11th circuit obstructs justice, 18 usc sec. 1503, res
Post on 30-May-2018
219 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 11th Circuit Obstructs Justice, 18 USC Sec. 1503, res
1/14
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________
Appeal No. 08-14846-FF
_________________________
D. C. Docket No. 08-0364-CV-FTM-JES-SPC
JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.
Defendants-Appellees.
__________________________________________
On Appeal from the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division
___________________________________________
MEMORANDUM REGARDING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
NOTICE THAT THE
11th
CIRCUIT OBSTRUCTS JUSTICE UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1503 AND
FALSELY PRETENDS THAT EXTORTION/FRAUD-SCHEME
O.R.569/875 IS A LEGISLATIVE ACT
(April 22, 2009)
JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, AND
DR. JORG BUSSE, Appellants,pro seP.O. Box 7561, Naples, FL 34101-7561
T: 239-595-7074; E-mail: JRBU@aol.com
-
8/9/2019 11th Circuit Obstructs Justice, 18 USC Sec. 1503, res
2/14
-
8/9/2019 11th Circuit Obstructs Justice, 18 USC Sec. 1503, res
3/14
-
8/9/2019 11th Circuit Obstructs Justice, 18 USC Sec. 1503, res
4/14
2
THE 11TH
CIRCUIT JUDGES ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE
1. The omnibus clause of the obstruction of justice statute subjects to criminal
liability any individual who "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any
threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or
endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."
The omnibus clause is essentially a catch-all provision which generally
prohibits conduct that interferes with the due administration of justice. See
United States v. Brand, 775 F.2d 1460, 1464-65(11th Cir.1985). 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1503. The omnibus clause is broad enough to encompass "any act committed
corruptly, in an endeavor to impede or obstruct justice." Brand, 775 F.2d at
1465; see United States v. Silverman, 745 F.2d 1386, 1393(11th
Cir.1984);
United States v. Griffin, 589 F.2d 200, 203 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S.
825, 100 S.Ct. 48, 62 L.Ed.2d 32(1979).1
Here corruptly, the 11th
Circuit by
threatening communications, and, e.g., award of damages and sanctions
obstructed the due administration ofjustice.
THE CORRUPT 11TH
CIRCUIT DEFRAUDED/DEPRIVED APPELLANTS
2. The corrupt 11th
Circuit concealed that Lee County, Florida, eminent domain
extortion and fraud-scheme O.R.569/875 invoked Federal subject-matter-
jurisdiction. See Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U.S. 403, 406(1879). For
1 The Eleventh Circuit, in the en banc decision Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209(11th Cir.1981),
adopted as precedent decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981.
-
8/9/2019 11th Circuit Obstructs Justice, 18 USC Sec. 1503, res
5/14
3
Appellees bribes, the corrupt 11th
Circuit defrauded and deliberately
deprived the Appellants of Federal adjudication of their multiple ripe
independentFederal and State claims. For Appellees bribes, the corrupt 11th
Circuit falsely pretended and stated that said extortion-scheme was a
legislative act and fabricated ripeness requirements.
THE 11TH
CIRCUIT FALSELY STATED UNIDENTIFIED AREAS
3. Appellants and Appellees had proven the platted 60 wide designated street,
which is adjoining their riparian Gulf-front Lot 15A in the undedicated
private Cayo Costa Subdivision. However forbribes, the corrupt 11th
Circuit
conspired to concoct unidentified areas, tamper with the indisputable
public record evidence and witnesses for the illegal purpose ofdefrauding and
deliberately depriving the Appellants.
THE 11TH
CIRCUIT PERVERTS THE INDISPUTABLE PUBLIC RECORD
4. Appellants and Appellees evidenced Appellants pursuit of the exclusive
remedy of invalidation and damages in State Court for Appellees
unconstitutional temporary takings of Appellants fundamental
Constitutionally-protected property [PID 12-44-20-0100015.015A; private
Cayo Costa easements; causes of action]. Federal judicial Defendant-
Appellees Steele and Polster-Chappell had removed Appellants Stateaction
-
8/9/2019 11th Circuit Obstructs Justice, 18 USC Sec. 1503, res
6/14
4
to Federal Court. However forbribes, the corrupt 11th
Circuit concocted that
Appellants did not pursue State remedies.
