notice of appeal
DESCRIPTION
PUBLICLY RECORDED “resolution”-RACKETEERING & EXTORTION SCHEME7. Any involuntary alienation would have been strictly a judicial function. No legislator ever had (or could have possibly had) any authority to divest the Plaintiffs’ of their record title against Plaintiffs’ will. See Separation-of-Powers-Doctrine and Florida’s express Constitutional Protections; 14th, 4th U.S. Const. Amendments.PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA PROVED ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIME8. Prescott, et al., v. State of Florida, et al., 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2009) had stated:“I. BACKGROUNDA. Current ActionThe Appellants are owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision in Lee County, Florida.” “The Appellants' Lot 15A is on the west side of the Cayo Costa subdivision on the Gulf of Mexico and is adjacent to land that was claimed through Resolution 569/875 to create the Cayo Costa State Park.”CRIMINAL & ILLEGAL “pre-filing injunction”, DOC. # 2459. Here, the Plaintiff record owners and title holders had paid real property taxes, Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, and were entitled to defend against, e.g., publicly recorded Government racketeering, wire fraud, extortion, retaliation, obstruction of justice, deliberate deprivations, and bribery. See Lee County Tax Collector’s public records, riparian Lot 15A, Cayo Costa.10. Here, Defendant Crooked Judge Honeywell had no authority to fraudulently conceal Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable record ownership, real property tax payments, rights to own and exclude Government from Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, under color of facially forged “resolution 569/875” and by prima facie criminal and illegal means of a “global pre-filing injunction”, Doc. # 245, Case 2:2009-cv-00791.BRIBERY & OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE11. Here in exchange for bribes, Defendant Crooked Judge Honeywell obstructed justice, retaliated, and deliberately deprived the Plaintiff record title holders and owners of their fundamental rights to redress Governmental grievances and defend against unlawful Government seizures of Plaintiffs’ private property, racketeering, extortion, due process and equal protection violations, 1st, 14th, 4th, 7th U.S. Constitutional Amendments. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT AND CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL12. Here, Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that, e.g.:a. The Plaintiffs are the unimpeachable record “owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision of Lee County, Florida”, pursuant to, e.g., Ch. 712, Fla. Stat., Florida’s self-enforcing Marketable Record Title Act;b. No “claim” or “resolution”, whatsoever, could have possibly involuntarily divested the Plaintiffs of their perfected marketable record title to Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, PB 3 PG 25 (1912);c. No legislator or lawmaker, whatsoever, had any authority to usurp judicial authority to make a judicial order transferring title against Plaintiffs’ will;d. No judge had ever made any order or judgment involuntarily alienating Lot 15A;e. “The Board of Commissioners of Lee County, Florida,” never adopted any “resolution 569/875” in December 1969;f. No name of any commissioner appeared on prima facie scam “O.R. 569/875”;g. Scam “O.R. 569/875” was not any law, resolution, or legislative act and unauthorized;h. “Involuntary-alienation-by-fake-resolution” was a racketeering & extortion scheme;i. The prima facie sham “land claim” lacked any color and was legally incomprehensible;j. Lot 15A was never “claimed as public land”; see Tax Records & Grantor-Grantee Index;k. Prima facie extortion and fraud scheme “O.R. 569/875” was not any “claim”;l. The law did not recognize facially incomprehensible “resolution 569/875”;m. The legal description of Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, did not appear in the sham “resolution”;n. No valid authentic legal description appeared in the facially forged “resolution”;o. Falsified “resolution 569/875" had never legally existed;p. Scam “O.R. 569/875” did not, and could not have possibly, complied with Ch. 11, Fla. Stat., LegiTRANSCRIPT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
