IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

Appeal No. 08-14846

_________________________

D. C. Docket No. 08-00364-CV-FTM-JES[29]-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
___________________________________________

EMERGENCY MOTIONS TO STAY AND VACATE ALL ORDERS

BECAUSE THE COURT CONCOCTED UNDESIGNATED AREAS, WHICH
NO REASONABLE CIRCUIT COULD HAVE POSSIBLY FOUND TO EXIST
ON THE SELF-AUTHENTICATING CAYO COSTA SUBDIVISION PLAT

NOTICE OF THIS CIRCUIT’S CONCEALMENT, FRAUD AND

FABRICATIONS OF “UNDESIGNATED AREAS”

(April 22, 2009)

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT,

DR. JORG BUSSE, Appellants
P.O. Box 7561, Naples, FL 34101-7561
T: 239-595-7074; E-mail: JRBU@aol.com
CONCEALMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN EXTORTION/FRAUD-SCHEME O.R.569/875
CONSPIRACY TO MISREPRESENT “UNDESIGNATED AREAS”

THE COURT CONCOCTED “UNIDENTIFIED/UNDESIGNATED AREAS”

1. In its 04/21/2009 Opinion [# 08-13170-BB], this Circuit concocted:

“Most of the allegations in the complaint concern the 1969 Lee County
Resolution 569/875, which claimed the undesignated areas on the east and
west side of the Cayo Costa subdivision plat and all accretions thereto as
public land to be used for public purposes.”

Pursuant to the referenced self-authenticating 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat

[PB3, p. 25], this Court conspired to conceal that

a. No “undesignated areas” existed “on the west side of the Cayo Costa

subdivision plat”;

b. No “undesignated areas” existed “on the east side of the Cayo Costa

subdivision plat”;

c. No “un-numbered and unlettered areas” existed “on the west side of the Cayo

Costa subdivision plat”;

d. No “accretions to” “undesignated areas” or “accretions to” “un-numbered

and unlettered areas“ existed, and the “claim” was fraudulent;

e. No public purpose or necessity were possible;

f. No “Resolution 569/875” existed; O.R.569/875 did not contain any resolution

number.

g. Therefore, condemnation [inverse or direct] was impossible and said “claim”

an eminent domain fraud and extortion-scheme, which invoked Federal

subject-matter-jurisdiction. See Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U.S. 403,

2
CONCEALMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN EXTORTION/FRAUD-SCHEME O.R.569/875
CONSPIRACY TO MISREPRESENT “UNDESIGNATED AREAS”
406(1879). This Court falsely pretended that said eminent domain fraud-

scheme “constituted a legislative act”. No legislator ever signed and executed

said fraudulent “claim”. It concealed the ripeness of Appellants’ claims.

THIS COURT CONSPIRED TO REPEAT ITS CONCOCTIONS

2. In its 03/05/2009 Opinion [# 08-14846-FF], this Circuit conspired to repeat its

concoctions in order to deceive the public and Appellants over and over:

“…there were also a number of unidentified areas on the eastern and

western edges of the subdivision. The Board laid claim to all of these non-
designated parcels “and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of the
public for public purposes.” Id., p. 2.

This Circuit again conspired to conceal that on the referenced Plat

a. No “non-designated parcels” and no “unidentified areas” existed or appeared

on the western edges of the subdivision” Plat;

b. No “non-designated parcels” and no “unidentified areas” existed on the

eastern edges of the subdivision” Plat;

c. “The Board” admittedly never executed and signed the fraudulent “claim” to

the fictitious “areas” and “parcels” pursuant to the public record;

d. No public purpose was possible or was ever identified.

THIS CIRCUIT EXTENDS THE EMINENT DOMAIN FRAUD-SCHEME

3. This Circuit is extending said eminent domain fraud and extortion-scheme in

exchange for Appellees’ bribes and deliberately depriving the Appellants of

their fundamental Constitutionally-protected rights under the 1st, 14th, 4th, 5th,

3
CONCEALMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN EXTORTION/FRAUD-SCHEME O.R.569/875
CONSPIRACY TO MISREPRESENT “UNDESIGNATED AREAS”
and 7th Amendments, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988 [18 U.S.C. §§ 241,

242], and 28 U.S.C. § 455.

THIS COURT CONCEDED APPELLANTS’ OWNERSHIP

4. In its 03/05/2009 and 04/21/2009 Opinion(s), the 11th Circuit conceded that

Plaintiff-Appellants are record title holders of Lot 15A [PID 12-44-20-01-

00015.015A] in the private undedicated residential Cayo Costa Subdivision and

successors-in-interest [and title] to the original Subdivision

Developer/Subdivider A. C. Roesch. The subdivided Cayo Costa land parcels

were conveyed in reference to the 1912 Plat in Lee County Plat Book 3, p. 25.

