14846 Reversal Fraud on Court

8/9/2019 14846 Reversal Fraud on Court

1/21

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

__________________________

No. 08-14846

__________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:08-CV-0364-CV-FTM- [RECUSED] JES - [RECUSED] SPC

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_____________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Florida

___________________________

MOTION TO REVERSE JUDGMENT OBTAINED THROUGH FRAUD

AND FOR RELIEF FROM FRAUD ON THE COURT(S)

NOTICE OF BARRED AND FRAUDULENT CLAIM O.R. 569/875

WHICH LEE COUNTY NEVEREXECUTED ORASSERTEDANDWHICH WAS NULL AND VOID AB INITIO UNDER FLORIDA LAW

(June 20, 2009)


2/21

2

THIS COURTS 04/21/2009 JUDGMENT WAS MADE THROUGH FRAUD

1. This Courts Judgment entered April 21, 2009, and/or issued as mandate on

June 17, 2009, was obtained through fraud, collusion, and deceit and null

and void ab initio. In particular, it was based on barred, forged, and false

title claim O.R. 569/875, which Lee County

a. Neverexecuted;

b. Neversealed;

c. Neverrecordedaccording to law;

d. Neverasserted;

e. Could have neverpossiblyasserted, because it was barred.

THE OFFICERS CONCEALED BARRED AND FORGED CLAIM AND

PERPETRATED A FRAUD ON THE COURT(S)

2. The Officers of the Court perpetrated a fraud on the courts and concealed

that forged, fraudulent, and barred claim O.R. 569/875

a. Was not a muniment of title;

b. Was not a title transaction;

c. Was null and void ab initio;

d. Was a fraud and extortion-scheme to deliberately deprive Cayo Costa

land owners;


3/21

3

e. Did not transferany title;

f. Could not havepossibly transferred any title to Lee County;

g. Had no legal effect.

FRAUDULENT LEE COUNTY BRIEF AND VOID CLAIM

3. In theirfraudulent and deceptivebrief, under Statement of the Facts, p. 4 of

11, Appellees Lee County and Jack N. Peterson perpetrated a fraud on the

Court(s):

Lee County has claimed said accreted lands for public park purposes.

Here, and and all claims were barred and Plaintiffs-Appellants perfected

marketable title unimpeachable, which was certain and final. The

certainty and finality of Appellants ripe claims was not arguable, and the

Federal Courts had over course jurisdiction over said well-evidenced

deliberate State deprivations under color of prima facie forgery O.R.

569/875.

CH. 10171, LAWS OF FLORIDA BARRED O.R. 569/875

4. The Courts concealed that Chapter 10171, Laws of Florida 1925 (see also

Sections 4660, 4661 and 4662, Comp. Gen. Laws of Florida), provided that

after a lapse of 20 years, all deeds shall be deemed valid and effectual for


4/21

4

conveying lands therein described and no person shall assert any claim to any

such lands as against the claimants under such deed or their successors in title:

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

Section 1. After the lapse of twenty (20) years from the record of any

deed or the probate of any will purporting to convey lands, no person

shall assert any claim to said lands as against the claimants under such

deed or will, or their successors in the title.

Sec. 2. After the lapse of twenty (20) years, all such deeds or wills shall

be deemed valid and effectual for conveying the lands therein

described, as against all persons who have not asserted by competent

record title an adverse claim.

Sec. 3. Any person whose rights are adversely affected by this Act will

have six (6) months within which to institute suit to protect such rights

and the Act shall not affect pending litigation.

Sec. 4. This Act shall take effect upon becoming a law.

Approved May 22, 1925.

SECTION 95.23, F.S., BARRED O.R. 569/875

5. Section 95.23, F.S., provides that persons holding color of title and paying taxes

20 consecutive years have perfectedmarketable title. Here, Appellants and/or

their predecessors in title had paid taxes for almost one hundred years and

held perfected unencumbered marketable record title. The record shows the

land in undedicated private Cayo Costa as platted in 1912 [S-T-R-A-P/PID 12-

44-20-01-00015.015A] has been unimproved.

