACCEPTED DEFENDANTS’ BRIBES

CRIMINAL CONCEALMENT AND CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL

BY “LEGAL WHORE” SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL:

 CHAPPELL CAUGHT IN CRIME OF CONCEALING FORGED “PARCEL” “00A0”

1. In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, “legal whore” Sheri Polster Chappell fraudulently

concealed, and conspired with other Defendants to fraudulently conceal, facially forged and

“publicly recorded” Governmental “land” “claims” on file such as, e.g., “O.R. 569/875” and “12-

44-20-01-00000.00A0”. The Plaintiffs move this Court to enjoin “legal whore” Polster Chappell

from any further fraudulent concealment of the prima facie nullity and illegality of said record

Governmental fraud schemes in exchange for Defendants’ bribes.

MEMORANDUM

2. Public recordation of a facial forgery and/or fraud scheme is null and void ab initio.

PREVIOUS OBJECTIONS TO CHAPPELL’S CRIMES & FRAUD ON THE COURT

3. Previously, the Plaintiffs had objected to the crimes, concealment of Governmental forgeries,

and obstruction of court access and justice by corrupt Chappell:

‘OBJECTIONS TO ORDER, DOC# 98, WHICH WAS PROCURED BY FRAUD ON COURT,

AND FOR THE ILLEGAL PURPOSE OF KEEPING PLAINTIFFS AWAY FROM COURT

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF CONCEALMENT OF EVIDENCE

BY OBJECTIVELY PARTIAL & CORRUPT U.S. JUDGE SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
AND OF THE CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF CHAPPELL’S CRIMES, AND DEPRIVATIONS,
DOC. ## 74, 75, 76’

See Certificates of Court Filings published at www.scribd.com;

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud.

CHAPPELL CONCEALS CRIMES/STRIKES EVIDENCE AS SCANDALOUS MATTER

4. Rather than confess and admit, Chappell continued her crimes and concealed the

Governmental corruption scandal by fraudulently pretending that Plaintiffs’ conclusive proof of

the record Governmental eminent domain forgeries such as, e.g., “O.R. 569/875” and “12-44-20-

01-00000.00A0” were purportedly “scandalous” and “immaterial” matter.

2
CRIMINAL CONCEALMENT OF PLAINTIFFS’ STREET OWNERSHIP, PB 3, PG 25

5. Pursuant to the Federal Appellate Court records on file, Defendants Lee County and Lee

County Commissioners had asserted before the U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, that the land

adjoining Plaintiffs’ upland was a “street” as legally described and conveyed to the Plaintiffs in

reference to the 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat recorded in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25.

See BUSSE, No. 08-13170, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 5055, 2009 WL 549782; 08/15/2008 Brief

by said Defendants-Appellees (“by Jack N. Peterson”):

PROSTITUTION & PERVERSION OF PLATTED STREET INTO FAKE “PARCEL”:

3
 NON-EXISTENT FORGED “PARCEL” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”

WHICH WAS NOT LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN REFERENCE TO PB 3, PG 25 (1912)

CHAPPELL ILLEGALLY PUNISHED AND COERCED PLAINTIFF STREET OWNERS

POLSTER CHAPPELL PROSTITUTED HERSELF FOR DEFENDANTS’ BRIBES

6. Here, “legal whore” Polster Chappell had illegally sanctioned and punished the Plaintiff

record riparian Gulf-front “paper” street owners, merely because they conclusively and rightfully

proved their unimpeachable riparian Gulf-front “paper” street ownership, PB 3, PG 25 (1912),

and exposed the Governmental corruption and forgeries on the record. See PRESCOTT, No. 08-

14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631; see Lee County Plat Book 3, p. 25;

www.LeeClerk.org. Legal and judicial prostitution and Chappell’s acceptance of Defendants’

bribes are unlawful in America.

CHAPPELL CONCEALED THAT CONCOCTED “PARCEL” “00A0” NEVER EXISTED,

PB 3, PG 25 (1912), AND “STRUCK” SAID GOVERNMENTAL FORGERY EVIDENCE

7. In particular, corrupt Chappell fraudulently concealed and conspired with other Defendants

and U.S. Attorney Jennifer Waugh Corinis that said platted adjoining riparian street “on the Gulf

of Mexico” could not have possibly been facially forged “parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”,

which did not appear on said 1912 Subdivision Plat, PB 3, PG 25, as asserted and proven by

4
 Plaintiff Dr. Jorg Busse before corrupt Chappell on November 7, 2007, in the presence of co-

Plaintiff Jennifer Franklin Prescott. See Transcript of Proceedings, Motion for Rule 11

Sanctions before the dishonorable “legal whore” Sheri Polster Chappell. See PRESCOTT,

No. 08-14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631; see Lee County Plat Book 3,

p. 25; www.LeeClerk.org.

DEFENDANT WILKINSON versus DEFENDANTS LEE COUNTY

FORGED “PARCEL” “00A0” versus PLATTED GULF-FRONT STREET, PB 3, PB 25

END OF THE ROAD FOR LEGAL WHORE CHAPPELL’S CONCOCTIONS FOR BRIBES

8. Here, Defendant corrupt Chappell fraudulently concealed that Defendant Lee County Property

Appraiser Kenneth M. Wilkinson had “claimed” said platted “paper” street land to be forged

“parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”, while Defendants Lee County and Lee County

Commissioners asserted the platted “street” and/or that Plaintiffs’ Gulf-front land adjoining their

upland was the platted riparian “street”, PB 3, PG 25 (1912).

FOR BRIBES, CHAPPELL CONCEALED THAT LEE COUNTY NEVER HELD TITLE

9. Worse, “legal whore” Chappell knew and fraudulently concealed that Lee County, Florida,

never held any title to Plaintiffs’ said riparian Gulf-front street land. Here, the 11th circuit had

declared the Plaintiffs the exclusive record titleholders and owners of said street land “on the Gulf

of Mexico”. See PRESCOTT, No. 08-14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631;

see Lee County Plat Book 3, p. 25; www.LeeClerk.org.

5
CHAPPELL ILLEGALLY PUNISHED PLAINTIFFS TO PROTECT HERSELF & OTHERS

10. Because corrupt Chappell had some legally and factually impossible explaining to do, she

unlawfully punished, strong-armed, and coerced the Plaintiffs to refrain from any further

prosecution in these Civil Rights Cases to “protect” her own dirty self and cover up her own

crimes of, e.g., obstruction of justice, deliberate deprivations, and fraud. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§

241, 242.

