Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
U.S. Prostitutes & Pimps - Eminent Domain Statutes, Ch. 73, Florida Stat.

U.S. Prostitutes & Pimps - Eminent Domain Statutes, Ch. 73, Florida Stat.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 41|Likes:
Published by Judicial_Fraud
NOTICE OF APPEAL

EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENJOIN FRAUD ON THE COURT

MOTION TO ENJOIN “sale of real property”
WHICH GOVERNMENT HAD FRAUDULENTLY “claimed” TO “own”
UNDER COLOR OF FORGED “land parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”


NOTICE OF APPEAL, RACKETEERING, JUDICIAL CRIMES, AND LAW SUIT

FRAUDULENT PRETENSES AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & FILINGS
1. Defendant Corrupt U.S. Judge John Edwin Steele fraudulently pretended, Doc. # 434:
“This matter comes before the Court on review of defendant’s Motion for Entry of Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property (Doc. # 432) filed on May 21, 2010. No response has been filed and the time to respond has expired. Upon review, the Court desires a response from plaintiff.”
Here over and over again, Plaintiff Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott had “filed”, e.g., multiple “responses”, court actions, appeals to directly attack, defend against, and expose Defendant Crooked U.S. Judge John E. Steele’s publicly recorded:
a. Racketeering;
b. Extortion;
c. Obstruction of justice;
d. Deliberate deprivations;
e. Acceptance of bribes;
f. Fraud upon the State and Federal Courts;
g. Destruction and alteration of Court records;
h. Corruption.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ex Rel. et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
DEF. STEELE’S RECKLESS DECEPTION AND FRAUD ON THE COURT
2. Def. Steele recklessly deceived the Court, because he disallowed the Plaintiffs to “respond” and then fraudulently pretended that the Plaintiffs had purportedly not responded. However as a matter of record, the Plaintiffs had published conclusive evidence of their filed “responses” worldwide. Here, more than one Million readers had read the “responses”, which Def. Crook Steele had destroyed, altered, and rejected, and caused others to destroy, alter, and reject. See, e.g., Google and YouTube.
DEF. STEELE OBSTRUCTED PLAINTIFFS’ COURT ACCESS – FRAUD ON COURT
3. As part of a criminal organization, Def. Steele fabricated and conspired to fabricate a publicly recorded “card house of judicial shit”:
“In this regard, some of the allegations in the Third Amended Complaint are contradicted by the resolution which is attached to it. The copy of the Resolution attached to the Third Amended Complaint establishes that it was signed, executed, and duly recorded in the public records, and plaintiff will not be allowed to assert otherwise.” See Doc. # 338, p. 12.
Here, no authentic genuine “resolution” was “attached to the Third Amended Complaint”, Doc. ## 288, 282. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 44, there was a lack of any publicly recorded “resolution”. No genuine resolution had ever legally existed; none had ever been legally recorded.
Here by not allowing the Plaintiffs to assert otherwise, Def. Steele recklessly deprived the Plaintiffs of any opportunity of justice. Here, Def. Criminal Steele perpetrated fraud on the Court, covered up, and concealed Government crimes.
Just like other crime organizations, Steele relied on silencing his opponents, retaliation, intimidation, and injury.
4. In “the Third Amended Complaint”, the Plaintiff(s) had “asserted” and conclusively proven, e.g., the:
a. Prima facie illegality of the fictitious “resolution”, “O.R. 569/875”;
b. Prima facie nullity of the fake “resolution”;
c. Prima facie criminality of the falsified “resolution”.
5. Only a “court judgment” could have possibly transferred title to Government and/or Lee County. Here on its face, the facially forged “resolution” was
a. Not any court judgment;
b. Not any muniment of title;
c. Not any genuine instrument:
d. Not any conveyance;
e. Not authentic.
RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, DECEPTION, AND FRAUD ON THE COURT
6. Therefore, any “resolution” – forged or genuine – would have been, and could have only been, entirely irrelevant, immaterial to any involuntary title transfer, because only a court judgment could have possibly divested the Plaintiffs of their private riparian street easement and street land on the Gulf, PB 3 PG 25 (1912), against their will.
DEF. CRO
NOTICE OF APPEAL

EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENJOIN FRAUD ON THE COURT

MOTION TO ENJOIN “sale of real property”
WHICH GOVERNMENT HAD FRAUDULENTLY “claimed” TO “own”
UNDER COLOR OF FORGED “land parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”