(1) After the lapse of twenty years from the record of any deed or the

probate of any will purporting to convey lands no person shall assert

any claim to said lands as against the claimants under such deed or will,

or their successors in title. (2) After the lapse of twenty years all such

deeds or wills shall be deemed valid and effectual for conveying the


5/21

5

lands therein described, as against all persons who have not asserted by

competent record title an adverse claim.

Here, the Appellees and Courts concealed that this case fell squarely within

the provisions of, e.g., Section 95.23 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A. After the

lapse of 20 years, i.e., after 1932, no claim could havepossibly been asserted to

the lands involved in this suit as against the Plaintiffs-Appellants and/or their

predecessors. Appellants perfect and free and clear record title was valid

and effectual for conveying the lands therein described, i.e., said platted

riparian Lot 15A. Section 95.23, F.S.(1951), F.S.A., reads as follows:

"Limitations where deed or will of record for twenty years or more. After

the lapse of twenty years from the record of any deed or the probate of

any will purporting to convey lands no person shall assert any claim to

said lands as against the claimants under such deed or will, or their

successors in title.

"After the lapse of twenty years all such deeds or wills shall be deemed

valid and effectual for conveying the lands therein described, as against

all persons who have not asserted by competent record title an adverse

claim."

Here, Lee County knew that Appellants and/or their predecessors in title held

unimpeachable perfected marketable title to said riparian Gulf-front Lot

15A, and Lee County could have never possibly taken title or any interest. The

known effect of said statute(s) was that it validated and rendered

unimpeachable a deed or will of record for twenty years. This statute operates

upon the deed of which it speaks, that is, one of record for twenty years. The


6/21

6

first paragraph prescribes a period of time in which claims to the land "against

the claimants" under such a recorded deed must be asserted. After twenty years

this paragraph bars the assertion of all rights or claims contrary to the

intendment of such a deed to which the statute was applicable.

The next paragraph operates to validate a deed of record for twenty years by

asserting that after that time the deed "shall be deemed valid and effectual" as

a conveyance of the land described therein. This latter paragraph is in the nature

of a curative act correcting and completing the particular transaction, which

might otherwise fail because of some defect or irregularity in the mechanics of

the means employed. An attack upon a deed for reasons of this nature must

under the statute be asserted by competent record title and unless that be

done within 20 years the recorded deed is deemed valid against all persons who

have not so asserted such claim adverse to the recorded deed.

Here indisputably and conclusively, Lee County had never, and could not have

possibly, asserted any competent record title. Prima facie scam O.R. 569/875

was not any record title ortitle transaction.

THE MARKETABLE RECORD TITLE ACT BARRED O.R. 569/875

6. Furthermore, the Marketable Record Title Act, Chapter 712, F.S., barred any

Lee County claim and rendered Appellants paramount title

unimpeachable. It provides, in relevant part, that:


7/21

7

"Any person having the legal capacity to own land in this state, who,

alone or together with his predecessors in title, has been vested with any

estate in land of record for thirty years or more, shall have a marketable

record title to such estate in said land of record for thirty years or more,

shall have a marketable record title to such estate in said land, which

shall be free and clear of all claims except the matters set forth as

exceptions to marketability in 712.03.A person shall have a marketable

record title when the public records disclosed a title transaction affecting

the title to the land which has been of record for not less than thirty years

purporting to create such estate either in: (1) The person claiming such

estate; or (2) Some other persons from whom, by one or

more title transactions, such estate has passed to the person claiming such

estate, with nothing appearing of record, in either case, purporting to

divest such claimant of the estate claimed."

7. In Alabama Hotel Company v. Mott Iron Works, 86 Fla. 608, 98 So. R. 825, the

Florida Supreme Court held that: "Orders, decrees orjudgments made through

fraud, collusion, deceit or mistake, may be opened, vacated or modified at any

time on proper showing made by the parties injured. Here, the record had

indisputably and conclusively evidenced that claim O.R. 569/875 was

barred, false, and forged. Here, the judgment was made through fraud,

collusion, and deceit. Here, the Courts concealed that Lee County never

executed, asserted,sealed, or had any claim O.R. 569/875 as shown by the

injured Plaintiffs-Appellants. See Chap. 10171, Laws of 1925 (Entitled: "AN

ACT Prescribing a Limitation of Time After the Record of a Deed or the

Probate of a Will, when a person may not Assert a Claim to Certain Lands and

Validating Certain Conveyances").