CORRUPT CHAPPELL CAUGHT AMID CONCOCTIONS OF “FRIVOLITY”

11. Here, corrupt Chappell got caught in her criminal act of fraudulently concealing Plaintiffs’

declared perfected record street ownership and title [see PRESCOTT, No. 08-14846, 2009 U.S.

App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631; see Lee County Plat Book 3, p. 25;

www.LeeClerk.org], and after having accepted Defendants’ bribes, could no longer reconcile the

fatally conflicting “claims” of the riparian street as legally described in reference to PB 3, PG 25

[Def. Lee County], and the fraudulent “claim” of facially forged “parcel” “12-44-20-01-

00000.00A0” [Def. Wilkinson]. Capriciously, rogue Chappell over and over “muzzled” and

gagged the Plaintiffs and extended said Governmental corruption scheme and custom of

defrauding Cayo Costa private parcel and street owners out of their lands and private implied

easements (as legally described in reference to PB 3, PG 25). Here with wanton disregard for the

6
law of the land and in exchange for Defendants’ bribes, “legal whore” Chappell criminally and

deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights directly under the

1st, 14th, 4th, 5th, and 7th U.S. Constitutional Amendments. Chappell’s judicial prostitution escalated

to the recent event of a fraudulent “lien” “attached to” Plaintiffs’ subject Parcel 12-44-20-01-

00015.015A.

REVOLT AGAINST CRIMINAL JUDGE CHAPPELL

12. The American people are revolting against rogue and dumb criminal Judge Chappell and

demand her impeachment pursuant to public policy. Here, Defendant Chappell did not respond to

the proof of said forgeries on the record, but extended the Governmental policy and custom of

deliberate deprivations, fraud, and obstruction of justice.

CORRUPT CHAPPELL CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT & PROOF OF

PLAINTIFFS’ UNIMPEACHABLE STREET OWNERSHIP, PB 3, PG 5

13. Pursuant to the binding precedent(s) on file and the dispositive April 2008 Declaration by said

Appellate Court, the Plaintiffs are the unimpeachable record owners of said “paper” street “on the

Gulf of Mexico”, PB 3, PG 25. See West Peninsular Title Co. v. Palm Beach County, 41

F.3d 1490, 1492 n.4 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 932, 116 S. Ct. 338, 133 L. Ed. 2d

237 (1995). See also 12/29/2000 LEE COUNTY MEMORANDUM; see PRESCOTT, No. 08-

14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631; see JOHN LAY AND JANET LAY v.

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, OGC CASE

NOs. 01-0203, 01-0204, DOAH CASE NOs. 01-1541, 01-1542, CASE NOs. DEP01-0860,

DEP01-0876.

7
FOR BRIBES CORRUPT CHAPPELL “STRUCK” CONCLUSIVE FRAUD EVIDENCE

14. Here, “legal slut” Chappell criminally struck again and got caught “striking” the conclusive

evidence of Governmental corruption and forgeries, PB 3, PG 25 (1912).

“LEGAL WHORE” CHAPPELL’S LATEST THREAT(S) & COERCION

15. In her latest illegal threat, Doc. # 98, corrupt Chappell coerced the Plaintiff declared

unimpeachable street land owners, PB 3, PG 25 (1912), to refrain from prosecuting those who

fraudulently and criminally “claimed” that Lee County, FL, purportedly held “title” to the platted

“street”, PB 3, PG 25, which was factually and legally absolutely impossible:

“the Court cautions the Plaintiffs that future filings containing immaterial and scandalous
matters may result in sanctions being imposed.”

Here, Plat Book 3, Page 25 proved corrupt Chappell’s crimes. The Plaintiffs are re-submitting

fraudulently “stricken” Doc. ## 74, 75, and 76, which conclusively proved the alleged

Governmental corruption and said proven eminent domain forgeries and fraud. Furthermore

deceptively, corrupt Chappell mislead the Court, Doc. # 98, p. 2:

“The allegations appear to be based solely on the fact that the Plaintiff received adverse
rulings …”

PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF WAS BASED ON RECORD GOVERNMENTAL FORGERIES

“WHORE” CHAPPELL DUMBIFIED & CORRUPTED THE JUDICIAL PROCESS

16. Here, Plaintiffs’ proof and allegations of Governmental and judicial corruption and forgeries

were “based on” said record evidence and the criminal concealment of Plaintiffs’ street

ownership, PB 3, PG 25, in exchange for Defendants’ bribes. See Governmental forgeries “O.R.

569/875” and “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” at, e.g., www.scribd.com;

http://polsterchappell.blogspot.com/;

http://vableecounty.blogspot.com/; www.LeeClerk.org; and www.LeePA.org.

8
 17. Here, said Federal Appellate Court’s declaration of Plaintiffs’ record ownership of said

platted adjoining “paper” street was DISPOSITIVE and not “adverse”. See PRESCOTT, No.

08-14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631; see Lee County Plat Book 3, p.

25; www.LeeClerk.org.

DEMAND OF EMERGENCY ORDER ENJOINING FURTHER CRIMES BY CHAPPELL

18. The rogue and perverted measures of corrupt Chappell include “striking” evidence from the

record only to turn around and fraudulently pretend “frivolity”. The Plaintiffs will not be raped

over and over by “legal whore” Chappell and demand an EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

preventing any further case fixing and fraud on the Court by corrupt Chappell under false

pretenses of Lee County “ownership/title” and “frivolity” of Plaintiffs’ conclusive record proof of

their allegations.

CHAPPELL’S NEW CRIMES - NEW CAUSES OF ACTION

19. In exchange for bribes, “legal whore” Chappell conspired with other Defendants to “attach” a

fraudulent “lien” against Plaintiffs’ property. Fraudulently, Chappell pretended and conspired to

pretend that said new cause(s) of action are purportedly precluded from adjudication.

FEDERAL SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION WAS PATENTLY CLEAR

20. Legal matters which arose in Federal court such as here, e.g., said fraudulent “lien”, coercion,

extortion of property, and Chappell’s perpetration of fraud on the Court(s) were of cause subject

to Federal jurisdiction and adjudication. Chappells’ incompetence and corruption are a continual

disgrace.

APPARENT NON-RANDOM CASE ASSIGNMENT

21. Chappell has managed to get her dirty judicial hands on the majority of Plaintiff landowners’

Civil Rights Cases since 2006 despite apparently false pretenses of “random case assignment”.

9
 Here, corrupt Chappell continued to conceal said Governmental forgeries since 2006 in favor of

Defendants and in exchange for their bribes. Here, e.g., Magistrate Frazier was not assigned

despite the falsely pretended random assignment.