[“TRANSFERRED” FROM: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION] JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE, Plaintiffs, versus Reassigned Case # 2:09-CV-00791-CEH-SPC ROGER ALEJO; KENNETH M. WILKINSON; JACK N. PETERSON; ROGER DESJARLAIS; LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; LEE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD; LORI L. RUTLAND; STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND; STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; CHAD LACH; CHARLES “BARRY” STEVENS; REAGAN KATHLEEN RUSSELL; KAREN B. HAWES; ROGER DESJARLAIS; CHARLIE GREEN; BOB JANES; BRIAN BIGELOW; RAY JUDAH; TAMMY HALL; FRANK MANN; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY(S); SEAN P. FLYNN; E. KENNETH STEGEBY; DAVID P. RHODES; A. BRIAN ALBRITTON; CYNTHIA A. PIVACEK; JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.; STEVEN CARTA; MIKE SCOTT; HUGH D. HAYES; GERALD D. SIEBENS; STATE OF FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL; WILLIAM M. MARTIN; PETERSON BERNARD; SKIP QUILLEN; TOM GILBERTSON, RYAN LENGERICH, NEWS PRESS,
Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT, NOTICE OF APPEAL, RACKETEERING, CORRUPTION, FRAUD, AND CRIMES ____________________________________________________________________________/
NOTICE OF APPEAL, AFFIDAVIT,
FROM FRAUDULENT PRE-FILING INJUNCTION, DOC. # 245, DOC. # 213
ANY AND ALL NULL & VOID “orders” BY DEF. HONEYWELL & S. P. CHAPPELL,
“global pre-filing injunction”, GOV. RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, RETALIATION,
AND FALSIFIED judgment & “writ of execution”, DOC. ## 425, 424, 434, 435, 433, 430,
2:2007-cv-00228
EMERGENCY MOTIONS TO ENJOIN FRAUD ON COURT, DOC. ## 245, 213
EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENJOIN “sale of real property” WHICH GOVERNMENT HAD FRAUDULENTLY “claimed” TO “own”
UNDER COLOR OF FORGED “land parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”, AND FACIALLY FORGED “O.R. 569/875” & FAKE “legislative act/resolution/regulation”
DIRECT INDEPENDENT ATTACK ON ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIMES:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Ex Rel. et al. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.
2
LAWSUIT AGAINST DEF. CORRUPT CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL
AND DEF. SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, et al 1. The Plaintiff Government corruption and racketeering victims and unimpeachable record
owners of Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, S-T-R-A-P # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A, Lee County Plat
Book 3, Page 25 (1912), sued Defendant Crooked Charlene Edwards Honeywell, UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, Ex Rel. et al. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., U.S.
District Court, District of New Hampshire, Case 1:2010-cv-00321-JL.
ADOPTION OF LAWSUIT, et al. BY REFERENCE IN THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL
2. The Plaintiff unimpeachable record owners of Lot 15A adopt by reference in this Notice of
Appeal
a. The attached Complaint and well proven allegations against Defendant U.S. Corrupt
Official Charlene E. Honeywell, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Ex Rel. et al. v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., U.S. District Court, District of New
Hampshire, Case 1:2010-cv-00321-JL;
b. The Docket sheet, Case 2:2007-cv-00228, evidencing the falsified “writ of execution”,
Doc. # 425, and lack of any $5,048.60 judgment and mandate;
c. The Notice of Appeal, Doc. # 436 as submitted, 443 pages, Case 2:2007-cv-00228;
d. The fabrication of 90 pages by Defendant Drew Heathcoat, Clerk of Court’s Office,
Doc. # 436 as falsified by Defendant Clerk of Court, 533 pages.
ORGANIZED JUDICIAL CRIME – RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, …:
IRRATIONAL & ILLEGAL seizure of LOT 15A purportedly claimed as public land
3. The publicly recorded extortion and fraud scheme of “Government seizure” and “forced
sale” of Plaintiffs’ Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, would be absolutely impossible, if Lot 15A had
been “claimed as public land” as fraudulently pretended by Def. Honeywell. Here, the
3
record had conclusively evidenced the lack of any judgment and lack of any involuntary title
transfer to Lee County, FL. See Case 2:2007-cv-00228; Doc. ## 436, 288, 282. Here,
Defendant Honeywell fraudulently pretended and conspired with other Officials to falsely
pretend that the Plaintiff record owners’ Lot 15A had been “claimed as public land”, Case
2:2009-cv-00791; Doc. # 245.
PRIMA FACIE IDIOTIC AND INCOMPREHENSIBLE “claim as public land”
4. Defendant “land parcel” Forger Kenneth M. Wilkinson falsified a “lien” on exempt Lot
15A, Cayo Costa, in the record absence of any final judgment and mandate. Def. Wilkinson
fraudulently concealed that he was not any judgment creditor, but moved the Court to force
the sale of Lot 15A, while Defendant Honeywell idiotically pretended that Lot 15A had
been claimed as public lands.