8/21

8

8. Here, Lee County never had any title claim to Appellants riparian Gulf-

front Lot 15A [S-T-R-A-P 12-44-20-01-00015.015A], un-platted and

fraudulently claimed lot 00A0 [fictitious PID 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0]

and/or block 00001 [forged PID 07-44-21-01-00001.0000].

9. Said 04/21/2009 Judgment was procured by fraud. The alleged facts alleged

by the Appellees and Lee County constituted a collateral fraud, which entitled

the Plaintiffs-Appellants to relief. The Federal Courts concealed that Lee

County never had any claim and that said prima facie forged and false

claim O.R. 569/875 was barred under said Florida laws and Statutes.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs-Appellants demand

1. An Order reversing said 04/21/2009 Judgment, because it was procured by

fraud and concealed the unimpeachability of Appellants paramount clear

title to said riparian Gulf-front Lot 15A and the certain and finalprima facie

nullity and illegality of said scam O.R. 569/875, which invoked Federal

subject matter jurisdiction over Appellants ripe claims of well-proven

deliberate State deprivations;

2. An Order enjoining said absolutely barred false and forged Lee County

title and/or interest claim O.R. 569/875;


9/21

9

3. An Order enjoining any further extension of fraud and extortion-scheme

O.R. 569/875 under, e.g., said Florida Laws and Statutes and the Marketable

Record Title Act(s);

4. An Orderdeclaring the Appellants the exclusive record holders of the perfect

un-encumberedmarketabletitle to riparian Gulf-front Lot 15A [PID 12-44-

20-01-00015.015A] pursuant to the self-authenticating public record on file;

5. An Order declaring fictitious Lee County STRAP/PID 12-44-20-01-

00000.00A0 and 07-44-21-01-00001.0000 forged and null and void;

6. An Orderdeclaring claim O.R. 569/875 a prima facie scam, because it

lacked, e.g., any execution, lawful recordation, legal description, boundaries,

vote count, legislative intent, etc., and was on its face not a title transaction

or muniment of title and/oroutside the unclouded chain of paramount

title to said riparian Lot 15A.

7. An Orderenjoiningfake O.R. 569/875, because said unexecuted claim is

on its facefalse and forged and lacks any legal description and boundaries;

8. An Order remanding, reversing, and re-assigning to different and impartial

judges, because the Officers of the Court perpetrated a fraud on the

Court(s) and falsely pretended that scam O.R. 569/875 conveyed an

interest in/or title to Appellants land parcel 12-44-20-01-00015.015A, which

was factually and legally impossible;


10/21

10

9. An Orderenjoining any assertion ofprima facie scam O.R. 569/875 which

is controverted by said United States Surveys, Land Patents, State Surveys,

and Lee County records;

10. An Orderdeclaring the proceedings tainted and invalid.

Respectfully submitted,

______________________________ _____________________

/s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott /s/Dr. Jorg Busse

SIGNATURES, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

P.O. Box 7561, Naples, FL 34101-7561; T: 239-595-7074;[email protected]

EXHIBITS

Barred, forged, and false claim O.R. 569/875, which was null and void

1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat, which is devoid of fraudulently claim

lot 00A0 [fictitious PID 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0] and block 00001

[forged PID 07-44-21-00001.0000]. See PB 3, p. 25.