CHAPPELL’S PROSTITUTION AND PERVERSIONS WERE PROHIBITED

22. Because judicial and legal corruption, prostitution, and said record perversions of the truth

and public record are illegal in the United States of America, the Plaintiffs demand an

EMERGENCY ORDER enjoining objectively corrupt and partial “legal whore” Chappell from

any further extrinsic fraud on the Federal Court(s) and Chappell’s immediately removing

Chappell from the judicial bench.

CHAPPELL’S CONCOCTIONS & FRAUD ON THE COURT:

“KEEPING THE PLAINTIFFFS AWAY FROM COURT”

23. Chappell’s “orders”, e.g., Doc. # 98, have been for the unlawful purpose of “keeping the

Plaintiffs away from Court”, and obstructing meaningful court access and justice. Chappell’s

crooked custom and policy has been to, e.g., conceal the prima facie criminality of Governmental

forgeries “O.R. 569/875” and concoct and falsely pretend “frivolity” without any rational

explanation and/or justification.

FEDERAL COURTS MUST FOLLOW FLORIDA STATE LAW & BINDING PRECEDENT

24. Under the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), 304 U.S. 64, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L.

Ed. 1188, 114 A.L.R. 1487, a Federal court as to a non-federal matter is required to follow the

substantive statute and common law of the state in which it is sitting. Here, Florida State law

applied. Here, pursuant to Florida and Federal law, the Plaintiffs owned said platted riparian Gulf-

front “paper” street on the outer perimeter or margin of said Cayo Costa Subdivision as legally

described in PB 3, PG 25. See PRESCOTT, No. 08-14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009

10
WL 1059631; Lee County PB 3, PG 25 (1912). Here, said U.S. Court of Appeals followed

Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959) and West Peninsular Title Co. v. Palm

Beach County, 41 F.3d 1490, 1492 n.4 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 932, 116 S. Ct. 338,

133 L. Ed. 2d 237 (1995), in which the 11th Circuit relied on the Florida Supreme Court

ruling(s) in, e.g., Caples v. Taliaferro, 197 So.861 and/or Burns v. McDanial, 104 Fla. 526,

140 So. 314:

‘There are also authorities holding that when a street of highway is laid out wholly
on the margin of a grantor’s land, a conveyance of the lands abutting such street or
highway carried the fee to the entire width of such street or highway…’

25. However in exchange for Defendants’ bribes, Polster Chappell prostituted herself and

perverted Florida state law, Florida’s self-enforcing Marketable Record Title Act, eminent

domain Statutes, and Constitution, which expressly prohibit eminent domain and/or

condemnation without due process and outside a court of law. Here, Chappell knew and

fraudulently concealed that prima facie scam “O.R. 569/875” and forged “parcel” “12-44-20-01-

00000.00A0” were bogus, a hoax, and unrecognized by the law.

IN CHAPPELL’S COURT “IN DUE COURSE” MEANS DEATH OF DUE PROCESS

26. As “legal whore” Chappell demonstrated on, e.g., Nov. 7, 2007, in her court room, “in due

course” means the death of due process, perversions of public record evidence and the truth, and

punishment in direct violation of, e.g., the 1st, 14th, 4th, 5th, and 7th U.S. Const. Amendments, 18

U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988.

MEMORANDUM

RULES REGARDING “AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES”

27. In 1949, effective January 1, 1950, the Supreme Court adopted rules of civil procedure, which

control the practice and pleading in causes of action both at common law and in equity. These

11
rules of procedure introduced into the jurisprudence of this State, Florida, the concept of pleading

and procedure to be employed in the litigation of civil actions. Among the rules so adopted is one

relating to affirmative defenses in which it is provided that:

"In pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively accord and
satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption of risk, contributory negligence,
discharge in bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality,
injury by fellow servant, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of
frauds, statute of limitations, waiver, and any other matter constituting an avoidance
or affirmative defense.” Rule 1.8(d) Rules of Civil Procedure.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES MAY NOT BE ASSERTED IN MOTION TO DISMISS:

DEFENDANTS DID NOT ANSWER AND WAIVED THEIR RIGHTS

28. The foregoing rules have been uniformly construed to mean that if a complaint filed in a

civil action states a cause of action in accordance with either statutory, common law or

equitable principles, the complaint will be sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss it. If a

defendant elects to assert an affirmative defense as a bar to the action, such defense must be

pleaded in an answer filed in response to the complaint. Affirmative defenses may not be

asserted as grounds for a motion to dismiss the complaint, even though the availability of

the defense as a bar to the action may appear on the face of the complaint.

RULE 1.8(d), FLA.R.CIV.P. IS EXACT COUNTERPART OF RULE 8(c) FED.R.CIV.P.

29. Rule 1.8(d) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure was taken from and is an exact counterpart

of Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to the pleading of affirmative

defenses. Courts in the Federal jurisdiction have consistently construed this rule to mean that the

affirmative defense of the statute of frauds must be pleaded in a responsive pleading addressed to

a cause of action, and may not be asserted as a ground for a motion to dismiss. See Continental

Collieries, Inc. v. Shober (Ct.App. 3rd Ct., 1942), 130 F.2d 631; Richard Nathan Corp. v.

12
Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha, Limited (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1941), 41 F. Supp. 299; Piest v. Tide Water Oil

Co., (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1939), 27 F. Supp. 1020.

DEFENDANTS DID NOT ANSWER – BINDING PRECEDENT

30. In Hough v. Menses et al. (Fla.1957), 95 So.2d 410, the trial court entered an order granting a

motion to dismiss a complaint upon the asserted grounds that the issues raised were purportedly

res judicata because of a previous suit to quiet title. In reversing the order of dismissal the

Supreme Court said:

"Grounds (2) and (4) of the motion to dismiss are affirmative defenses which are not
properly raised on motion to dismiss, but should be raised in an answer. See
Fla.Rules Civ.Proc. rules 1.8(d) and 1.11(b), 30 F.S.A."

31. In Stone v. Stone (Fla.App.1957), 97 So.2d 352, the lower court erroneously dismissed a

complaint with prejudice pursuant to a motion to dismiss which raised the affirmative defenses of

res judicata and/or estoppel by judgment. The Third District Court of Appeal, speaking through

Judge Horton, properly characterized the defenses asserted as affirmative in character, which

under said rules of procedure could only be asserted in an answer filed to the complaint. In

reversing the decree appealed, the court said:

"* * * To supplement a complaint with additional facts, by way of motion to

dismiss, in order to render the complaint legally insufficient, is a practice that is
not authorized by the rules. The motion to dismiss certainly could not operate in
this instance as a substitute for a motion for summary decree, because to do so
would deny the opposing party the benefit of notice and opportunity to reply
provided for by the summary decree rule if not in effect denying him due process.
See Rule 1.36, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure."