5. No intelligent, honest, and fit judge and/or person in Honeywell’s shoes could possibly
reconcile the publicly recorded fatally conflicting nonsense and hoax of a prima facie
falsified “land claim” of Lot 15A and a facially forged judgment lien in the absence of any
judgment. Here absurdly, Defendant Corrupt C. E. Honeywell perpetrated organized
judicial crimes:
“At the heart of each case, Plaintiffs allege that they are the owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision of Lee County, Florida (Dkt. 1, ¶1; Dkt. 5, ¶1). Plaintiffs attempt to challenge a resolution adopted in December 1969 by the Board of Commissioners of Lee County, Florida, where Lot 15A, among other property, was claimed as public land (“Resolution 569/875") (Dkt 5, Ex. 3, p. 9). See Prescott, et al., v. State of Florida, et al., 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2009); Busse, et al. v. Lee County, Florida, et al., 317 Fed. Appx. 968, 970 (11th Cir. Mar 5, 2009). To fully establish the need for a global pre-filing injunction, the Court will summarize the pertinent facts of each previous case that Plaintiffs filed relating to this property dispute.” See Doc. # 245, 07/20/2010, p. 3.
WARRANTY DEED PROVED JUDICIAL RACKETEERING, FRAUD & CRIMES
6. Here, Plaintiffs’ publicly recorded WARRANTY DEED, Lee County INSTRUMENT #
2010000171344, proved the absurd judicial hoax and racketeering/extortion scheme of a
4
“resolution 569/875” and “claim of Lot 15A as public land”. No law, resolution, legislative
act, whatsoever, could have possibly involuntarily divested the Plaintiffs of their
unimpeachable marketable record title to and ownership of Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, PB 3, PG
25 (1912).
PUBLICLY RECORDED “resolution”-RACKETEERING & EXTORTION SCHEME
7. Any involuntary alienation would have been strictly a judicial function. No legislator ever
had (or could have possibly had) any authority to divest the Plaintiffs’ of their record title
against Plaintiffs’ will. See Separation-of-Powers-Doctrine and Florida’s express
Constitutional Protections; 14th, 4th U.S. Const. Amendments.
PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA PROVED ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIME
8. Prescott, et al., v. State of Florida, et al., 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Cir. Apr. 21,
2009) had stated:
“I. BACKGROUND A. Current Action The Appellants are owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision in Lee County, Florida.” “The Appellants' Lot 15A is on the west side of the Cayo Costa subdivision on the Gulf of Mexico and is adjacent to land that was claimed through Resolution 569/875 to create the Cayo Costa State Park.”
CRIMINAL & ILLEGAL “pre-filing injunction”, DOC. # 245
9. Here, the Plaintiff record owners and title holders had paid real property taxes, Lot 15A,
Cayo Costa, and were entitled to defend against, e.g., publicly recorded Government
racketeering, wire fraud, extortion, retaliation, obstruction of justice, deliberate
deprivations, and bribery. See Lee County Tax Collector’s public records, riparian Lot
15A, Cayo Costa.
10. Here, Defendant Crooked Judge Honeywell had no authority to fraudulently conceal
Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable record ownership, real property tax payments, rights to own
and exclude Government from Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, under color of facially forged
5
“resolution 569/875” and by prima facie criminal and illegal means of a “global pre-filing
injunction”, Doc. # 245, Case 2:2009-cv-00791.
BRIBERY & OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
11. Here in exchange for bribes, Defendant Crooked Judge Honeywell obstructed justice,
retaliated, and deliberately deprived the Plaintiff record title holders and owners of their
fundamental rights to redress Governmental grievances and defend against unlawful
Government seizures of Plaintiffs’ private property, racketeering, extortion, due process
and equal protection violations, 1st, 14th, 4th, 7th U.S. Constitutional Amendments.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT AND CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL
12. Here, Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that, e.g.:
a. The Plaintiffs are the unimpeachable record “owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa
subdivision of Lee County, Florida”, pursuant to, e.g., Ch. 712, Fla. Stat., Florida’s self-
enforcing Marketable Record Title Act;
b. No “claim” or “resolution”, whatsoever, could have possibly involuntarily divested the
Plaintiffs of their perfected marketable record title to Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, PB 3 PG
25 (1912);
c. No legislator or lawmaker, whatsoever, had any authority to usurp judicial authority to
make a judicial order transferring title against Plaintiffs’ will;
d. No judge had ever made any order or judgment involuntarily alienating Lot 15A;
e. “The Board of Commissioners of Lee County, Florida,” never adopted any “resolution
569/875” in December 1969;
f. No name of any commissioner appeared on prima facie scam “O.R. 569/875”;
g. Scam “O.R. 569/875” was not any law, resolution, or legislative act and unauthorized;
h. “Involuntary-alienation-by-fake-resolution” was a racketeering & extortion scheme;
i. The prima facie sham “land claim” lacked any color and was legally incomprehensible;
6
j. Lot 15A was never “claimed as public land”; see Tax Records & Grantor-Grantee Index;
k. Prima facie extortion and fraud scheme “O.R. 569/875” was not any “claim”;
l. The law did not recognize facially incomprehensible “resolution 569/875”;
m. The legal description of Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, did not appear in the sham “resolution”;
n. No valid authentic legal description appeared in the facially forged “resolution”;
o. Falsified “resolution 569/875" had never legally existed;
p. Scam “O.R. 569/875” did not, and could not have possibly, complied with Ch. 11, Fla.
