Wednesday, May 20, 2009
1. Defendant corrupt U.S. 11th Circuit Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat [“Tjoflat”] conspired with the Defendant-Appellees to conceal that said eminent domain scam O.R.569/875 falsely “claimed” that “undesignated areas” “appeared” on the 1912 Subdivision Plat of Survey. See said extortion-scheme O.R. 569/875; ¶ 2.
2. Defendant Tjoflat conspired to conceal the prima facie invalidity of said fraudulent “claim” of uncertain “undesignated areas”, which Tjoflat knew did not appear on said Plat. See 1912 Plat in Lee County Plat Book 3, p. 25.
3. Tjoflat conspired to conceal that Lee County had never executed said “claim” of fictitious un-platted “undesignated areas”. See said scam O.R. 569/875.
4. Tjoflat conspired to conceal the platted designated 60’ wide street. See said 1912 Plat.
5. Tjoflat conspired to extend Lee County fraud-scheme O.R. 569/875.
6. Tjoflat conspired to obstruct justice, deliberately deprive, and defraud the Appellants by falsely pretending the said scam O.R.569/875 was a “legislative act”.
7. Tjoflat conspired to conceal that the platted Cayo Costa Subdivision had never been dedicated and that Lee County had never accepted any dedication.
8. Tjoflat conspired to conceal that no witnesses and/or seal appeared on said sham “claim” of uncertain “lands”.
9. Tjofalt conspired to conceal that no legislator and/or legislative history could be identified in said scam O.R. 569/875.
10. Tjoflat conspired to conceal that Lee County never had any legislative authority or purpose to fraudulently ”claim all of raid lands and accretions thereto”, which admittedly could not be “identified”. See eminent domain fraud-scheme O.R. 569/875.
11. Tjoflat conspired to conceal that admittedly unexecuted scam O.R. 569/875 contained multiple different type fonts and errors such as, e.g., “raid lands”; “tho County”; “there’ ”.
12. Tjoflat conspired to conceal that admittedly and indisputably unexecuted and unsigned Lee County fraud-scheme O.R. 569/875 was never adopted.
13. Tjoflat conspired to conceal that Defendant-Appellees’, State of Florida, sham “claim”/”defense” of adverse possession of the uncertain “undesignated areas” was a scam in order to deliberately deprive and defraud the Appellants.