The same conclusion was reached by the Third District Court of Appeal in Braz v. Professional

Insurance Corporation (Fla.App.1958), 101 So.2d 594, wherein an order dismissing with

prejudice a complaint pursuant to a motion to dismiss on the ground that the action was barred by

res judicata and laches was reversed. The Court, again speaking through Judge Horton, said:

13
 "The first and second grounds of the motion to dismiss, i.e., that the action is barred
by laches and/or res judicata, can, we feel, be disposed of upon the authority of
Hough v. Menses, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 410, and Stone v. Stone, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d
352, which, in effect, uphold Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.8(d) and 1.11(b), 30
F.S.A., requiring such defenses to be incorporated in an answer rather than in a
motion to dismiss."

DEFENDANTS’ FORGERIES & FRAUD SCHEMES WERE CRIMINAL ACTS:

32. Defendants engaged in schemes, devices, and artifices to defraud and deliberately deprive the

Plaintiffs of justice and court access. In particular, said Defendants engaged, e.g., in the

a. Falsely pretended “frivolity” scheme;

b. Forged parcel “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” scheme; see PB 3, PG 25;

c. “Lack of jurisdiction” scheme;

d. Forged “claim” “O.R. 569/875” scheme; see PB 3, PG 25;

e. Forged parcel “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” scheme; see PB 3, PG 25;

f. “Lack of ripeness” scheme.

See 12/29/2000 LEE COUNTY MEMORANDUM; see PRESCOTT, No. 08-14846, 2009

U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631; see JOHN LAY AND JANET LAY v. STATE

OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, OGC CASE

NOs. 01-0203, 01-0204, DOAH CASE NOs. 01-1541, 01-1542, CASE NOs. DEP01-0860,

DEP01-0876. See West Peninsular Title Co. v. Palm Beach County, 41 F.3d 1490, 1492 n.4

(11th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 932, 116 S. Ct. 338, 133 L. Ed. 2d 237 (1995).

DEF. CHAPPELL’S FRAUD AND FRAUD ON COURT, DOC. # 98, FILED 03/25/10

33. Defendant corrupt U.S. Magistrate Sheri Polster Chappell procured her Order, Doc. # 98, filed

03/25/2010, through fraud and fraud on the Court and in exchange for Defendants’ bribes.

14
 EMERGENCY

34. Pursuant to public policy, Governmental corruption and crimes are an emergency, which

erode the very foundation of our society like cancer. When brazen Governmental and judicial

corruption deliberately deprive American people of, e.g., 1st, 14th, 4th, 5th, and 7th Constitutional

Amendment rights in bright day light, America faces an emergency of the first order. Rather

than treat the cancer as an emergency, this Court has been spreading the cancer and concealing

cures such as truth, honesty, and knowledge.

35. Until and unless Governmental record forgeries such as, e.g., fake “parcels” “12-44-20-01-

00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and scam “O.R. 569/875” have been removed

from the books, the emergency continues. Any other argument by this Court is considered further

evidence of reckless concealment of Governmental corruption and fraud.

36. Public policy prohibits the custom of “Government covers up Governmental corruption”.

Here on the record, corrupt Judges covered up the crimes of the legislative part of government.

The prosecution of such crimes and violations is an emergency.

KEEPING THE PLAINTIFFS AWAY FROM COURT IN EXCHANGE FOR BRIBES

37. The Plaintiff unimpeachable landowners had objected and hereby again object to any and all

orders by named party Defendant corrupt U.S. Magistrate Sheri Polster Chappell, because

Chappell fraudulently concealed Governmental forgeries in exchange for Defendants’ bribes.

CHAPPELL’S FALSE AND FRAUDULENT PRETENSES

38. By falsely pretending that Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” and facially forged and

non-existent fake “parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” were

“genuine issues”, and that Plaintiffs’ conclusive proof of said fraud schemes were purportedly

“frivolous” and/or “meritless”, Defendant Chappell “kept the Plaintiffs away from Court” and

15
 obstructed justice in exchange for bribes. Here, “legal whore” Chappell “struck” again by

“ordering” to “strike” the conclusive evidence of Governmental corruption and fraud, Doc. ## 74,

75, 76.

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF PROOF OF GOVERNMENTAL FORGERIES

39. In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, Defendant corrupt U.S. Magistrate Sheri Polster Chappell

procured her “Order”, Doc. # 98, through fraud on the Court and for the unlawful purpose of

fraudulently concealing the prima facie criminality, illegality, and nullity of Governmental

forgeries “O.R. 569/875”.

40. Said Defendant corrupt Judge Chappell “ordered” the conclusive proof, Doc. ## 74, 75, 76, of

the criminality, illegality, and nullity of facially forged eminent domain “claim” “O.R. 569/875”

“stricken” for the unlawful purpose of concealing Chappell’s own [extra] judicial crimes.

CHAPPELL CONCEALED FACIALLY FORGED “PARCEL” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”

41. In particular, Chappell fraudulently concealed facially forged “parcel” 12-44-20-01-

00000.00A0”, which Chappell knew never appeared on the 1912 Subdivision Plat of Survey in

Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25. As a matter of law and fact, said forged “parcel” never legally

existed. See PRESCOTT, No. 08-14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631; see

Lee County Plat Book 3, p. 25; www.LeeClerk.org.

CHAPPELL CONCEALED FACIALLY FORGED “PARCEL” “07-44-21-01-00001.00A0

42. Just like a “legal whore”, Chappell accepted Defendants’ bribes for the unlawful purpose of

fraudulently concealing forged “parcel” “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, which was never platted,

subdivided, and/or legally described in reference to said 1912 Plat of Survey, PB 3, PG 25.

16
CHAPPELL CONCEALED RIPARIAN GULF-FRONT “PAPER” STREET, PB 3, PG 25

43. Here, “legal whore” Chappell knew that in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit,

Defendants Lee County had asserted the platted riparian “paper” street rather than said forged

parcels.

44. Rather than being a “legal referee”, “legal whore” Chappell unintelligently and capriciously

contradicted Defendant Lee County’s assertion of said platted “paper” street, PB 3, PG 25 (1912)

in exchange for bribes.

CHAPPELL CONCEALED & “ORDERED” BINDING PRECEDENT “STRICKEN”

45. Here, Defendant corrupt Chappell fraudulently concealed and “ordered” “stricken” the

binding precedent of, e.g.:

West Peninsular Title Co. v. Palm Beach County, 41 F.3d. 1490, 1492, n.4 (11th Cir.),
cert. denied, 516 U.S. 932, 116 S.Ct. 338, 133 L.Ed. 2d 237 (1995).