Stat., Legislative Organization, Procedures, and Staffing;
q. Said facially forged “resolution” was not any writing, instrument, or muniment of title;
r. The fake “resolution” was not any conveyance, instrument, or eminent domain document;
s. The prima facie unauthorized “global pre-filing injunction” was an organized
Governmental crime scheme for criminal and illegal purposes of, e.g., extortion and
racketeering;
t. Def. Honeywell obstructed justice under color of authority & scam “O.R. 569/875”;
u. Def. Honeywell obstructed justice under color of a fake writ of execution, Doc. # 425;
v. Def. Lee County Commissioners had no authority to sign any “claim” of uncertain and
legally un-described lands;
w. Lot 15A was never subject to any enforcement of any money judgment against Dr. Busse;
x. The fake writ of execution, Doc. # 425, Case 2:2007-cv-00228, violated Florida’s
Judgment Lien Law; see Ch. 55, Fla. Stat.;
y. Defendant Appellee Kenneth M. Wilkinson was not any judgment creditor;
z. Def. K. M. Wilkinson never incurred any actual and necessary attorney’s fees; see
business records on file;
aa. Dr. Jorg Busse was not any judgment debtor;
bb. Lot 15A was exempt real property and owned by the entireties;
7
cc. Litigation has been pending and no final judgment existed.
DEF. HONEYWELL’S IDIOTIC RETALIATORY CONCOCTIONS
13. For criminal purposes of racketeering, retaliation, extorting Plaintiffs’ property,
fabricating and/or falsifying the “adoption” of fake “resolution 569/875”, Defendant
Crooked U.S. Judge Honeywell concocted in Doc. # 245, p. 2:
“I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs have a persistent history of filing baseless, incomprehensible and repetitive pleadings which have impacted the resources of this Court, as well as of Defendants.”
Here, Plaintiff unimpeachable record owners of Lot 15A had a history of pleading well-
proven and publicly recorded Government fraud, corruption, deliberate deprivations,
extortion, retaliation, racketeering, et al., which tarnished the reputation of this Court as a
ruthless criminal organization.
RECORD LACK OF ANY instrument & COVER-UP OF SCAM “O.R. 569/875”
14. Neither Defendant Honeywell nor Defendants Lee County were the holder of any instrument
and/or fake “O.R. 569/875”.
RECORD LACK OF grantor AND grant – FAKE “claim”, “O.R. 569/875”
15. § 695.09, Fla. Stat., states:
695.09 Identity of grantor.--No acknowledgment or proof shall be taken, except as set forth in s. 695.03(3), by any officer within or without the United States unless the officer knows, or has satisfactory proof, that the person making the acknowledgment is the individual described in, and who executed, such instrument or that the person offering to make proof is one of the subscribing witnesses to such instrument.
Facially forged “claim”, fake “resolution 569/875”, was not any genuine legally
comprehensible paper, but a prima facie extortion and racketeering scheme. Here, there
had been no grant and/or conveyance. Here, there was no grantor, and nothing uncertain
and legally un-described could have possibly been granted to anyone and/or Lee County.
Here, nobody knew who could have possibly executed facially unlawful and unauthorized
scam “O.R. 569/875”. Here, there were no subscribing witnesses.
8
NO entitlement to enforce FACIAL SCAM “O.R. 569/875”
16. § 673.3011, Florida Statutes, states:
673.3011 Person entitled to enforce instrument.--The term "person entitled to enforce" an instrument means: (1) The holder of the instrument;
Here, Defendants Lee County were never the holder of any instrument “O.R. 569/875” and
not entitled to enforce prima facie unauthorized scam “O.R. 569/875”. See Title XXXIX,
Commercial Relations, Ch. 673, Negotiable Instruments.
17. Here, Defendant Corrupt Judge Honeywell fraudulently concealed that prima facie sham
“claim” “O.R. 569/875” was not any negotiable instrument and on its face null and void. On
its face, publicly recorded scam “O.R. 569/875” lacked any authentic legal description,
legislative names, signatures, history, acknowledgment, and witnesses. Here as a matter of
law, nobody was entitled to enforce unauthorized extortion and fraud scheme “O.R.