NOTICE OF APPEAL, RACKETEERING, JUDICIAL CRIMES, AND LAW SUIT

FRAUDULENT PRETENSES AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & FILINGS
1. Defendant Corrupt U.S. Judge John Edwin Steele fraudulently pretended, Doc. # 434:
“This matter comes before the Court on review of defendant’s Motion for Entry of Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property (Doc. # 432) filed on May 21, 2010. No response has been filed and the time to respond has expired. Upon review, the Court desires a response from plaintiff.”
Here over and over again, Plaintiff Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott had “filed”, e.g., multiple “responses”, court actions, appeals to directly attack, defend against, and expose Defendant Crooked U.S. Judge John E. Steele’s publicly recorded:
a. Racketeering;
b. Extortion;
c. Obstruction of justice;
d. Deliberate deprivations;
e. Acceptance of bribes;
f. Fraud upon the State and Federal Courts;
g. Destruction and alteration of Court records;
h. Corruption.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ex Rel. et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
DEF. STEELE’S RECKLESS DECEPTION AND FRAUD ON THE COURT
2. Def. Steele recklessly deceived the Court, because he disallowed the Plaintiffs to “respond” and then fraudulently pretended that the Plaintiffs had purportedly not responded. However as a matter of record, the Plaintiffs had published conclusive evidence of their filed “responses” worldwide. Here, more than one Million readers had read the “responses”, which Def. Crook Steele had destroyed, altered, and rejected, and caused others to destroy, alter, and reject. See, e.g., Google and YouTube.
DEF. STEELE OBSTRUCTED PLAINTIFFS’ COURT ACCESS – FRAUD ON COURT
3. As part of a criminal organization, Def. Steele fabricated and conspired to fabricate a publicly recorded “card house of judicial shit”:
“In this regard, some of the allegations in the Third Amended Complaint are contradicted by the resolution which is attached to it. The copy of the Resolution attached to the Third Amended Complaint establishes that it was signed, executed, and duly recorded in the public records, and plaintiff will not be allowed to assert otherwise.” See Doc. # 338, p. 12.
Here, no authentic genuine “resolution” was “attached to the Third Amended Complaint”, Doc. ## 288, 282. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 44, there was a lack of any publicly recorded “resolution”. No genuine resolution had ever legally existed; none had ever been legally recorded.
Here by not allowing the Plaintiffs to assert otherwise, Def. Steele recklessly deprived the Plaintiffs of any opportunity of justice. Here, Def. Criminal Steele perpetrated fraud on the Court, covered up, and concealed Government crimes.
Just like other crime organizations, Steele relied on silencing his opponents, retaliation, intimidation, and injury.
4. In “the Third Amended Complaint”, the Plaintiff(s) had “asserted” and conclusively proven, e.g., the:
a. Prima facie illegality of the fictitious “resolution”, “O.R. 569/875”;
b. Prima facie nullity of the fake “resolution”;
c. Prima facie criminality of the falsified “resolution”.
5. Only a “court judgment” could have possibly transferred title to Government and/or Lee County. Here on its face, the facially forged “resolution” was
a. Not any court judgment;
b. Not any muniment of title;
c. Not any genuine instrument:
d. Not any conveyance;
e. Not authentic.
RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, DECEPTION, AND FRAUD ON THE COURT
6. Therefore, any “resolution” – forged or genuine – would have been, and could have only been, entirely irrelevant, immaterial to any involuntary title transfer, because only a court judgment could have possibly divested the Plaintiffs of their private riparian street easement and street land on the Gulf, PB 3 PG 25 (1912), against their will.
DEF. CRO

More info:

Published by: Judicial_Fraud on Aug 02, 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