See Doc. 76-1, filed 03/05/10, page 22 of 37.

46. Here, Defendant corrupt Polster Chappell “struck” again, perverted the truth, and obstructed

justice. Chappell knew that the Plaintiffs were the declared unimpeachable record owners of their

riparian Gulf-front “paper” street as legally described and conveyed to the Plaintiffs in reference

to Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912):

See also JOHN LAY AND JANET LAY v. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, OGC CASE Nos. 01-0203, 01-0204,
DOAH CASE Nos. 01-1541, 01-1542, CASE Nos. DEP01-0860, DEP01-0876.

See Doc. 76-1, filed 03/05/10, page 21 of 37.

17
 “LEGAL WHORE” CHAPPELL WAS OBJECTIVELY PARTIAL AND CORRUPT

47. No intelligent, fit, and honest judge, juror, and/or person in corrupt Chappell’s shoes could

have possibly found said facially forged “parcels” to appear on said 1912 Plat of Survey, PB 3,

PG 25.

48. In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, “legal whore” Chappell corrupted the judicial process

and illegally punished the Plaintiff(s) for conclusively proving the record nullity and illegality of

said facially forged and fraudulently “claimed” “parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-

44-21-01-00001.0000”.

CHAPPELL RAPED RIGHT TO REDRESS GOVERNMENTAL GRIEVANCES

49. Here, Defendant corrupt Chappell raped Plaintiffs’ right to redress governmental grievances,

1st U.S. Constitutional Amendment, and conclusively prove Governmental eminent domain

extortion and fraud scheme “O.R. 569/875”.

“STRIKING” CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF FRAUD & CORRUPTION WAS A CRIME

50. “Striking” Plaintiffs’ material, relevant, reliable, competent, and conclusive evidence of

Governmental corruption and fraud obstructed justice and was a crime.

CORRUPT CHAPPELL HAS NO IMMUNITY

51. Here, Defendant Polster Chappell has no immunity and is to be prosecuted for her extra-

judicial crimes like any other citizen pursuant to public policy.

RE-FILING OF PROOF OF CRIMINALITY OF FORGED CLAIM “O.R. 569/875”

52. The Plaintiff declared unimpeachable record owners of Lee County riparian Gulf-front Parcel

# 12-44-20-01-00015.015A hereby refile their conclusive proof of the nullity and illegality of

“Lee County” eminent domain fraud scheme “O.R. 569/875”, Doc. ## 74, 75, 76.

18
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS DISPOSITIVELY DECLARED PLAINTIFFS’ OWNERSHIP

53. The U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, had dispositively declared the Plaintiffs the

unimpeachable record owners of said riparian “paper” street “on the Gulf of Mexico” as legally

described in reference to said record Plat of Survey on file, PB 3, PG 25. See PRESCOTT, No.

08-14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631; see Lee County Plat Book 3, p.

25; www.LeeClerk.org.

54. Here, “legal whore” Chappell “ordered” the conclusive evidence of Plaintiffs’ declaredly

unimpeachable record ownership and title to said riparian Parcel “12-44-20-01-00015.015A” and

Plaintiffs’ riparian “paper” street “on the Gulf of Mexico” “stricken”, PB 3, PG 25 (1912).

55. Therefore, the Plaintiffs object to said “legal whore” Chappell’s record crimes and her

acceptance of Defendants’ bribes. Chappell’s record case fixing and concealment of evidence are

crimes for which Defendant Chappell is being prosecuted.

CHAPPELL PRESIDES OVER HER OWN PROSECUTION(S)

56. Here, named party Defendant corrupt Judge Chappell has been presiding over her own

prosecution(s) for, e.g., fraudulent concealment of Governmental corruption and fraud,

obstruction of justice, fraud on the Court, and deliberate deprivations of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional

rights directly under the 1st, 14th, 4th, 5th, and 7th Amendments.

CORRUPT CHAPPELL COVERED UP HER CRIMES

57. Here, “legal whore” Polster Chappell never had any “power” to “strike” conclusive record

evidence of governmental corruption and said “Lee County” forgeries. Here, Defendant corrupt

Chappell struck the conclusive evidence of counterfeit “claim” “O.R. 569/875” for the unlawful

purpose of covering up her own crimes in exchange for Defendants’ bribes.

19
 AGAIN, CHAPPELL CRIMINALLY COERCED PLAINTIFFS

58. Here again, corrupt Chappell illegally coerced the Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecuting her

and the other Defendants:

“However, the Court cautions the Plaintiffs that future filings containing immaterial and
scandalous matters may result in sanctions being imposed.”

See Doc. # 98, filed 03/25/2010, page 2 of 4.

59. Here, e.g., Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912) were neither “immaterial” nor

“scandalous”. Here, the “matters” of PB 3, PG 25 directly evidenced corrupt Chappell’s

fraudulent concealment of, e.g., Governmental forgeries “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”, “07-44-21-

01-00001.0000”, and a “park” which never legally existed within said private undedicated

residential Cayo Costa Subdivision.

CHAPPELL HAS NO “IMMUNITY” AND MUST BE IMPEACHED FOR HER CRIMES

60. “Legal whore” Chappell will not be allowed to harass, molest, and rape the Plaintiff

landowners in exchange for Defendants’ bribes, because the law prohibits Chappell’s extra-

judicial crimes. Chappell has no immunity for her criminal acts, which are outside the scope of

any judicial authority and/or activity.

ILLEGAL SANCTIONS TO COERCE PLAINTIFFS TO REFRAIN FROM LITIGATION

61. “Legal whore” Chappell had no authority or power to “sanction” the Plaintiffs for blowing

the whistle on said Governmental forgeries. Here, “legal whore” Chappell falsely pretended that

the prima facie criminality, illegality, and nullity of facially forged “claim” “O.R. 569/875”,

facially forged and un-platted “parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”, and facially forged “park”

were purportedly not “legal arguments for the Court’s review”:

“The Plaintiff continually asserts that Judges in the Middle District of Florida are corrupt
and have participated in a conspiracy against him. The allegations appear to be based

20
 solely on the fact that the Plaintiff received adverse rulings from judges in the Middle
District of Florida and from the Eleventh Circuit. A review of the Plaintiff’s filings
demonstrate that the Plaintiff’s Motions are immaterial and scandalous, and do not
present legal arguments for the Court’s review. Therefore, the Court finds good cause to
strike the Motions.”

See Doc. # 98, filed 03/25/2010, pages 2 and 3 of 4.