569/875”.
LEE COUNTY, FL, WAS NOT ANY real party in interest
18. Pursuant to Florida’s real party in interest Rule, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.210(a), Lee County was
not any real party in interest. Here, Lee County had no interest, was not any record owner,
and Lee County’s presence was neither necessary nor proper to a complete determination of
the cause. Id.
CONSPIRACY TO FRAUDULENTLY CONCEAL AND EXTORT
19. Here, Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that Lee
County, FL, had never been any real party in interest.
RECORD LACK OF ANY GENUINE INSTRUMENT
20. § 697.10, Fla. Stat., states:
697.10 Liability for error in mortgage deed or note.--In any action relating to real property, if the court shall find that any person has prepared an instrument which due to an inaccurate or improper legal description impairs another person's title to real
9
property, the court may award to the prevailing party all costs incurred by her or him in such action, including reasonable attorney's fees, and in addition thereto may award to the prevailing party all actual damages that she or he may have sustained as a result of such impairment of title.
Here, facially forged “O.R. 569/875” was not any genuine instrument. Here, there was no
authentic accurate legal description in said prima facie sham and legally
incomprehensible “claim”.
21. Here, Defendant Crooked Honeywell recklessly slandered and conspired with other
Officials to slander Plaintiffs’ perfected marketable title to said Lot 15A under color of
falsified “resolution 569/875”, which impaired Plaintiffs’ title to their record riparian real
property on the Gulf of Mexico, Parcel 12-44-20-01-00015.015A.
22. Here, Plaintiffs were entitled to all costs incurred by them while defending their record Lot
15A ownership against, e.g., publicly recorded Government racketeering, retaliation,
extortion, obstruction of justice, fraud on the Court, deliberate deprivations, and
bribery.
ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIME SCHEMES
23. Defendant Corrupt Judge C. E. Honeywell evidenced, e.g., organized Government crime,
racketeering, extortion, obstruction of justice, bribery, retaliation, Doc. # 245, pp. 3
through 12:
“To fully establish the need for a global pre-filing injunction, the Court will summarize the pertinent facts …”
Here Defendant Honeywell summarized facts pertinent to the conclusively proven
fraudulent Governmental concealment and cover-up of the prima facie criminality,
illegality, and nullity of extortion and fraud scheme “O.R. 569/875”.
24. In each fixed “case”, Judges and/or Government Officials conspired to, e.g., defraud,
deliberately deprive, racketeer and extort Cayo Costa land and money from the Plaintiffs
under fraudulent and false pretenses of, e.g., facially forged “resolution 569/875” and
10
“frivolity”. Here, obstruction of justice, retaliation, bribery, and silencing the Plaintiffs
were unlawful acts. See Doc. # 245, pp. 3 through 12.
CONSPIRACY TO FALSIFY ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXTORT
25. Defendant Charlene Edwards Honeywell conspired with other Government Officials and
Defendants to falsify attorney’s fees.
26. Defendant Crooked Judge Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that Defendant
Appellee Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office had never
incurred and could not have possibly incurred actual and necessary attorney’s fees in the
amount of $5,000.00.
ANARCHY & BRIBERY IN FLORIDA’S FEDERAL COURTS –LOSS OF jurisdiction
27. On June 11, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals had lost jurisdiction, Case 2008-13170-BB.
Jurisdiction followed the mandate and final money judgment in the amount of $24.30 for
“copies” under Fed.R.App.P. 39. “Frivolity of the appeal” had never been any issue
whatsoever. Neither the Appellant nor the Appellee nor anyone else had ever raised the
fabricated issue of a frivolous appeal. See Opinion and Mandate.
28. Therefore in July 2009, the 11th Circuit could not have possibly awarded anything to
Defendant “land parcel” Forger Kenneth M. Wilkinson.
29. After June 11, 2009, Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson did not incur any actual and necessary
attorney’s fees in said CLOSED APPELLATE CASE, 2008-13170-BB.
CRIMINAL FALSIFICATION OF July 29, 2009, judgment
30. Here, no Florida judgment existed that could have possibly served as any basis for a valid
judgment lien. In particular, no Florida state court or United States District Court had ever
made any “$5,048.60 mandate and/or money judgment”. Here, no dispositive and final order
had been made. In particular, the central issues such as, e.g., the facially forged “land
11
parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” had never been
reviewed at all.