11/21


12/21


13/21

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

WE, JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, AND DR. JORG BUSSE, HEREBY

CERTIFY that copies of the foregoing Motion to Reverse Judgment Obtained

through Fraud were served on this 20th

day of June, 2009, by mail and/or

electronically to the Hon. Thomas K. Kahn, Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the 11th

Circuit, Appeal Number 08-14846, District Court Case Number 2:08-CV-

00364-CV-FtM-[RECUSED] JES - [RECUSED] SPC, and copies to David Paul

Rhodes, U.S. Attorneys Office, Middle District of Florida, 400 N. Tampa ST, Ste

# 3200, Tampa, FL 33602, Defendant-Appellees Richard A. Lazzara, Federal

Courthouse, Tampa, Florida, Mark Allan Pizzo, U.S. Courthouse, 801 North

Florida Avenue, Tampa, FL 33602, John Edwin Steele, U.S. Courthouse, 2110

First Street, 6th

Floor, Fort Myers 33901, Sheri Polster Chappell, U.S. Courthouse,

2110 First Street, Fort Myers 33901, United States of America, Reagan K. Russell,

3900 Commonwealth Blvd., MS # 35, Tallahassee, FL 32399, Kenneth M.

Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraisers Office, Government Complex, Fort

Myers, FL, Sherri Johnson, and Amy Tuck Farrington, Dent & Johnson, Chartered,

3415 Magic Oak Lane, Sarasota, FL 34232, Toby Prince Prigham, Brigham

Moore, S. William Moore, Defendant Brigham & Moore, LLP, Menelaos Papalas,

Jack N. Peterson, Donna Marie Collins, Defendant M. Owen, Appellees Lee

County, Lee County Attorney, Adminstrative Building, 2215 2nd

Street, Fort


14/21

Myers, FL 33901, Reagan Kathleen Russell, Tom Beason, Kathryn Funchess,

Harold G. Vielhauer, and Teresa L. Mussetto, State of Florida, Department of

Environmental Protection, Board of Trustees for the Internal Improvement Trust

Fund, Division of Forestry, Division of Recreation and Parks, 3900

Commonwealth Blvd., M.S. # 35, Tallahassee, FL 32399.

/S/JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, Appellant,pro se

P.O. Box 845, Palm Beach, FL 33480-0845

T: 561-400-3295; E-mail: [email protected]

/S/DR. JORG BUSSE, Appellant,pro se

P.O. Box 7561, Naples, FL 34101-7561

T: 239-595-7074; E-mail: [email protected]


15/21

J. FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, et al., v. STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,

CASE # 08-14846

C 1 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED VICTIMS

OF FALSE, FORGED, AND UNRECORDED SCAM O.R. 569/875

1. The undersigned Plaintiffs-Appellants, JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT

and DR. JORG BUSSE, hereby certify the following persons, victims, and/or

entities to have an interest in the outcome of the above cited and related and/or

associated Cases and Appeals regarding barred prima facie forgery and

fraud-scheme O.R. 569/875. Any and all victims of said scam and forged

land claim have an interest. These victims included, e.g., the Plaintiff

victims identified in Case # 2:07-CV-228-FtM - [recused] John E. Steele -

[recused] S. Polster Chappell.

INTERESTED CAYO COSTA RECORD OWNERS/VICTIMS

2. The 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat in Lee County Plat Book 3, p. 25, on file

evidenced more than one thousand subdivided lots and/or land parcels. The

record owners of said lots have an interest in the outcome in this and the

related and/or associated irregular legal proceedings in the Federal, Federal

Appellate, State, and State Appellate Courts.


16/21


CASE # 08-14846

C 2 of 7

3. The judicial Appellees, Defendants-Appellees, and/or Officers of said

Court(s) in this and/or the related Cases have an interest in the outcome.

FORGERY O.R. 569/875 WAS UTTERLY VOID AND OF NON-EFFECT

4. Prima facie forgery O.R. 569/875 was utterly void and of non-effect.

18 U.S.C. 505

5. 18 U.S.C. 505 provides:

Whoeverforges the signature of any judge, register, or otherofficer of

any court of the United States, or of any territory thereof, or forges orcounterfeits the seal of any such court, orknowingly concurs in usingany such forged or counterfeit signature or seal, for the purpose ofauthenticating any proceeding or document, or tenders in evidence anysuch proceeding or document with a false or counterfeit signature of anysuch judge, register, or other officer, or a false orcounterfeit seal of thecourt, subscribed or attached thereto, knowing such signature or seal to

be false orcounterfeit, shall be fined not more than $5,000, orimprisoned not more than five years, or both.