Here, the conclusively proven Governmental eminent domain extortion and fraud schemes on

record and in violation of, e.g., the 14th, 4th, 5th Amendments were of course legal arguments for

the Court’s review. Here, corrupt Chappell “kept the Plaintiffs away from the Court” and

perpetrated fraud on the Court. The “conspiracy” to fraudulently conceal said Governmental

forgeries and Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable ownership were patently clear.

62. The U.S. Court of Appeals’ dispositive declaration of Plaintiffs unimpeachable record

ownership of and title to said adjoining “paper” street was not an adverse ruling but proved the

prima facie nullity and illegality of said Governmental forgeries and Chappell’s crimes.

63. Here, the Plaintiffs proved record Governmental corruption and fraud under false pretenses

that forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were purportedly a “resolution” and/or “legislative act”. Here,

“legal whore” Chappell knew that Defendants’ “legal argument” of “eminent domain” or

condemnation by law was facially fraudulent and unrecognized by the law.

64. Here, rogue Chappell rambled unintelligently and irrationally and did not answer where

facially forged “parcels” “12-44-20-01-00015.015A” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” could

possibly be found on Page 25 in Plat Book 3.

CHAPPELL CONCEDED ILLEGALITY OF STRIKING CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE

65. Here, corrupt Chappell conceded the illegality of striking Plaintiffs’ conclusive evidence of

the nullity and criminality of said Governmental forgeries:

21
 “A motion to strike will usually be denied unless the allegations have no possible relation
to the controversy and may cause prejudice to one of the parties. Harvey, 2005 WL
1421170 (citing Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Services, Inc., 57 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 1347
(M.D. Fla. 1997).”

See Doc. # 98, filed 03/25/2010, page 2 of 4.

66. Here, “legal whore” Chappell knew that Defendants’ motion had to be denied, because said

record forgeries directly “related” to said uncontroverted Governmental eminent domain

extortion and fraud schemes on file.

CROOKED DEFENDANT “LEGAL WHORE” CHAPPELL MUST BE RECUSED:

CORRUPT CHAPPELL “STRIKES” INTEGRAL PART OF CONVEYANCE

67. Plain and short, Chappell is an unusually crooked “legal whore”, who, in exchange for

Defendants’ bribes, concocted that, e.g., the Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat in Plat Book 3, Page 25

(1912) was purportedly “immaterial” and “scandalous”. Here, said Plat was an integral part of

Plaintiffs’ conveyance and therefore highly material and relevant to Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable

record ownership and title. In these civil rights actions, corrupt Chappell displayed her objective

partiality, ignorance, and arrogance. Criminally, Chappell deliberately deprived and defrauded the

Plaintiffs. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 455, named party Defendant objectively partial and corrupt

Judge Chappell must be recused.

CHAPPELL CONCEALED ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY OF LEE COUNTY OWNERSHIP

68. Any and all platted Cayo Costa Subdivision land between the natural boundaries and

monuments of the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor” belonged to Alexander C. Roesch

and his successors-in-title, PB 3, PG 25 (1912). Defendants Lee County never were successors-

in-title to Plaintiffs’ riparian Gulf-front “paper” street adjoining their upland. Here, “legal whore”

Chappell concealed that Lee County, Florida, never held title to Plaintiffs’ platted adjoining

riparian “paper” street and easement “on the Gulf of Mexico”, PB 3, PG 25 (1912), and that

22
 “parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” was facially forged. See PRESCOTT, No. 08-14846, 2009

U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631; see Lee County Plat Book 3, p. 25;

www.LeeClerk.org.

69. Here, the land under Plaintiffs’ adjoining riparian “paper” street “on the Gulf of Mexico” was

a street as legally described and conveyed to the Plaintiffs in reference to PB 3, PG 25 (1912) and

not fake “parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”, which corrupt Chappell knew never existed. See

Transcript of 11/07/2007 Proceedings, Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions, before the

dishonorable Sheri Polster Chappell, U.S. Magistrate Judge, 2007 Civil Rights Case No.

2:07-CV-228-FtM-JES-SPC (Chappell).

CORRUPT CHAPPELL CONCEALED PLAINTIFFS’ ADJOINING STREET OWNERSHIP

70. Here, “legal whore” Chappell knew and fraudulently concealed that Plaintiffs’ adjoining

“paper” street and easement “on the Gulf of Mexico” could not have possibly been the forged and

non-existent “parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”.

“In evaluating a motion to strike, the court must treat all well pleaded facts as admitted
and cannot consider matters beyond the pleadings. Microsoft Corp. v. Jesse’s Computers
& Repair, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 681, 683 (M.D. Fla. 2002).”

See Doc. # 98, filed 03/25/2010, page 2 of 4.

CHAPPELL CONCEALED WELL PLEADED CRIMINALITY OF SCAM ‘O.R. 569/875’

71. Here with wanton disregard for the truth and “well pleaded” public record “facts” on file, PB

3, PG 25, “O.R. 569/875”, corrupt Chappell deliberately deprived and defrauded the Plaintiffs, 18

U.S.C. §§ 241, 242. Here in exchange for bribes, corrupt Chappell did not treat the “well pleaded

facts” of Plaintiffs unimpeachable record ownership of said adjoining riparian “paper” street and

the Governmental forgery of un-platted and non-existent fake “parcel” “12-44-20-01-

00000.00A0” as “admitted”. See Transcript of 11/07/2007 Proceedings, Motion for Rule 11

23
 Sanctions, before the dishonorable Sheri Polster Chappell, U.S. Magistrate Judge, 2007

Civil Rights Case No. 2:07-CV-228-FtM-JES-SPC (Chappell).

CORRUPT CHAPPELL CONCEALED NULLITY/CRIMINALITY OF FORGED “CLAIM”

72. Here for bribes, “legal whore” Chappell did not treat the “well pleaded facts” that prima facie

Governmental scam “O.R. 569/875” was never signed and/or adopted by “Lee County” and null

and void ab initio as “admitted”.

73. Here for bribes, “legal whore” Chappell did not treat the “well pleaded facts” that the U.S.

Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, had dispositively declared the Plaintiffs the record owners of their

adjoining riparian street land “on the Gulf of Mexico”, riparian subject Parcel # 12-44-20-01-

00015.015A, as “admitted”. See PRESCOTT, No. 08-14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678,

2009 WL 1059631; see Lee County Plat Book 3, p. 25; www.LeeClerk.org.

74. Here for bribes, “legal whore” Chappell did not treat the “well pleaded facts” that prima facie

scam “O.R. 569/875” was not any eminent domain document or “muniment of title” as “admitted”

but sanctioned Plaintiffs for the illegally purpose of coercing them to refrain from prosecution of

Defendant corrupt Governmental Officials.