POLICY & PATTERN OF RAPE, COVER-UP, CONCEALMENT, AND CONSPIRACY
31. Defendants’ policy and pattern of cover-up and fraudulent concealment perfect Florida’s
organized Government crime machine. Just like pervert priests in the Catholic Church
encourage sodomy, Defendant Florida Judges and Government Officials encouraged, e.g.,
rape of the law, intimidation of victims, and retaliation for criminal purposes of extending
the criminal culture or racketeering and corruption. Once Officials perpetrated their pervert
fucking, cover-up, concealment, and conspiracy followed under false pretenses that, e.g., the
victims’ proof was “frivolous” and that the victims must be silenced by, e.g., a “global pre-
filing injunction”.
32. Here, Dr. Busse had paid the $24.30 and Defendant record Forger Wilkinson and the
Courts were estopped from falsifying any debt, outstanding judgment, and/or $5,048.60.
33. Here, no “$5,048.60 judgment” could be found in the U.S. District Court, Case 2:2007-cv-
00228. No judgment lien attached to Lot 15A. Here, no judgment existed to operate as a lien
against exempt real property, Lot 15A, Ch. 55, Fla. Stat.
34. In order for any judgment to operate as a lien, a certified copy thereof must be recorded.
Here, the only money judgment and final mandate in the amount of $24.30 had been paid and
could not have possibly been outstanding.
35. A valid curative affidavit would have been required had the facially falsified and forged
judgment been genuine. No curative valid affidavit was ever filed and/or recorded under
Florida’s Rules.
36. Furthermore, Lot 15A has been owned by Dr. Jorg Busse in such a manner that is would be
exempt and could not possibly be subject to any levy and/or execution.
12
37. Defendant “fake lot 00A0” Forger Kenneth M. Wilkinson was not any “lien holder”. Here,
no “lien holder” was identified or could have possibly been identified.
38. Here, the sham “$5,048.60 judgment” was a record racketeering and extortion scheme,
and Defendant Crook Wilkinson never perfected and could not have possibly perfected any
judgment lien on Lot 15A. The falsified affidavit proved perjury and violated the Rules.
39. No authentic and valid writ of execution was ever served upon Dr. Jorg Busse.
40. Litigation has been pending since 2006 and no final judgment existed. Furthermore, the
Plaintiffs filed independent actions for relief from fraud on the Courts.
41. Def. Wilkinson was never entitled to entry of any order directing public sale of Lot 15A.
42. Here, Defendant Charlene E. Honeywell conspired with Defendant Officials Wilkinson,
Steele, Polster Chappell and other Officials and Defendants to fraudulently pretend and
fake an outstanding judgment for criminal and illegal purposes of, e.g., racketeering,
retaliating, extorting Plaintiffs’ land and money, and coercing the Plaintiff(s) to refrain
from prosecution in violation of their Civil Rights and the 1st, 14th, 7th, and 4th Const.
Amendments.
DEFENDANTS’ UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES TO FALSIFIED instruments
43. § 673.4071, Fla. Stat., states:
673.4071 Alteration. (1) The term "alteration" means: (a) An unauthorized change in an instrument which change purports to modify in any respect the obligation of a party; or (b) An unauthorized addition of words or numbers or other change to an incomplete instrument which addition or change relates to the obligation of a party. (2) Except as provided in subsection (3), an alteration fraudulently made discharges a party whose obligation is affected by the alteration unless that party assents or is precluded from asserting the alteration…”
Here, altered versions of prima facie scam “O.R. 569/875” and fake judgments were on
file. Here, the Defendants made unauthorized changes to record falsified instruments,
judgments, and claims, which discharged the Plaintiffs from any and all obligations.
13
THE 11th APP. CIRCUIT HAD DENIED DEF. FORGER WILKINSON’S MOTION
44. In the Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Docket No. 2008-00364-CV-FTM-29-SPC, the U.S. Court of Appeals had stated:
“C. Rule 11 Sanctions Although this issue is closer, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying Appellee [*15] Wilkinson's motion for sanctions. The district court was intimately familiar with the Appellees' claims in both complaints and their conduct throughout the litigation and was thus in the best position to determine whether Rule 11 sanctions were appropriate. We note that the district court has now warned the Appellees that their conduct may warrant sanctions in the future if continued. III. CONCLUSION Therefore, we affirm the district court's orders dismissing the Appellants' complaint, denying the Appellants' motion for recusal, and denying the Appellees' motion for sanctions.”
