Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Plaintiffs, pro se
APPEAL
Defendants.
_______________________________________________________________________/
1. Objectively partially, Defendant Judge Richard A. Lazzara presides over his own
prosecution for, e.g., case fixing, bribery, deliberate deprivations, and obstruction
of justice.
CONFISCATORY, UNENFORCEABLE “O.R. 569/875” WAS INVALID
confiscatory “O.R. 569/875”, which was null and void ab initio and for vagueness.
3. Confiscatory, unduly vague, and invalid “O.R. 569/875” lacks a legal description
“accretions” were never subdivided and platted as evidenced by the 1912 Cayo Costa
Subdivision Plat as recorded in Lee County Plat Book 3, p. 25. See also Transcript of
4. The Court knew that no “public lands” ever existed in said Subdivision, because
admittedly public easements were never dedicated and did not exist. Thus the “O.R.
569/875” “claim”/defense was a sham, and the proceedings a farce to cover up the
5. Here, the physical invasion of said private undedicated Subdivision was for private
power existed.
“ADVERSE POSSESSION” WAS IMPOSSIBLE
6. “Adverse possession” was factually and legally impossible, because admittedly the
derived from the 1895 Federal Land Patent recorded in Deed Book C, p. 110.
7. Here, the objectively unfit Judge has been “imagining” a “passed resolution”, which
00015.015A” was the very result of “accretions” as indicated by the “A” for
Plats of Survey in the public records and on file. The Appellants had the equal
riparian and property rights, e.g., of A. C. Roesch and Alice M. S. Robinson [“O.R.
00015.015A”.
CONSTRUCTION OF INCOGNIZABLE “O.R. 569/875” WAS IMPOSSIBLE
impossible.
10. In, e.g., Doc. # 338 (“First Case”), Defendant Judge John E. Steele ordered the
Appellants to pursue further litigation and relief in state court such as, e.g.,
11. When the Appellants followed and complied with the District Court’s said Order to
pursue the ‘available relief in state court’, the Defendant corrupt Judges Pizzo and
Lazzara dismissed Appellants’ cases for bribes calling Appellants’ ‘pursuit of the
12. In his orders (e.g., Doc. # 8) Defendant corrupt Judge Lazzara called the pro se
Appellants “vexatious” and “litigious” merely because they followed and complied
with Def. Judge Steele’s orders [e.g., Doc. # 338] to “pursue” further state court
13. The Appellants are entitled to the state court relief ordered by the District Court in
Doc. # 338 such as, e.g., invalidation of confiscatory and unenforceable “O.R.
14. Def. Judge R. A. Lazzara is objectively unfit and partial. Even though the
Appellants were not subject to Rule 11 sanctions for their Court-ordered Complaint
(see Doc. # 338), Def. Judge threatened and intimidated the pro se P. Appellants
with illegal means to fix the case in exchange for Defendants’ bribes and the corrupt
construction.
15. Only an objectively unfit and partial judge could have asserted that confiscatory
16. Here, the District Court knew that confiscatory “O.R. 569/875” was not a cognizable
“claim” or defense under any legal theory. And no judge, no matter how corrupt and
unfit, will be able to do so under the existing rules of construction. When perverting
the existing rules failed, Defendant Judge Steele disallowed the Plaintiff Appellants
to “assert otherwise” (see, e.g., Doc. # 338, p. 12). The co-Plaintiff Appellant was a
former Research Associate at the University of Chicago and Rotary Scholar with
outstanding Researcher/Professor status. Given said education, the Appellants reject
the nonsense fabricated by this Court in exchange for Defendants bribes. If “O.R.
legal act. The District Court is a tarnished and corrupt Court in which the judicial
Defendants willingly accepted Defendants’ bribes to send the pro se Plaintiffs to state
court. When they got there, the Defendant Judges themselves removed the case back
to the Federal court [Madoff would approve]. Now the Court calls compliance with
its very own Orders “vexatious”, “litigious”, frivolous”, etc. to fix Appellants’ cases in
17. The Court never answered who, when, where, why and how purportedly “passed” the
confiscatory and invalid resolution. The fake resolution itself states [ipse dixit] that
it is confiscatory and invalid. Likely, Judges Lazzara and Pizzo never read or looked
at “O.R. 569/875” before they accepted Defendants’ bribes or are disabled, because
18. Here, the District Court must try again, because any reasonable juror, or fact finder
matter of fact and law. Thus, Defendant Lazzara’s fabrications of “no basis in law
and fact” [see, e.g., Doc. # 8] were for the improper and criminal purpose of fixing
19. The factual findings and legal conclusions by the Lay Court precluded re-litigation of
said sham “claim”. See John Lay and Janet Lay v. [Defendant Appellees] State of
AND D.E.P. CASE ## 01-0860, 01-0876. In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, the
Defendant Judges did not accept as true the factual findings and legal conclusions of,
20. When the Appellants blew the whistle on Def. Lazzara’s case fixing in exchange for
the 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988 causes of action very well (see, e.g., Doc. # 87,
338).
21. “Playing dumb” in court in exchange for bribes is not a legitimate just, speedy, and
evidence on record.
22. The judicial Defendants tarnished the reputation of the District Court. Nobody could
reasonably construe unduly vague, and confiscatory “O.R. 569/875”, which was
23. Def. corrupt Judge Steele falsely claimed that the Court had no jurisdiction over
Appellants’ “arbitrary and capricious” type claims [which was controverted by,
e.g., Eide v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716 (11th Cir. 1990)].