75. Here for bribes, “legal whore” Chappell did not treat the “well pleaded facts” that under oath,

Defendant Roger Alejo had determined the “Gulf of Mexico” to be the natural boundary of

Plaintiffs’ riparian Parcel 12-44-20-01-00015.015A as “admitted”.

76. Here for bribes, “legal whore” Chappell did not treat the “well pleaded facts” that Plaintiffs

were the unimpeachable record owners and title holders to said adjoining riparian street land

pursuant to Florida’s self-enforcing Marketable Record Title Act as “admitted”.

24
POLSTER CHAPPELL PERVERTED THE WELL PLEADED FACTS & PUBLIC RECORD

77. Here, corrupt Chappell accepted Defendants’ bribes for the unlawful purpose of perverting the

well pleaded and conclusively proven facts on record.

OBJECTION TO ANY INVOLVEMENT OF DEFENDANT CORRUPT JUDGE CHAPPELL

78. The Plaintiffs object to any involvement of “legal whore” Chappell in these proceedings,

because since at least 2007, Chappell knew and fraudulently concealed for bribes that forged

“parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” had never legally existed

and could not have possibly been “owned” by Defendants Lee County, PB 3, PG 25. See

Transcript of 11/07/2007 Proceedings, Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions, before the

dishonorable Sheri Polster Chappell, U.S. Magistrate Judge, 2007 Civil Rights Case No.

2:07-CV-228-FtM-JES-SPC (Chappell).

NOTICE OF PUBLICATIONS OF DOC. ## 74, 75, 76

IN SUPPORT OF FRAUD ON COURT BY “LEGAL WHORE” S. POLSTER CHAPPELL,

WHO CONCEALED PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL CORRUPTION

IN EXCHANGE FOR DEFENDANTS’ BRIBES

79. The Plaintiffs hereby give notice of their publications of Doc. ## 74, 75, 76 in this Civil

Rights Case. Said publications further evidence the fraudulent concealment of Governmental

corruption, fraud, and said forgeries by “legal whore” Sheri Polster Chappell. See

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud:

388 Documents as to Governmental corruption in Fort Myers, FL

32,003 Reads of Evidence of Governmental eminent domain fraud & corruption
136 Downloads of Governmental corruption evidence

25
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff declared and unimpeachable record owners of said riparian Gulf-front

lands, “paper” street lands, and private implied “paper” street easement(s), PID # 12-44-20-01-

00015.015A, Lee Count PB 3, PG 25 (1912), respectfully demand:

1. An Emergency Order enjoining the continual case fixing and perpetration of fraud on the

Court, which are facial EMERGENCIES, by “legal whore” Sheri Polster Chappell, who was

affiliated with both Defendants Lee County and State of Florida, and accepted Defendants’

bribes;

2. An Emergency Order enjoining “legal whore” from any further concealment of said

Governmental forgeries on file in exchange for Defendants’ bribes;

3. An Emergency Order taking judicial notice that said Governmental forgeries on the record

such as, e.g., “O.R. 569/875”, fake “parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”, non-existent and forged

“park” [as a matter of law and fact, none ever existed in the private undedicated residential Cayo

Costa Subdivision, PB 3, PG 25 (1912)] were not any “genuine issue of material fact”, but

facially null and void from the outset;

4. An Emergency Order taking judicial notice of the fraudulent Governmental and judicial

concealment of said forgeries and Doc. ## 74, 75, 76 without any legitimate authority or power;

5. An Emergency Order taking judicial notice of Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable record ownership

of the adjoining riparian “paper” street as legally described and conveyed to the Plaintiffs in

reference to said 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat in PB 3, PG 25, and the prima facie

Governmental forgeries of “claim” “O.R. 569/875”, and fake “parcels” “12-44-20-01-

00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” [see Plaintiffs’ Warranty Deed on file];

6. An Order enjoining the Defendants, Counsel, and Judges from threatening Plaintiffs for the

unlawful purpose of extorting property and coercing Plaintiff record owners to refrain from

26
redressing Governmental grievances, corruption, and eminent domain fraud under false and

absolutely impossible pretenses of, e.g., “frivolity”;

7. An Order removing Defendant corrupt Magistrate Polster Chappell from these and the related

judicial proceedings, because she fraudulently concealed “Lee County” forgeries of non-existent

and un-platted “parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, PB 3, PG

25 (1912) and accepted Defendants’ bribes in exchange [see, e.g., Nov. 7, 2007 Transcript of

Proceedings before corrupt Polster Chappell on file];

8. An Order taking judicial notice that the legal description of Plaintiffs’ riparian Gulf-front

Parcel, 12-44-20-01-00015.015A never changed since 1912, PB 3, PG 25;

9. An Order taking judicial notice that the fraudulently claimed condemnation by purported

virtue of forged “claim” and scam “O.R. 569/875” was fatally contradicted by the unchanged

legal description since 1912;

10. An Order taking judicial notice that Defendants’ fraudulent and null and void “lien” implied

Plaintiffs’ record ownership and evidenced the criminality of Defendants’ and Counsel’s

“frivolity” fraud scheme and illegal threats, sanctions, and/or punishment(s);

11. An Order enjoining Defendant Governmental fraudulent concealment of uncontroverted and

conclusively proven record forgery and fraud scheme “O.R. 569/875”, which the law does not

recognize;

12. An Order enjoining any further frivolous pleadings by Defendants and Counsel, which fail to

respond to the legal issues, allegations, and evidence of Governmental corruption, bribery,

eminent domain fraud and extortion under false pretenses that said facial forgery “O.R 569/875”

purportedly “authorized” Governmental seizure of “raid lands” which were not legally described

in reference to the 1912 Plat in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25;

27
13. An Order compelling the Defendants to respond to the conclusive record proof and

allegations of the facial frivolity, criminality, illegality, and nullity of forged “claim” of “raid

lands”, forgery “O.R. 569/875”;

14. An Order declaring Defendants’ previous so-called “responses” not responsive to the proven

and alleged prima facie criminality and nullity of forgery “O.R. 569/875”, the judicial

fabrications of a “legislative act” and “resolution” in exchange for bribes, and the Governmental

concealment of forged and non-existent “parcel” ‘12-44-20-01-00001.0000’ pursuant to Lee

County PB 3, PG 25;

15. An Emergency Order declaring that “Lee County” never held title to forged and un-platted

parcels “12-44-20-01-00001.0000” and “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”, and Plaintiffs’ riparian Gulf-

front lands and easement(s), 12-44-20-01-00015.015A [see also self-enforcing Marketable

Record Title Act];