PLAINTIFFS WERE EXCLUSIVE UNIMPEACHABLE RECORD OWNERS, LOT 15A
45. The Plaintiffs were the exclusive unimpeachable title holders and record owners of
riparian accreted Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, as perfectly conveyed and legally described in
reference to the 1912 Plat of Survey of the private undedicated residential Cayo Costa
Subdivision in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25. The law did not recognize “O.R. 569/875”,
which on its face was not any writing, instrument or muniment of title and lacked legislative
signatures, names, witnesses, and seal. Prima facie scam “O.R. 569/875” was not any
genuine instrument.
RECORD LACK & IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANY “claim”
46. Here by the mere passage of time, any and all genuine claims would have automatically
been extinguished pursuant to Florida’s self-enforcing Marketable Record Title Act, Ch.
712, Fla. Stat. Here, Lee County’s facially forged and frivolous claim was for criminal
purposes and illegal of, e.g., racketeering, extortion, fraud, and deliberate deprivations.
Here as a matter of law, Lee County, FL, never had any and could not have possibly had
14
any “claim”. Here, any adjudication of any [hypothetical] claim would have been strictly a
judicial function.
47. § 65.61 Quieting title; additional remedy.-- 65.61(2) states:
(2) GROUNDS.-- When a person or corporation not the rightful owner of land has any conveyance or other evidence of title thereto, or asserts any claim, or pretends to have any right or title thereto, which may cast a cloud on the title of the real owner, or when any person or corporation is the true and equitable owner of land the record title to which is not in the person or corporation because of the defective execution of any deed or mortgage because of the omission of a seal thereon, the lack of witnesses, or any defect or omission in the wording of the acknowledgment of a party or parties thereto, when the person or corporation claims title thereto by the defective instrument and the defective instrument was apparently made and delivered by the grantor to convey or mortgage the real estate and was recorded in the county where the land lies, or when possession of the land has been held by any person or corporation adverse to the record owner thereof or his or her heirs and assigns until such adverse possession has ripened into a good title under the statutes of this state, such person or corporation may file complaint in any county in which any part of the land is situated to have the conveyance or other evidence of claim or title canceled and the cloud removed from the title and to have his or her title quieted, whether such real owner is in possession or not or is threatened to be disturbed in his or her possession or not, and whether defendant is a resident of this state or not, and whether the title has been litigated at law or not, and whether the adverse claim or title or interest is void on its face or not, or if not void on its face that it may require extrinsic evidence to establish its validity...”
MANDATORY RECUSAL AND DISQUALIFICATION, 28 U.S.C. § 455
48. Recusal and disqualification of objectively partial and corrupt Defendant Charlene
Edwards Honeywell were absolutely mandatory, 28 U.S.C. § 455. Def. Honeywell
fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal the prima criminality, illegality, and
nullity of a falsified $5,048.60 judgment, fake lien, and fraudulent execution and
enforcement for criminal purposes of, e.g., racketeering, retaliation, and extortion.
49. Furthermore, RULE 1.432 DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE states:
(a) Grounds. Any party may move to disqualify the judge assigned to the action on the grounds provided by statute. (b) Contents. A motion to disqualify shall allege the facts relied on to show the grounds for disqualification and shall be verified by the party. (c) Time. A motion to disqualify shall be made within a reasonable time after discovery of the facts constituting grounds for disqualification.
15
(d) Determination. The judge against whom the motion is directed shall determine only the legal sufficiency of the motion. The judge shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged. If the motion is legally sufficient, the judge shall enter an order of disqualification and proceed no further in the action. (e) Judge's Initiative. Nothing in this rule limits a judge's authority to enter an order of disqualification on the judge's own initiative. Committee Note: The rule is intended to unify the procedure for disqualification.
RULE 2.330. DISQUALIFICATION OF TRIAL JUDGES
50. Said Rule states:
(b) Parties. Any party, including the state, may move to disqualify the trial judge assigned to the case on grounds provided by rule, by statute, or by the Code of Judicial Conduct. (c) Motion. A motion to disqualify shall: (1) be in writing; (2) allege specifically the facts and reasons upon which the movant relies as the
grounds for disqualification; (3) be sworn to by the party by signing the motion under oath or by a separate
affidavit;”
SECTION 38.10, FLA. STAT.
51. Section 38.10 gives parties the right to move to disqualify a judge when the party fears that
“he or she will not receive a fair trial . . . on account of the prejudice of the judge of that
court against the applicant or in favor of the adverse party.” Fla. Stat. § 38.10. Rule of
Judicial Administration 2.330 specifies that a motion to disqualify must show that “the party
fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically described
prejudice or bias of the judge.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330.