6. Here, Clerk Farabee was an Officer of the Lee County, Florida, Court(s).

Defendant-Appellees Lee County, FL, forged and/orcounterfeited the seal of

the Office of said Clerk of Lee County Courts.

7. Def.-Appellee Charlie Green knowingly concurred in using the forged and/or

counterfeitedsignature and/orseal of the Lee County Clerk of Courts for the

illegal purpose of authenticating fake document/claim O.R. 569/875.

8. Defendant-Appellee Kenneth M. Wilkinson and/or his Attorneys tendered in

evidence forged document O.R. 569/875 with a false and/or counterfeit


17/21


CASE # 08-14846

C 3 of 7

signature and/or false or counterfeit seal of said Clerk of Courts Farabee

subscribed or attached thereto, knowing such seal or signature to be false.

9. Said counterfeit seal subscribed and/or attached to forged claim O.R.

569/875 is a counterfeit and/or false seal, which was illegally lifted from

another paper and/or transferred for the purpose offraud and deceit.

O.R. 569/875 FRAUD UPON THE COURT(S)

10. Under false pretenses that said barred and fake claim of un-platted and

unidentifiableuncertainundesignated areas was a resolution, the Officers

of the Court perpetrated a fraud upon the State, State Appellate, Federal, and

Federal Appellate Courts in order to unlawfully obtain Constitutionally-

protected property within the Cayo Costa Subdivsion as platted in 1912 absent

any title transaction or court judgment. See Plat Book 3, p. 25.

11.Forged claim O.R. 569/875 was neither intended nor executed as a

resolution by any purported legislator. For the illegal purpose of defrauding

the Plaintiff-Appellant(s) and the owners of more than one thousand subdivided

and platted Cayo Costa land parcels, the Defendant-Appellees and Officers of

the Court materially misrepresented as genuine said counterfeited paper

O.R. 569/875, which had no legal effectwhatsoever.


18/21


CASE # 08-14846

C 4 of 7

PHYSICAL COUNTERFEITING OR SHAM CLAIM O.R. 569/875

12. Here, the Defendant-Appellees physically counterfeited O.R. 569/875. In

particular, the Appellees lifted and/or transferred, e.g., the

a. Handwritten date [10th; December]

b. Deputy Clerkshandwriting; and

c. Clerks Seal.

13. The Defendant-Appellees altered the words in forged land claim O.R.

569/875. At common law, one need not have physically counterfeited an

instrument to be convicted of forgery, see In re Count De Toulouse Lautrec,

102 F. 878 (7 Cir. 1900). Here, the falsely pretended recording of a spurious

instrument purporting to have legal efficacy was willful and for the illegal

purpose ofdefrauding the Plaintiff(s) and said interested Cayo Costa

Subdivision lot owners.

14.Fake claim O.R. 569/875 constituted a "falsely made, forged, altered,

counterfeited and/or spurious" paper. "Falsely made, forged, altered, or

counterfeited" is substantially synonymous and refers to the crime of forgery.

Greathouse v. United States, 170 F.2d 512, 514 (4 Cir. 1948)."

15. Judicial Defendant-Appellees Steele and Polster Chappell disallowed the

Plaintiff-Appellant(s) to assert the nullity, falsity, illegality, and [physical]

forgery of fake claim O.R. 569/875. Said Appellees Steele and Polster-


19/21


CASE # 08-14846

C 5 of 7

Chappell had recused themselves. Any and all of Steeles and Polster

Chappells orders, judgments, and/or rulings were tainted and invalid.

MEMORANDUM

16. The term "forgery" has been viewed in the light of its common law meaning:

"A forged writing was defined in Greathouse as one 'which falsely purports to

be the writing of another person than the actual maker.' Greathouse, supra, 514.

FEDERAL FORGERY

17. The Supreme Court defined what it termed 'the concept of "federal" forgery' as

its common law counterpart. Gilbert v. United States, 370 U.S. 650, 655, 82

S.Ct. 1399, 1402, 8 L.Ed.2d 750, 754 (1962).

