__________________________
No. 08-14846
__________________________
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
Defendants-Appellees.
_____________________________
1. This Court’s “Judgment” entered April 21, 2009, and/or issued as mandate on
June 17, 2009, was obtained through fraud, collusion, and deceit and null
and void ab initio. In particular, it was based on barred, forged, and false
a. Never executed;
b. Never sealed;
d. Never asserted;
2. The ‘Officers of the Court’ perpetrated a fraud on the courts and concealed
land owners;
2
e. Did not transfer any title;
11, Appellees Lee County and Jack N. Peterson perpetrated a fraud on the
Court(s):
“Lee County has claimed said accreted lands for public park purposes.”
Here, and and all “claims” were barred and Plaintiffs-Appellants’ perfected
certainty and finality of Appellants’ ripe claims was not arguable, and the
569/875”.
4. The Courts concealed that Chapter 10171, Laws of Florida 1925 (see also
Sections 4660, 4661 and 4662, Comp. Gen. Laws of Florida), provided that
after a lapse of 20 years, all deeds shall be deemed valid and effectual for
3
conveying lands therein described and no person shall assert any claim to any
such lands as against the claimants under such deed or their successors in title:
5. Section 95.23, F.S., provides that persons holding color of title and paying taxes
their predecessors in title had paid taxes for almost one hundred years and
held perfected unencumbered marketable record title. The record shows the
“(1) After the lapse of twenty years from the record of any deed or the
probate of any will purporting to convey lands no person shall assert
any claim to said lands as against the claimants under such deed or will,
or their successors in title. (2) After the lapse of twenty years all such
deeds or wills shall be deemed valid and effectual for conveying the
4
lands therein described, as against all persons who have not asserted by
competent record title an adverse claim.”
Here, the Appellees and Courts concealed that this case fell squarely within
the provisions of, e.g., Section 95.23 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A. After the
lapse of 20 years, i.e., after 1932, no claim could have possibly been asserted to
the lands involved in this suit as against the Plaintiffs-Appellants and/or their
predecessors. Appellants’ perfect and free and clear record title was valid
and effectual for conveying the lands therein described, i.e., said platted
"Limitations where deed or will of record for twenty years or more. After
the lapse of twenty years from the record of any deed or the probate of
any will purporting to convey lands no person shall assert any claim to
said lands as against the claimants under such deed or will, or their
successors in title.”
"After the lapse of twenty years all such deeds or wills shall be deemed
valid and effectual for conveying the lands therein described, as against
all persons who have not asserted by competent record title an adverse
claim."
Here, Lee County knew that Appellants and/or their predecessors in title held
15A, and Lee County could have never possibly taken title or any interest. The
unimpeachable a deed or will of record for twenty years. This statute operates
upon the deed of which it speaks, that is, one of record for twenty years. The
5
first paragraph prescribes a period of time in which claims to the land "against
the claimants" under such a recorded deed must be asserted. After twenty years
this paragraph bars the assertion of all rights or claims contrary to the
The next paragraph operates to validate a deed of record for twenty years by
asserting that after that time the deed "shall be deemed valid and effectual" as
a conveyance of the land described therein. This latter paragraph is in the nature
the means employed. An attack upon a deed for reasons of this nature must
under the statute be asserted by competent record title and unless that be
done within 20 years the recorded deed is deemed valid against all persons who
Here indisputably and conclusively, Lee County had never, and could not have
possibly, asserted any competent record title. Prima facie scam “O.R. 569/875”
6. Furthermore, the Marketable Record Title Act, Chapter 712, F.S., barred any
6
"Any person having the legal capacity to own land in this state, who,
alone or together with his predecessors in title, has been vested with any
estate in land of record for thirty years or more, shall have a marketable
record title to such estate in said land of record for thirty years or more,
shall have a marketable record title to such estate in said land, which
shall be free and clear of all claims except the matters set forth as
exceptions to marketability in § 712.03.A person shall have a marketable
record title when the public records disclosed a title transaction affecting
the title to the land which has been of record for not less than thirty years
purporting to create such estate either in: (1) The person claiming such
estate; or (2) Some other persons from whom, by one or
more title transactions, such estate has passed to the person claiming such
estate, with nothing appearing of record, in either case, purporting to
divest such claimant of the estate claimed."
