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

th
11 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 se
P.O. Box 7561, Naples, FL 34101-7561
T: 239-595-7074; E-mail: JRBU@aol.com
 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 of justice.

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.

2
 Appellees’ bribes, the corrupt 11th Circuit defrauded and deliberately

deprived the Appellants of Federal adjudication of their multiple ripe

independent Federal 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 for bribes, the corrupt 11th Circuit

conspired to concoct “unidentified areas”, tamper with the indisputable

public record evidence and witnesses for the illegal purpose of defrauding 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’ State action

3
 to Federal Court. However for bribes, 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 domain extortion/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 deliberately deprive the Appellants of

their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights under the 1st, 4th, 14th, 5th, 7th, and 11th

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 corrupt case-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.

4
 "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 Circuit’s 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

5
 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, or impede 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

6
 F.2d at 1335(statute only proscribes conduct which impedes justice 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 impartial Circuit

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, 11th Circuit 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.

2
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/41/41.F3d.1490.93-4449.93-4104.html
Volume 41, The Federal Reporter, 3d Ed. [Nov., 1994 – Jan., 1995]

7
 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 perfectly own 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
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 mark of 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 of riparian Gulf-front Lot 15A.

THE COURT PERVERTED AUTHORITIES BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

15. Steele and Polster-Chappell conspired to conceal the binding precedent cited

by Florida’s 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 Steele’s crimes of,

e.g., false pretenses, deliberate deprivations, fraud, and extortion. Under

9
 public policy, Steele and Polster-Chappell have no judicial 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

10