24. However, said Defendant fabricated a “legislative act” thereby reaching and
25. The judicial Defendants knew that the indisputable factual findings and legal
conclusions by, e.g., the Lay Court and Attorneys Stewart & Keyes [see Doc. # 31-4,
the Defendant Appellees. Because title to the “accretions” ran with the upland owners
of record, and not Lee County, the District Court knew that it was corrupting the
26. Defendant Judge Polster Chappell had been affiliated with Defendants State and
County and refused to accept as true the highly meritorious and cognizable claim
factual inquiry the Court had accepted Defendants’ bribes and manufactured that
confiscatory “O.R. 569/875” was a valid “legislative act” even though it was not an
27. Defendant Polster Chappell communicated with the Defendant Appellees and
sanctioning the Appellants for asserting the governmental fraud scheme. Plaintiff(s)’
review of the evidence of the 1912 Subdivision Plat in Court had indisputably
28. When Def. Steele removed the state court case to the District Court, Def. Richard A.
Lazzara fixed and dismissed the case in order to deliberately deprive the Appellants
29. Here, Defendant Lazzara conspired with, e.g., Defendant Steele to shut the door of
the Federal Court in exchange for Defendants’ bribes and enforce non-ascertainable
boundaries and invalid confiscatory “O.R. 569/875” in exchange for Defendants’
worth more than approximately 100 Million Dollars without any instrument, title, or
admittedly unsigned and unexecuted sham claim, which is facially null and void.
private Cayo Costa lands is on the record or was ever offered by any Defendant.
30. Def. corrupt Judge Lazzara obstructs invalidation of confiscatory “O.R. 569/875”
pursuant to, e.g., Corn, infra. Here, Defendant Lazzara was controverted by the
Florida Supreme Court in, e.g., Dade County, infra, and the 11th Circuit precedent
in Corn [see also Lazzara’s biography]. In Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 816
F.2d 1514 (11th Cir. 1987), the 11th Circuit had already determined:
“In Dade County v. National Bulk Carriers, Inc., 450 So.2d 213 (Fla.1984),
legitimate governmental conferred power [see also Lee County Charter]. Pursuant to
Eide, supra, “O.R. 569/875” was “arbitrary and capricious” and “irrational” just
like Defendant corrupt Judge Lazzara’s rulings and orders [e.g., Doc. # 8].
32. The Appellants move for emergency injunctive relief from the deliberate
deprivations of the “relief” ordered by Def. Judge Steele [Doc. # 338] and from case
33. The Appellants are entitled to proper and lawful construction of their grant of
a. West Peninsular Title Co. v. Palm Beach County, 41 F.3d 1490 (11th Cir. 1995);
c. John Lay and Janet Lay v. [Defendant Appellees] State of Florida, OGC CASE
01-0860, 01-0876;
d. United States v. 16.33 Acres of Land in Dade County, Florida, 537 F.2d 182 (5th
Cir. 1976).
34. Defendant Lazzara has no authority to make any substantive orders or rulings,
because Lazzara accepted Defendants’ bribes in exchange for enforcing the fraud
and corruption under “official policy” of invalid and confiscatory “O.R. 569/875”.
statedly confiscatory “O.R. 569/875” was invalid and unenforceable and could not
00015.015A”;
3. An Order granting Appellants’ said Motion in their favor, because invalid and
confiscatory “O.R. 569/875” was a nullity, and here it is as if it had never existed;
4. An Order granting said Motion in Plaintiffs’, because the facial invalidity was
indisputable under, e.g., Lay, supra, and the cited 11th Circuit jurisprudence;
5. An Order removing the Defendant corrupt Judges for accepting Defendants’ bribes
in exchange for fixing Plaintiff Appellants cases and fabricating, e.g., frivolity, no
basis in law and fact, failure to state a cause of action, etc., [which was controverted
by Defendant Judge John Edwin Steele, who had falsely alleged availability of state
remedies even though judicial determination of invalidity was the exclusive remedy
jurisprudence [see, e.g., Lay v. State of Florida, supra; Corn v. City of Lauderdale
Lakes, 904 F.2d 585 (11th Cir. 1990); Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 816 F.2d
1514 (11th Cir. 1987); Eide v. Sarasota County, 895 F.2d 1326 (11th Cir. 1990); West
Peninsular Title Co. v. Palm Beach County, 41 F.3d 1490 (11th Cir. 1995);
unauthorized, confiscatory and invalid “O.R. 569/875” under Federal and Florida
law;
9. An Order for panel review of the case fixing and bribery in the Middle District of
Florida;
tampering with the public record evidence, because Lazzara knew that the
precedent and/or preclusive effects of, e.g., Lay v. State of Florida, supra; Corn v.
City of Lauderdale Lakes, 904 F.2d 585 (11th Cir.1990); Corn v. City of Lauderdale
Lakes, 816 F.2d 1514 (11th Cir.1987); Eide v. Sarasota Cty, 895 F.2d 1326 (11th Cir.
1990); West Peninsular Title Co. v. Palm Beach Cty, 41 F.3d 1490 (11th Cir.1995);
12. An Order forwarding the information, which the Plaintiff Appellants have blown
the whistle on, to the United States Supreme Court for review.
Doc. # 31-4 (“1st Case”): May 14, 1997 STEWART & KEYES LEGAL OPINION
[on record]; citing Caples v. Taliaferro, 197 So. 861.
The District Court knew that the 11th Circuit affirmed in Murrell v. United States, 269
F.2d 458 (5th Cir. 1959):
“ … 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 land, a conveyance of the lands bordering the street
carries the fee to the entire width of the street unless expressly reserved.' This
rule, sound in principle, is controlling here.”
The Appellants were entitled to the application of that rule in the instant case.