11TH
CIRCUIT CONCEALED CLOUD REMOVAL AND CLEAR TITLE
5. In 1998, Lee County had removed/eliminated the cloud by Lee County
eminent domainextortion/fraud-scheme O.R.569/875 pursuant to Blue Sheet
980206 and O.R.2967/1084-90. Therefore, the case-fixing 11th
Circuit
concealed that Appellants perfect legal title to PID 12-44-20-01-00015.015A
was unencumbered by said forgery O.R.569/875 and free and clear. Here, the
corrupt 11th
Circuit perverted said extortion-scheme O.R.569/875 into a
legislative act in order to defraud and deliberatelydeprive the Appellants of
theirConstitutionally-guaranteed rights under the 1st, 4
th, 14
th, 5
th, 7
th, and 11
th
Amendments and 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1988, 28 U.S.C. 455, and 18
U.S.C. 241, 242.
THE 11TH
CIRCUIT THREATENS TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE
6. The individual corruptcase-fixing Judges in the 11th
Circuit must be convicted
under the omnibus clause because it was proven that the 11th
Circuit (1)
corruptly or by threats, (2) endeavored, (3) to influence, obstruct, or impede
the due administration of justice. Brand, 775 F.2d at 1465; United States v.
Perkins, 748 F.2d 1519, 1528(11th
Cir.1984); Silverman, 745 F.2d at 1392.
-
8/9/2019 11th Circuit Obstructs Justice, 18 USC Sec. 1503, res
7/14
5
"Corruptly" describes the specific intent of the crime and can vary in meaning
with the context of the section 1503 prosecution. Brand, 775 F.2d at 1465.
THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WAS FORESEEABLE
7. The Defendant 11th
Circuit Judges knowingly and intentionally undertook an
action from which an obstruction of justice was a reasonably foreseeable
result. Silverman, 745 F.2d at 1393. Although it is not required to prove that the
defendant had the specific purpose of obstructing justice, Silverman, 745 F.2d
at 1393, it should be established that the conduct was prompted, at least in part,
by a "corrupt motive." Brand, 775 F.2d at 1465; United States v. Howard, 569
F.2d 1331, 1336 n. 9(5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 834, 99 S.Ct. 116, 58
L.Ed.2d 130(1978). Here, the 11th
Circuits corrupt motive was to fix
Appellants Cases in exchange for Appellees bribes and to falsely pretend
that sham land claim O.R.569/875 was a legislative act absent any legal
description, boundaries, execution, signatures by Lee County, seal, notarial
acknowledgment, vote count, resolution number, etc.
THE 11TH
CIRCUIT IS LIABLE
8. The "endeavor" element of the offense describes any attempt or effort to
obstruct justice. See Brand, 775 F.2d at 1465. It is not necessary that an
individual succeed in actually obstructing justice to violate section 1503.
Osborn v. United States, 385 U.S. 323, 333, 87 S.Ct. 429, 434-35, 17 L.Ed.2d
-
8/9/2019 11th Circuit Obstructs Justice, 18 USC Sec. 1503, res
8/14
6
394 (1966); United States v. Fields, 838 F.2d 1571, 1575(11th
Cir.1988). As the
Eleventh Circuit noted in Silverman, "a section 1503 offense is complete when
one corruptly endeavors to obstruct or impede the due administration of
justice; the prosecution need not prove that the due administration of justice
was actually obstructed or impeded." 745 F.2d at 1395(emphasis original).
11TH
CIRCUIT INTERFERES WITH ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
9. The final element of a section 1503 violation describes the characteristics of the
conduct prohibited by the statute. Under the omnibus clause, an individual is
prohibited from engaging in any activity constituting an effort to influence,
obstruct, orimpede the due administration of justice. The action taken by the
defendant does not need to directly and immediately obstruct justice to be
prohibited by section 1503. The defendant's conduct must be such, however,
that its natural and probable effect would be the interference with the due
administration of justice. Fields, 838 F.2d at 1573; Silverman, 745 F.2d at 1393;
see Brand, 775 F.2d at 1465(statute only proscribes conduct "which produces or
which is capable of producing an effect that prevents justice from being duly
administered")(emphasis original); Perkins, 748 F.2d at 1528-29 (false
statement must be such that it could have "effect of impeding justice" to
constitute violation of statute); Griffin, 589 F.2d at 204(same); Howard, 569
-
8/9/2019 11th Circuit Obstructs Justice, 18 USC Sec. 1503, res
9/14
7
F.2d at 1335(statute only proscribes conduct which impedesjustice or is
capable of having the effect of impeding justice).
10. Here, the 11th
Circuit was prohibited from obstructing justice and falsely
pretending that eminent domain extortion and fraud-scheme O.R.569/875
was a legislative act. No reasonable, intelligent, fit, and impartialCircuit
could have possibly found and concluded that eminent domain extortion and
fraud-scheme O.R.569/875 was anything but a sham claim under false
pretenses. Therefore, this entire Circuit was objectively partial and unifit and
must be recused.
THIS COURT CONCEALED WEST PENINSULAR PRECEDENT
11. In West Peninsular Title Co. v. Palm Beach Cty., 41 F.3d 1490(11th
Cir.