Said 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat depicts a designated 60’ wide street

along the “Gulf of Mexico”. Appellants hold perfect title to the designated

street adjoining their upland. Since the 1912 Subdivision there have been

substantial accretions to Appellants’ private adjoining street. Appellants are

the record fee-simple-owners of the platted designated 60’ wide street and

accretions thereto.

APPELLANTS OWN ENTIRE WIDTH OF THE DESIGNATED STREET

5. In Caples v. Taliaferro, 144 Fla. 1, 197 So. 861, 862, the Supreme Court of

Florida approved the rule that 'when a street or highway is platted on the margin

of the grantor's [here A. C. Roesch] land, a conveyance of the lands bordering the

street carries the fee to the entire width of the street’. ‘This rule, sound in

4
CONCEALMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN EXTORTION/FRAUD-SCHEME O.R.569/875
CONSPIRACY TO MISREPRESENT “UNDESIGNATED AREAS”
principle, is controlling here.’ See Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458(5th

Cir.1959); 4 Fla.Jur. — Boundaries, Sec. 7. Here, the private undedicated

designated street along the “Gulf of Mexico” was “platted on the margin” of A.

C. Roesch’s Cayo Costa Subdivision land. Appellant Grantees’ lands bordered

said private undedicated designated street. Here, Appellants own the platted

adjoining private designated street along the Gulf of Mexico.

APPELLANTS OWN ADJOINING ALLEY TO THE CENTERLINE

6. It has long been settled in Florida that a person who purchases a lot with

reference to a plat of the subdivision takes title to the center of that portion of

the street abutting his lot. Smith v. Horn, 70 Fla. 484, 70 So. 435, 437. The

second rule was stated in these terms: 'In the case of areas set aside on a plat for

multiple common uses, abutting owners have an easement with other purchasers

in the subdivision for whatever uses may be indicated under the circumstances.’

Here, all Cayo Costa easements are private rights-to-use said designated streets

and alleys, i.e., Constitutionally-protected property. The public has no access.

Thus, public use was impossible. The “undesignated” “un-numbered and

unlettered areas” “claimed” in eminent domain fraud-scheme O.R.569/875 do

not exist on said Plat. Only a record or entry of a designated 60’ wide street

could be found to exist on the west side of said Subdivision.

5
CONCEALMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN EXTORTION/FRAUD-SCHEME O.R.569/875
CONSPIRACY TO MISREPRESENT “UNDESIGNATED AREAS”

LEE COUNTY CONCEDED ABSENCE OF “UNDESIGNATED AREAS”

7. In the “First Case”; 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 own their upland, adjoining platted designated

street, and accretions thereto. Thus, there was 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”. Appellants own riparian Gulf-

front lot 15A, 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. See 04/21/2009 Opinion.

6
CONCEALMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN EXTORTION/FRAUD-SCHEME O.R.569/875
CONSPIRACY TO MISREPRESENT “UNDESIGNATED AREAS”

LEE COUNTY CONCEDED PURSUIT OF STATE REMEDIES

8. Furthermore, Lee County conceded Federal subject-matter-jurisdiction and

pursuit of state remedies: “In paragraph 46, Plaintiff admits to his companion

law suit now pending in state court [Case # 06-CA-3185].” “Should Lee County

be joined, the County, in the interest of judicial economy, will remove the case

to this Court.” Judicial Defendant-Appellees Steele and Polster-Chappell

removed Appellants’ said state action to Federal Court.

LEE COUNTY CONCEDED ENTITLEMENT TO RELIEF/INVALIDATION

9. Lee County conceded: “A motion made under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency

of the complaint and cannot be granted “unless it appears beyond doubt that the

plaintiff can prove no set of facts” entitling him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355

U.S. 41, 43-46(1951). Here, Appellants proved that they were entitled to the

exclusive relief of invalidation and damages for the concededly “validly

pleaded” “unconstitutional temporary takings” under false pretenses of

eminent domain fraud and extortion-scheme O.R.569/875. See Corn v. City of

Lauderdale Lakes, 816 F.2d 1514, 1517(11th Cir.1987); Anthony v. Franklin

County, 799 F.2d 681, 684(11th Cir.1986).

THIS COURT CONCEALS APPELLANTS’ EXCLUSIVE TITLE

10. This Court concealed that title to said platted adjoining designated street vests

in the Plaintiff-Appellant abutting property owners and that the “undesignated

7
CONCEALMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN EXTORTION/FRAUD-SCHEME O.R.569/875
CONSPIRACY TO MISREPRESENT “UNDESIGNATED AREAS”
areas” fraudulently “claimed” in O.R.569/875 never existed. Here, eminent

domain fraud-scheme O.R.569/875 lacked a legal description and ascertainable

boundaries and effected an “unconstitutional temporary taking”.