FORGERY AND FALSITY OF FAKE CLAIM O.R. 569/875

18. The Supreme Court has noted that " '(f)orgery, or the crimen falsi, * * * may

with us be defined (at common law) to be, "the fraudulent making or

alteration of a writing to the prejudice of another man's right" * * *.' 4

Blackstone, Commentaries (Christian ed. 1809), 247-248." Gilbert v. United

States, 370 U.S. 650, 657 n.10, 82 S.Ct. 1399, 1403, 8 L.Ed.2d 750 (1962).

Significantly then, "(a)n essential element of the crime offorgery is making the

false writing * * *." United States v. Maybury, 274 F.2d 899, 903 (2 Cir. 1960)

(emphasis added). See Carr v. United States, 278 F.2d 702, 703 (6 Cir. 1960),

("The word 'forgery' is commonly defined as the false making or materially


20/21


CASE # 08-14846

C 6 of 7

altering, with intent to defraud, of any writing, which, ifgenuine, might

apparently be oflegal efficacy or the foundation of a legal liability."); Marteney

v. United States, 216 F.2d 760, 763 (10 Cir. 1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 953,

75 S.Ct. 442, 99 L.Ed. 745 (1955), ("The words (falsely made and forged)

relate to genuineness of execution..."). See also R. Anderson, 2 Wharton's

Criminal Law and Procedure 634 at 412-13 (1957); Cunningham v. U.S., 272

F.2d 791 (4 Cir. 1959); United States v. Smith, 262 F. 191 (7 Cir. 1920).

FALSE PRETENSES THAT FORGED O.R. 569/875 WASINSTRUMENT

19. The alteration of supporting documents giving rise to the issuance of a fake

instrument amounts to the crime of false pretenses. See, e.g., Lemke v.

United States, 211 F.2d 73, 14 Alaska 587 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 1013,

74 S.Ct. 866, 98 L.Ed. 1136 (1954). Here, the Appellees, e.g., forged STRAP

12-44-20-01-00000.00AO and 07-44-21-01-00001.0000.

POST-RECUSAL JUDGMENT(S)/ORDERS WERE VOID [MANDAMUS]

20. In 2008, Defendants-Appellees John E. Steele and S. Polster Chappell had

recused themselves. Both U.S. District Judge Steele and Magistrate Polster

Chappell concealed said barred, forged, and false land claim O.R.

569/875 and Appellants exclusive perfect marketable un-encumbered

record title to riparian Gulf-front Lot 15A. In exchange for Appellees bribes,

said Appellees perverted scam O.R. 569/875 into a legislative act, which


21/21


CASE # 08-14846

however could have never possiblypassedany title to Lee County. All pre-

recusal orders, rulings, and/or judgments were tainted and automatically null

& void in these corrupted proceedings. The Appellees concealed the

interested persons and victims of said forgery and barred claim.

21. Accordingly, the judgment(s) of the Court of Appeals and U.S. District Court

are null and void and the Case(s) must be remanded to the District Court for

further proceedings regarding said conclusively provenfraud and the nullity,

falsity, and forgery offakeland claim O.R. 569/875.

Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ _____________________/s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott /s/Dr. Jorg Busse

SIGNATURES, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTSP.O. Box 11124, Naples, FL 34101-11124; T: 239-595-7074;[email protected]

FL0300_.252 [101.74 Acres; 09/02/1902; # 17664; R.H.; S 12];FL0900_.171 [158.50 Acres; 10/22/1895; # 11887; A.R.; SS 12, 13];FL0300_.294 [150.67 Acres; 12/20/1902; # 17808 J.M.; S 7];[FL0910_.410 [121.39 Acres; 10/26/1896; # 17355; O.R.; S 13];[FL1100_.397 [107.68 Acres; 12/17/1906; # 18262; I.M.; SS 7, 8, 17].

SEE ALSO REFERENCED UNITED STATES SURVEYS (U.S. B.L.M.)

[e.g., 1972; 1960; 1956; 1876]

CC: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Board of Forensic Document Examiners

14846 Reversal Fraud on Court

Documents

Transcript of 14846 Reversal Fraud on Court