Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
14Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Res Judicata, 60 (b) Motion, 2 08-CV-364-FTM-JES-SPC

Res Judicata, 60 (b) Motion, 2 08-CV-364-FTM-JES-SPC

Ratings: (0)|Views: 675 |Likes:
Published by LAWLESSNESS
Res Judicata, 60 (b) Motion, 2 08-CV-364-FTM-JES-SPC
Res Judicata, 60 (b) Motion, 2 08-CV-364-FTM-JES-SPC

More info:

Published by: LAWLESSNESS on Jul 05, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDAFORT MYERS DIVISIONJENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE,Plaintiffs, versus
Case # 2:08-CV-364-FtM-JES-SPC [BOTH RECUSED]60(b) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROMEXTRINSIC FRAUD & FRAUD ON COURTS
STATE OF FLORIDA,
et al 
.,Defendants.
 __________________________________________________________________________/PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENTS,FRAUD ON THE COURT AND EXTRINSIC FRAUD[FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b) & FLA.R.CIV.P. 1.540]NOTICE OF CORRUPTION AND “
FRIVOLITY 
” & “
TITLE FRAUD
” SCAMS
 RES JUDICATA
CANNOT
 PRECLUDE 
PLAINTIFFS’ DIRECT ATTACK 
1. It is a hackneyed truism that
res judicata
does not
 preclude
a litigant from making a directattack upon the judgment before the court which renders it. 1B J. Moore, Federal Practice, §0.407, at 282 (2d ed. 1991). In other words, a party may introduce fraud evidence
 
"with the direct and primary objective of modifying, setting aside, canceling or
 
vacating, or enjoining the enforcement of the judgment."
C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure at § 4406 (citing Intermill v. Nash, 94Utah 271, 75 P.2d 157 (1938)). Here, the Defendants concealed and conspired to concealconclusive extrinsic fraud and fraud on the Court evidence. Here in particular, theDefendants concealed and conspired to conceal that no
interest 
and/or estate was ever 
 
 2
created 
or 
transferred 
to Lee County by virtue of prima facie fraud and extortion scheme“O.R. 569/875”. The Defendants knew that the purported “
resolution
” [counterfeit “claim”“O.R. 569/875”] never 
legally existed 
and was never 
legally recorded 
.
MEMORANDUM:PLAINTIFFS’ DIRECT ATTACK ON FRAUD & FRAUD ON COURT UNDER R. 60(b)
2. The practical effect of Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) is to lift the bar of 
res judicata
in, e.g., fraud cases.See Woodrum v. Southern Ry. Co., 750 F.2d 876, 883 (11th Cir. 1985).
 Res judicata
doesnot bar direct attacks on final judgments. See Watts v. Pinckney, 752 F.2d 406, 410 (9th Cir.1985).3. Here, Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) Motion represents a direct attack on the prior fraudulentJudgment(s) of this Court. The jurisdiction in which relief from judgment is available is theMiddle District of Florida. See C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure at §2865. Therefore, nothing can possibly
 preclude
the Plaintiff record owners from making adirect attack upon the judgment of this court in the form of their Rule 60(b) Motion. SeeWatts v. Pinckney, 752 F.2d at 410.
 
U.S. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT
4. Similarly, the Defendants cannot rely on the
 preclusive effect 
of any Eleventh Circuitdecision to
bar 
Plaintiff record owners Rule 60(b) Motion and/or claim. The Supreme Courthas held that a Federal District Court can hear a Rule 60(b) motion without leave from theappellate court. See Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States, 429 U.S. 17, 97 S. Ct.31, 50 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1976) Therefore, an appellate court's mandate does not bar this trialcourt from disturbing judgment fraudulently entered in accordance with a fraudulentmandate. See also, Lairsey v. Advance Abrasives Co., 542 F.2d 928, 932 (5th Cir. 1976).
 
 3Here, Defendants’ “
 frivolity
” and purported “
title-transfer-by-forged-resolution
” scams werefraud on the Courts.
LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE: PLAINTIFFS ARE DECLARED
 RECORD OWNERS 
 
5. Here, the 11
th
Circuit had expressly considered the private easement and land ownershipissue on appeal and dispositively declared and adjudged the prevailing Plaintiffs theunimpeachable record owners of their riparian Gulf front Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015Aand Plaintiffs’ private unencumbered implied street and alley easements in the undedicated private residential Cayo Costa Subdivision, PB 3, PG 25. See 12/29/2000 LEE COUNTYMEMORANDUM; see PRESCOTT, No. 08-14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL1059631; see JOHN LAY AND JANET LAY v. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OFENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, OGC CASE NOs. 01-0203, 01-0204, DOAH CASE NOs. 01-1541, 01-1542, CASE NOs. DEP01-0860, DEP01-0876. See West Peninsular TitleCo. 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). Here, the District Court is free to hear Plaintiff record owners’ 60(b) Motion.
 
FEDERAL JURISDICTION
6. This Court has jurisdiction to consider the Plaintiff record owners' Motion under theapplicable principles of Federal law. Here, the District Court retained jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff unimpeachable record owners’ Rule 60(b) Motion filed after the appeal of theoriginal fraudulent decision. See Wilson v. Thompson, 638 F.2d 801, 803 (5th Cir. Unit BMar. 1981). Here, the District Court shall grant the Plaintiff record owners relief from thefraudulent Judgment(s) of the Circuit Court pursuant to Rule 60(b)). See Ope Shipping Ltd.v. Underwriters at Lloyds, 100 F.R.D. 428, 435 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).

Activity (14)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Ren liked this
mnawazraja liked this
mnawazraja liked this
Gerrit Timmerman liked this
SLAVEFATHER liked this
SLAVEFATHER liked this
Carrieonic liked this
24_30 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->