Condemnation [inverse and/or direct] and any title transfer to Lee County were

impossible. This Court concocted State remedies and perverted the

indisputable public record evidence for Appellees’ bribes.

NO JUDICIAL IMMUNITY FOR THIS CIRCUIT’S CRIMES

11. This Court’s crimes of, e.g., false pretenses, deliberate deprivations,

misprision of felonies are an emergency, because they further irreparably

harm the Appellants and public, who are being deceived. Impartiality and

integrity of the public record must be restored speedily under public policy.

CAYO COSTA GATE

12. Criminally, this Circuit covers up the Lee County eminent domain extortion

and fraud-scheme and perverts the Florida and Federal Constitutions, which

expressly prohibited said fraud-scheme. This Court’s concoction of a

“legislative act” was a crime, which invalidated all rulings/orders and

corrupted the judicial proceedings. The Appellants are entitled to de novo en

banc proceedings and oral argument before another impartial Circuit, which

does not pervert the truth and said 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat.

8
CONCEALMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN EXTORTION/FRAUD-SCHEME O.R.569/875
CONSPIRACY TO MISREPRESENT “UNDESIGNATED AREAS”
WHEREFORE based on the self-authenticating public record evidence,

Appellants demand

1. An Order recusing the entire Circuit under § 455 based on said fabrications,

because no reasonable, impartial, and fit Circuit could have possibly concealed

the platted 60’ wide designated street and concocted “undesignated areas”;

2. An Order recusing the entire Circuit based on said fabrications, because no

reasonable, impartial, and fit Circuit could have possibly concocted that any

“undesignated or unidentified areas” appeared on eminent domain fraud-

scheme O.R.569/875;

3. An Order staying and vacating all Orders by this Court as corrupted and

perverted pursuant to the self-authenticating public record evidence;

4. An Order declaring that the Federal Courts had patently clear subject-matter-

jurisdiction over eminent domain fraud and extortion-scheme O.R.569/875

under Boom Co., supra;

5. An Order invalidating eminent domain extortion and fraud-scheme

O.R.569/875, because siad “claim” was fraudulent and deceived the public;

6. An Order declaring that Appellants pursued state remedies in Lee County

Circuit Court [# 06-CA-3185] for years;

9
CONCEALMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN EXTORTION/FRAUD-SCHEME O.R.569/875
CONSPIRACY TO MISREPRESENT “UNDESIGNATED AREAS”
7. An Order adjudicating Appellants’ “unconstitutional temporary takings

claims”, substantive due process, procedural due process, equal protection,

and other claims under the 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th, and 14th Amendments;

8. An Order declaring that Lee County removed any cloud by eminent domain

fraud and extortion-scheme O.R.569/875 pursuant to O.R.2967/1084-1090 and

Blue Sheet 980206;

9. An Order removing the involved Judges for refusing any de novo review and

fabricating “undesignated and unidentified areas” for Appellees’ bribes;

10. An Order prosecuting the Judges who ‘awarded damages and cost’ against the

Appellants for extortion and fraud, because no reasonable and impartial judge

in this Circuit’s shoes could have possibly concealed the prima facie evidence

of the invalidity and illegality of eminent domain fraud and extortion-scheme

O.R.569/875 and obstructed justice.

________________________________________
/s/ Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Appellant, pro se
SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 845, Palm Beach, FL 33480-0845, T: 561-400-3295
____________________________________________
/s/Jorg Busse, M.D., M.B.A., M.M., Appellant, pro se
SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 7561, Naples, FL 34101-7561, T: 239-595-7074

EXHIBITS:

Self-authenticating 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat [PB 3, p. 25]

10
CONCEALMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN EXTORTION/FRAUD-SCHEME O.R.569/875
CONSPIRACY TO MISREPRESENT “UNDESIGNATED AREAS”
Eminent domain extortion and fraud-scheme O.R.569/875

Lee County’s removal of cloud by said fraud-scheme: Blue Sheet 980206

“First Case”; Doc. # 5: Lee County’s concession of fraud of “undesignated areas”

CC: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Florida Department of Law Enforcement

U.S. Dept. of Justice

Eric Holder

Media

11
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION

JORG BUSSE,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 2007 CV 228 FtM 29 SPC

LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, and its

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, and
THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, and
STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND,
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION,

Defendants.
________________________________________________/

DEFENDANT LEE COUNTY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE

TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED; OR
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; OR
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Comes now Defendant, LEE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, by and

through its counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 12(e), and 56(b) and moves the Court to

dismiss the referenced matter and as grounds would state:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed pro se and read most generously, is an apparent attempt

to enhance the value of the Plaintiff’s real property by attaching to it littoral or riparian rights.

(a) As Plaintiff avers at paragraph 3(b), and more fully describes at paragraphs

16 and 66, Plaintiff’s lot abuts not a waterway, but an alleyway or street.