1995)2, 11
thCircuit Chief Judge Edmondson co-wrote:
And, plaintiffs arbitrary and capricious due process claim is ripe.
Plaintiffs accused the County of applying an arbitrary and capricious
action ... Plaintiffs claim was ripe as soon as the County applied the
ordinance See Eide v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 724 n.13(11th
Cir. 1990).
But the County insists that adjoining landowners own the strip parcels,
citing Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th
Cir.1959), as an
alternative to 16.33 Acres.
Here for Appellees bribes, this Court conspired to pervert binding
precedent of West Peninsular, Murrell, 16.33 Acres, and Eide, supra.
2http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/41/41.F3d.1490.93-4449.93-4104.htmlVolume 41, The Federal Reporter, 3d Ed. [Nov., 1994 Jan., 1995]
-
8/9/2019 11th Circuit Obstructs Justice, 18 USC Sec. 1503, res
10/14
8
Furthermore, Lee County itself had cited 16.33 Acres in its Appellate Brief on
pp. ii, and 7. With particularity, Murrell cited Caples v. Taliaferro. 197 So
861(Fla. 1940). The Florida Supreme Court held in Caples v. Taliaferro, that
title to the entire street vests in the owner of the abutting lots within the
subdivision. Here, Appellant abutting Cayo Costa lot owners held perfect title
to said entire designated 60 wide street.
THIS COURT CONCEALED DESIGNATED STREET TO DEFRAUD
12. This Court and the Appellees conspired to conceal that in the First Case in
Doc. # 5, Lee County conceded the fraud and absence of undesignated
areas:
The [Appellant(s)] lot is clearly outlined on the plat map as a 50 x
130 lot bounded by a street In order for for one to have riparian
rights, there must be an actual water boundary of the land in connection
with which such rights are claimed. Axline v. Shaw, 35 Fla. 305, 310, 17
So. 411, 412(1895).
Here, Appellants had the equal riparian rights of Alice M. S. Robinson,
because they perfectlyown their upland, adjoining platted designated street,
and accretions thereto pursuant to the public record on file. Furthermore, Lee
County had removed the cloud of forgery O.R.569/875 in 1998. This Court
concealed and perverted said removal. Therefore, Appellants title was free
and clear and unencumbered by said fraud-scheme.
THE COURT PERVERTED THE PUBLIC RECORD AND PLAT
-
8/9/2019 11th Circuit Obstructs Justice, 18 USC Sec. 1503, res
11/14
9
13. Here, the 11th
Circuit Judges conspired to conceal that there was a designated
street and an actual water boundary. In particular, Lee County conceded:
Florida law states: The land to which the owner holds title must
extend to the ordinary high water markof the navigable water in order
that rights may attach. Here, the Federal Courts conspired to conceal
that Appellants own the platted adjoining designated 60 wide street and
the accretions thereto, which extend to the ordinary high water mark of
the platted natural boundary of the Gulf of Mexico.
14. Here, the Federal Courts criminally concealed that Appellants own riparian
Gulf-front Lot 15A free and clear of said forgery, which extends to the
ordinary high water mark of the Gulf of Mexico. The 11th
Circuit
conceded that Appellants are the owners ofriparianGulf-front Lot 15A.
THE COURT PERVERTED AUTHORITIES BY ATTORNEY GENERAL
15. Steele and Polster-Chappell conspired to conceal the binding precedent cited
by Floridas Attorney General in, e.g., AGO ## 78-118, and 78-125 regarding
platted designated streets in subdivisions.
THE COURTS SANCTIONED APPELLANTS TO SILENCE THEM
16. Appellee Steele had unlawfully sanctioned the Appellant(s) in order to
obstruct justice and the exclusive remedy of invalidation of said forgery.
Steele conspired with the Appellees and law enforcement to threaten and
intimidate the Appellant whistle-blowers and witnesses to Steeles crimes of,
e.g., false pretenses, deliberate deprivations, fraud, and extortion. Under
-
8/9/2019 11th Circuit Obstructs Justice, 18 USC Sec. 1503, res
12/14
10
public policy, Steele and Polster-Chappell have nojudicial immunity for their
crimes.
____________________________ _____________________________
/S/JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT /S/DR. JORG BUSSE
P.O. BOX 845, Palm Beach, FL 33480 P.O. Box 7561, Naples, FL 34101
T: 561-400-3295 T: 239-595-7074; JRBU@aol.com
-
8/9/2019 11th Circuit Obstructs Justice, 18 USC Sec. 1503, res
13/14
-
8/9/2019 11th Circuit Obstructs Justice, 18 USC Sec. 1503, res
14/14
top related