16. Reconsideration of the EMERGENCY of judicial bribery, fraud on the Court, and fraudulent

concealment of the prima facie criminality and nullity of “eminent domain” fraud scheme and

forged “Lee County” “claim” “O.R. 569/875” [see www.leeclerk.org; and www.scribd.com];

17. Reconsideration of the EMERGENCY of corrupt U.S. Magistrate Sheri Polster Chappell’s

fraudulent concealment of the non-existence of facially forged “parcel” “12-44-20-01-

00000.00A0” pursuant to the 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25

[see Transcript of Proceedings, Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions, Fort Myers, Florida, November 7,

2007; Civil Rights Case # 2:07-CV-00228-FtM-JES-SPC (Sheri Polster Chappell)];

18. Reconsideration of the EMERGENCY of corrupt U.S. Judge John Edwin Steele’s judicial

fraud and fabrication of a “legislative act” [facial forgery “O.R. 569/875”] in exchange for

Defendants’ bribes;

28
19. Reconsideration of the EMERGENCY of judicial retaliation and illegal punishment under p

20. Reconsideration of the EMERGENCY of judicial fabrication of eminent domain “authority”

under fake “claim” “O.R. 569/875”, which the law does not recognize, and which had facially no

legal effect whatsoever;

21. An Order taking judicial notice of the prima facie fraud and fraud on the Court by

Defendants and Counsel, Jennifer Waugh Corinis, Doc. ## 69, 70, filed 02/26/2010, in which

Defendants and Counsel refused to “respond” to the legal issues of Governmental fraud, fraud on

the Court(s), bribery, forgery, and eminent domain fraud under false pretenses of “condemnation

by legislative act/facial forgery O.R. 569/875”;

22. An Order declaring the removal of corrupt Judge Richard A. Lazzara pursuant to said self-

enforcing 2009 U.S. Court Order of Removal, Case No. 2:09-mc-43-FtM-29 (12-09-2009):

“the Clerk shall commence the process of reassigning the pending unassigned civil
cases to Judge Honeywell by removing the unassigned judge [Richard A. Lazzara]
from the deck and adding Judge Honeywell to the Fort Myers deck for random
assignment.”

23. An Order declaring the publicly recorded rights of first refusal by Plaintiff record owners’

heirs and assigns (O.R. 4350, PG 2600);

24. An Order enjoining any and all illegal “judge shopping” by the Defendants and/or U.S.

Agents/Judges and/or their Attorneys;

25. An Order relieving the Plaintiffs from the record facial fraud by Richard A. Lazzara, who

fabricated that “forgery” “O.R. 569/875” was purportedly a “resolution” and/or “instrument”,

when in fact, said prima facie forgery was legally entirely meaningless pursuant to, e.g., the

Uniform Title Standards of the Florida Bar and Florida’s Marketable Record Title Act [here, the

mere passage of time had perfected and automatically quieted Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable

29
marketable record title to their riparian street lands and implied “paper” street easement along the

Gulf of Mexico as platted in PB 3, PG 25 (1912)];

26. An Order enjoining the corrupt Defendant Federal judges from illegally removing Plaintiffs’

pleadings from the Docket in these Cases pertaining to governmental corruption and fraud;

27. An Order releasing the fraudulent lien by Defendants Lee County, vacating the fraudulent

judgment, and writ, which was procured by fraudulent means and under false pretenses of a

“legislative act” and “frivolity” of the conclusive proof and allegations that prima facie scam

“O.R. 569/875” was not any “legislative act”, but a facial forgery and eminent domain fraud and

extortion scheme;

28. Reconsideration of an EMERGENCY Order in this independent action for relief from fraud

on the Court(s) staying the writ of execution, which was procured through fraud, fraud on the

Courts, under false pretenses of “frivolity” and in exchange for Defendants’ bribes;

29. Reconsideration of an Order relieving the Plaintiff unimpeachable record owners from said

fraud, fraud on the Courts, and Writ of Execution;

30. An Order in this independent action for relief from Governmental fraud on the Court setting

aside and vacating the fraudulently procured Judgments, Orders, and Writ of Execution in this

and the related and/or associated Civil Rights Cases pertaining to the Defendant Governmental

fabrications of “frivolity” and a “legislative act”/”resolution”, which never legally existed and

were never legally recorded (facial scam “O.R. 569/875”);

31. An Order for compensatory damages due to said Governmental corruption and fraud;

32. Punitive damages to deter the Defendants from any further and future fraud, corruption, and

conspiracy to fraudulently pretend eminent domain “authority” by virtue of prima facie scam

“O.R. 569/875”;

30
 33. Injunctive relief from the governmental and judicial fraud, corruption, and unlawful taking

without any eminent domain / condemnation due process and equal protection of record;

34. An Order recusing the named Defendant U.S. Agents and/or Judges in any and all

related/associated Cases;

35. An Order enjoining the Defendants from illegally seizing Plaintiffs’ property under false

pretenses of “frivolity” and illegal and null and void “claim” “O.R. 569/875”, which was of no

legal effect, never legally recorded, and not any eminent domain document or judgment;

36. An Order enjoining the named U.S. Agents from disparately denying Plaintiff Dr. Busse’s

immigration benefits and privileges in retaliation for blowing the whistle on the governmental

fraud on record, from illegally punishing him, and from illegally sanctioning the Plaintiffs under,

e.g., Rule 11;

37. An Order enjoining the illegal coercion, extortion, after-the-fact retaliation and

alteration/modification ($5,000.00) of the recorded judgment in the “First” Case by judicial

Defendants Dubina, Tjoflat, and Birch, while independent actions for relief from corruption and

fraud on the court were pending.

___________________________________
/S/JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT
Governmental Corruption & Fraud Victim, co-landowner, pro se
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.
Judicial Corruption and Crime Victim; Plaintiff, pro se
State Cert. Res.Appraiser, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Mortgage Broker, Appraisal Instructor;
Consulate General of the Federal Republic of Germany
C/o Legal and Consular Department
100 N. Biscayne Blvd., Suite # 2200
Miami, FL 33132;
T: 239-595-7074; E-mail at: http://VABLeeCounty.blogspot.com/ and/or JRBU@aol.com

EXHIBITS ON FILE:
02/18/2010 Letter by U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division to Plaintiffs

31
Warranty Deed; riparian Gulf-front subject property, 12-44-20-01-00015.015A, PB 3, PG 25 (1912)
Table; Uniform Title Standards, Florida Bar, Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section
Affidavits in support of Lee County title fraud and fraud on the Court(s)
Docket(s)
Fraudulent orders
“Opinion and Order”; Doc. # 338; “First/original Case”

CC: Federal Bureau of Investigation

U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Washington, DC 20530-0001
U.S. Attorney General

32
33