(b) Beyond Plaintiff’s mere assertions of littoral rights, no averment presented,

however poorly pleaded, establishes any factual basis that Plaintiff’s lot abuts a waterway; therefore,
no riparian rights attach per Florida law.

(c) In the absence of any littoral rights, Plaintiff cannot claim any right to a dock

permit denied to him by Lee County as averred in paragraphs 79 and 80.

2. In paragraph 46, Plaintiff admits to his companion law suit now pending in state

court. LEE COUNTY is not yet a party in that suit (Case No. 06CA-3185). Should LEE COUNTY

be joined, the County, in the interest of judicial economy, will remove the case to this Court.

3. In Plaintiff’s state case, his complaints utilize attachments of copies of his lot

description from public records including aerial photos which clearly depict his lot’s location as

platted and as it exists today over 1200 feet from the Gulf of Mexico’s waters. (Those attachments

are attached here as exhibits A and B to the Memorandum of Law).

4. In the alternative, the aforesaid notwithstanding, and reading Plaintiff’s complaint

most generously, the averments remain so vague or ambiguous that defendant, LEE COUNTY,

cannot reasonably frame a responsive pleading. To wit: the majority of the numbered paragraphs

state various legal holdings from state and federal courts, Florida statutory law, administrative rules,

and opinions of the Florida Attorney General (see paragraphs 7, 9, 11, 13, 15). Other averments

simply make statements apparently based on the Plaintiff’s readings of various authorities, legal or

otherwise (see paragraphs 20, 21, etc.). While, for instance, paragraph 10 appears to state a cause

of action, no facts are presented to support the allegation. In sum, Plaintiff’s complaint is neither

short or plain or sufficient enough to allow a responsive pleading.

5. In the alternative, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b), since LEE COUNTY is

submitting matters outside the pleadings, for example exhibits A and B, the Court shall treat the

matter as a motion for summary judgment. Vanero v. City of Tampa, 830 F. Supp. 1457, 1458

2
(1993)(J. Kovachevich).

6. Plaintiff has apparently named and served both “Lee County” and “its Board of

County Commissioners” as defendants. By statute, the proper party in interest is simply “Lee

County.” Therefore, Defendant moves to dismiss “its Board of County Commissioners.”

WHEREFORE, LEE COUNTY moves this Court to dismiss the complaint or, in the

alternative, order the Plaintiff to file a petition for relief that, even minimally, meets the Rules of

pleading; or grant the Defendant, LEE COUNTY, summary judgment.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

A motion made under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint and cannot

be granted “unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts” entitling him

to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1951).

Plaintiff claims riparian rights. As the Florida Supreme Court articulated in 1895, “in a suit

to enjoin trespass upon riparian rights, the allegations of the bill must be clear and precise as to the

title.” Axline v. Shaw, 35 Fla. 305, 309, 17 So. 411, 412 (1895). The Axline court then examines

the claimant’s deed as to the boundaries of the subject real property: “In order for one to have

riparian rights, there must be an actual water boundary of the land in connection with which such

rights are claimed. Id at 310, 17 So. at 413. The Axline court concludes: “Such a boundary is land,

and not water, and does not confer riparian rights under our statute.” Id. at 305, 17 So. at 412.

Since Axline, the statutory definition of Florida sovereignty lands now extends to the ordinary

high water mark. §253.141(1) Fla. Stat. (2006). Plaintiff’s deed (attached as exhibit “A”) simply

conveys lot 15A. The lot is clearly outlined on the plat map as a 50' x 130' lot bounded by a street

right-of-way of 60 feet (attached exhibit “B”). Lot 15A is not bounded by water of any sort. Lot

3
15A does not extend to the “shore” as in Axline, or even the ordinary high water mark as depicted

on the plat. 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. §253.141(1) Fla. Stat.

(2006).

Since there are no riparian rights appurtenant to the Plaintiff’s lot, the complaint is fatally

deficient and must be dismissed.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jack N. Peterson

JACK N. PETERSON
Assistant County Attorney
Florida Bar No. 0832774

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY, that a true and correct copy of Lee County’s Motion to Dismiss has
been furnished by U.S. Mail to: Jorg Busse, Plaintiff, Post Office Box 1126, Naples, FL 34106-1126;
Reagan Kathleen Roane, Assistant General Counsel, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Number 35,
Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000; and Kenneth W. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser, 2480
Thompson Street, Fort Myers, FL 33901, on this 1st day of May, 2007.

By: /s/ Jack N. Peterson

Jack N. Peterson
Assistant County Attorney
Florida Bar No. 0832774
DAVID M. OWEN
LEE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
2115 Second Street
Post Office Box 398
Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398
Telephone No. (239) 533-2236
Facsimile Phone No. (239) 485-2118
PETERSJN@leegov.com

4
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 89-2 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 5 of 10
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 89-2 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 4 of 10