10/25/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 Select Year:
2009
 
Go
The 2009 Florida Statutes
Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Chapter 73
EMINENT DOMAIN
View Entire Chapter
73.013 Conveyance of property taken by eminent domain; preservation of government entitycommunications services eminent domain limitation; exception to restrictions on power of eminentdomain.
--(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any charter provision, ordinance, statute, or speciallaw, if the state, any political subdivision as defined in s. 1.01(8), or any other entity to which the power of eminent domain is delegated files a petition of condemnation on or after the effective date of this sectionregarding a parcel of real property in this state, ownership or control of property acquired pursuant to suchpetition may not be conveyed by the condemning authority or any other entity to a natural person or privateentity, by lease or otherwise, except that ownership or control of property acquired pursuant to such petitionmay be conveyed, by lease or otherwise, to a natural person or private entity:(a) For use in providing common carrier services or systems;(b)1. For use as a road or other right-of-way or means that is open to the public for transportation, whetherat no charge or by toll;2. For use in the provision of transportation-related services, business opportunities, and products pursuantto s. 338.234, on a toll road;(c) That is a public or private utility for use in providing electricity services or systems, natural ormanufactured gas services or systems, water and wastewater services or systems, stormwater or runoff services or systems, sewer services or systems, pipeline facilities, telephone services or systems, or similarservices or systems;(d) For use in providing public infrastructure;(e) That occupies, pursuant to a lease, an incidental part of a public property or a public facility for thepurpose of providing goods or services to the public;(f) Without restriction, after public notice and competitive bidding unless otherwise provided by general law,if less than 10 years have elapsed since the condemning authority acquired title to the property and thefollowing conditions are met:1. The condemning authority or governmental entity holding title to the property documents that the propertyis no longer needed for the use or purpose for which it was acquired by the condemning authority or for whichit was transferred to the current titleholder; and
4/24/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statuteswww.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm1/2
 
2. The owner from whom the property was taken by eminent domain is given the opportunity to repurchasethe property at the price that he or she received from the condemning authority;(g) After public notice and competitive bidding unless otherwise provided by general law, if the property wasowned and controlled by the condemning authority or a governmental entity for at least 10 years after thecondemning authority acquired title to the property; or(h) In accordance with subsection (2).(2)(a) If ownership of property is conveyed to a natural person or private entity pursuant to paragraph (1)(a),paragraph (1)(b), paragraph (1)(c), paragraph (1)(d), or paragraph (1)(e), and at least 10 years have elapsedsince the condemning authority acquired title to the property, the property may subsequently be transferred,after public notice and competitive bidding unless otherwise provided by general law, to another naturalperson or private entity without restriction.(b) If ownership of property is conveyed to a natural person or private entity pursuant to paragraph (1)(a),paragraph (1)(b), paragraph (1)(c), paragraph (1)(d), or paragraph (1)(e), and less than 10 years have elapsedsince the condemning authority acquired title to the property, the property may be transferred, after publicnotice and competitive bidding unless otherwise provided by general law, to another natural person or privateentity without restriction, if the following conditions are met:1. The current titleholder documents that the property is no longer needed for the use or purpose for whichthe property was transferred to the current titleholder; and2. The owner from whom the property was taken by eminent domain is given the opportunity to repurchasethe property at the price that he or she received from the condemning authority.(3) This section does not affect the limitation on a government entity's powers of eminent domain containedin s. 350.81(2)(j).(4) The power of eminent domain shall be restricted as provided in this chapter and chapters 127, 163, and166, except when the owner of a property relinquishes the property and concedes to the taking of the propertyin order to retain the ability to reinvest the proceeds of the sale of the property in replacement property unders. 1033 of the Internal Revenue Code.
History.
--s. 1, ch. 2006-11.
Copyright © 1995-2010 The Florida Legislature • Privacy Statement • Contact Us
4/24/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statuteswww.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm2/2
 
CRIMES OF CORINISFLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL LEGAL OPINION, AGO 78-125,IN SUPPORT OF CRIMES BY FEDERAL DEFENDANTS AND THEIRLAWYER JENNIFER “
WHORE 
” CORINISSCANDAL OF GOVERNMENTAL SCAM “O.R. 569/875”:NAZI STYLE TACTICS OF CRIMINAL “CLAIMS”
 
“The determination and
adjudication of property rights
is a
 judicial 
 function which may not be exercised by the legislative branches of government…” Here, Lee County was not any
 judicial 
branch of government and had absolutely no authority to “claim” land.Here, the law prohibited Lee County, FL, and/or its governing body to
 
adjudicate any property rights
. Here, the law did not recognize the hoax of a “
land 
” “
claim
” by Lee County.Here vexatiously, the “Federal Defendants” deceived and perpetratedfraud upon the Court.
I
SCAM “O.R. 569/875” WAS AN NVALID INVASION OF THE JUDICIARY
It is a fundamental principal in this state that the determination and adjudication of property rights is a judicial function which cannot be
 
 performed by the Legislature. Hillsborough County v. Kensatt 
 
, 144 So. 393(Fla. 1932); State Plant Board v. Smith, 110 So.2d 401 (Fla. 1959); Danielsv. State Road Dept., 170 So.2d 846 (Fla. 1964). Legislation which
 
constitutes an invasion of the province of the judiciary is invalid. Thursby 
 
v. Stewart, 138 So. 742 (Fla. 1931); Simmons v. State, 36 So.2d 207 (Fla.1948).
 

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)//-->