7. In Alabama Hotel Company v. Mott Iron Works, 86 Fla. 608, 98 So. R. 825, the
Florida Supreme Court held that: "Orders, decrees or judgments made through
time on proper showing made by the parties injured.” Here, the record had
barred, false, and forged. Here, the judgment was made through fraud,
collusion, and deceit. Here, the Courts concealed that Lee County never
executed, asserted, sealed, or had any “claim” “O.R. 569/875” as shown by the
Probate of a Will, when a person may not Assert a Claim to Certain Lands and
7
8. Here, “Lee County” never had any title “claim” to Appellants’ riparian Gulf-
9. Said 04/21/2009 Judgment was procured by fraud. The alleged facts alleged
by the Appellees and Lee County constituted a collateral fraud, which entitled
County never had any “claim” and that said prima facie forged and false
“claim” “O.R. 569/875” was barred under said Florida laws and Statutes.
title to said riparian Gulf-front Lot 15A and the certain and final prima facie
nullity and illegality of said scam “O.R. 569/875”, which invoked Federal
2. An Order enjoining said absolutely barred false and forged Lee County
8
3. An Order enjoining any further extension of fraud and extortion-scheme
“O.R. 569/875” under, e.g., said Florida Laws and Statutes and the Marketable
4. An Order declaring the Appellants the exclusive record holders of the perfect
vote count, legislative intent, etc., and was on its face not a “title transaction”
on its face false and forged and lacks any legal description and boundaries;
9
9. An Order enjoining any assertion of prima facie scam “O.R. 569/875” which
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________ _______________________
/s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott /s/Dr. Jorg Busse
SIGNATURES, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
P.O. Box 7561, Naples, FL 34101-7561; T: 239-595-7074; jrbu@aol.com
EXHIBITS
Barred, forged, and false “claim” “O.R. 569/875”, which was null and void
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
through Fraud were served on this 20th day of June, 2009, by mail and/or
electronically to the Hon. Thomas K. Kahn, Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 11th Circuit, Appeal Number 08-14846, District Court Case Number 2:08-CV-
Rhodes, U.S. Attorneys Office, Middle District of Florida, 400 N. Tampa ST, Ste
Courthouse, Tampa, Florida, Mark Allan Pizzo, U.S. Courthouse, 801 North
Florida Avenue, Tampa, FL 33602, John Edwin Steele, U.S. Courthouse, 2110
First Street, 6th Floor, Fort Myers 33901, Sheri Polster Chappell, U.S. Courthouse,
2110 First Street, Fort Myers 33901, United States of America, Reagan K. Russell,
Myers, FL, Sherri Johnson, and Amy Tuck Farrington, Dent & Johnson, Chartered,
3415 Magic Oak Lane, Sarasota, FL 34232, Toby Prince Prigham, Brigham
Moore, S. William Moore, Defendant Brigham & Moore, LLP, Menelaos Papalas,
County, Lee County Attorney, Adminstrative Building, 2215 2nd Street, Fort
Myers, FL 33901, Reagan Kathleen Russell, Tom Beason, Kathryn Funchess,
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
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
C 1 of 7
J. FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, et al., v. STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,
CASE # 08-14846
Court(s)’ in this and/or the related Cases have an interest in the outcome.
4. Prima facie forgery “O.R. 569/875” was utterly void and of non-effect.
18 U.S.C. § 505
6. Here, Clerk Farabee was an Officer of the Lee County, Florida, Court(s).
counterfeited signature and/or seal of the Lee County Clerk of Courts for the
C 2 of 7
J. FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, et al., v. STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,
CASE # 08-14846
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.
10. Under false pretenses that said barred and fake “claim” of un-platted and
of the Court’ perpetrated a fraud upon the State, State Appellate, Federal, and
protected property within the Cayo Costa Subdivsion as platted in 1912 absent
11. Forged “claim” “O.R. 569/875” was neither intended nor executed as a
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
C 3 of 7
J. FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, et al., v. STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,
CASE # 08-14846
c. Clerk’s Seal.
13. The Defendant-Appellees altered the words in forged “land” “claim” “O.R.
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
14. Fake “claim” “O.R. 569/875” constituted a "falsely made, forged, altered,
forgery of fake “claim” “O.R. 569/875”. Said Appellees Steele and Polster-
C 4 of 7
J. FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, et al., v. STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,
CASE # 08-14846
Chappell had recused themselves. Any and all of Steele’s and Polster
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
18. The Supreme Court has noted that " '(f)orgery, or the crimen falsi, * * * may
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),
C 5 of 7
J. FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, et al., v. STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,
CASE # 08-14846
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)
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).
19. The alteration of supporting documents giving rise to the issuance of a fake
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
recused themselves. Both U.S. District Judge Steele and Magistrate Polster
Chappell concealed said barred, forged, and false “land” “claim” “O.R.
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
C 6 of 7
J. FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, et al., v. STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,
CASE # 08-14846
however could have never possibly passed any title to Lee County. All pre-
recusal orders, rulings, and/or judgments were tainted and automatically null
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,
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
C 7 of 7