52. § 38.10, Fla. Stat., states:
38.10 Disqualification of judge for prejudice; application; affidavits; etc.--Whenever a party to any action or proceeding makes and files an affidavit stating fear that he or she will not receive a fair trial in the court where the suit is pending on account of the prejudice of the judge of that court against the applicant or in favor of the adverse party, the judge shall proceed no further, but another judge shall be designated in the manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of judges for the trial of causes in which the presiding judge is disqualified.
16
Here, Plaintiffs have been “stating fear that they have not and will not receive a fair trial in
the court where the suit is pending on account of the prejudice of the Judge(s) of that court
[Charlene Edwards Honeywell; John E. Steele; Sheri Polster Chappell; Richard A.
Lazzara] against the applicants. Here, objectively biased and bribed Judge Charlene
Edwards Honeywell “shall proceed no further, but another judge shall be designated in
the manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of judges for the trial of
causes in which the presiding judge is disqualified.”
PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT TO APPEAL: FRAUDULENT lien, execution; EXTORTION …
53. If the judge denies a motion to disqualify brought under § 38.10 the movant has the right to
appeal. Lynch v. State, ___ So. 2d ___, Nos. SC06-2233, SC07-1246, 2008 WL 4809783, at
*26 (Fla. Nov. 6, 2008). As the Florida Supreme Court recently held: “A motion to
disqualify is governed substantively by section 38.10, Florida Statutes, and procedurally by
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330. Here, Plaintiffs’ pleadings to disqualify
Defendant objectively partial Judge Honeywell are citing 28 U.S.C. § 455, § 38.10 and Rule
2.330, as well as Canon 3E(1).
RECUSAL: HONEYWELL’S ORGANIZED CRIMES & OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
54. The Florida Supreme Court has also held, in effect, that § 38.10 and the Canons require the
same thing. See Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083, 1086 (Fla. 1983). In Livingston the
court cited the Canon’s requirement that a judge disqualify himself when his “impartiality
might reasonably be questioned” and concluded that it was “totally consistent” with Florida
case law applying § 38.10. Id. Both require disqualification when a party can show “a well
grounded fear that he will not receive a fair trial at the hands of the judge.” Id. (quoting State
ex rel. Brown v. Dewell, 179 So. 695, 697-98 (Fla. 1938)); see also Berry v. Berry, 765 So.
2d 855, 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (quoting Canon 3E(1) when describing the standard for
granting a motion under § 38.10). Here of course, this Court was bound to follow Florida
17
appellate court decisions interpreting that state’s law. The final arbiter of state law is the
state Supreme Court, which is another way of saying that Florida law is what the Florida
Supreme Court says it is.
55. Here in particular, Def. Honeywell concocted and conspired to concoct a “resolution
569/875”, “claim” of Lot 15A, “law”, “legislative act” for criminal and illegal purposes of,
e.g., racketeering, retaliation, and extortion of Plaintiffs’ land and money. Here, Def.
Honeywell perpetrated fraud upon the Court(s), and the Plaintiffs could not possibly get a
fair, just, and speedy trial because of Def. Honeywell’s publicly recorded lies, corruption,
bribery, racketeering, partiality, and incompetence.
CANON(S) 3E(1), 3E(1)(f), FLORIDA CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
56. The Florida Supreme Court has adopted a Code of Judicial Conduct to govern the actions
of state court judges and candidates for judicial office. Canon 3E(1) states, e.g.:
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where …
Those provisions address situations in which a judge must disqualify himself because his
“impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” including when he has “made a public
statement that commits, or appears to commit, the judge with respect to” a particular party,
issue, or controversy. Canon 3E(1) [general disqualification provision in Canon 3E(1)],
3E(1)(f) [“commits clause” at Canon 3E(1)(f)].
57. Here in exchange for bribes, Def. Honeywell had made facially idiotic public statements
that committed Honeywell to the fabrication of a fake “resolution 569/875” and illegal
benefits for the Defendants at Plaintiffs’ expense and injury. Here, Honeywell fraudulently
concealed and conspired with other Def. Government Crooks to conceal the particular
issues of, e.g., facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-
00001.0000”, a fake “park”, a fake “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, 2:2007-cv-00228, a fake
18
“$5,048.60 judgment”. Here, Plaintiffs lived in fear of being kicked down the Courthouse
stairs and not receiving a fair trial at the dirty hands of bribed and crooked Judge
Honeywell.
58. Canon 3E(1), backed by the threat of a disciplinary proceeding, requires a judge to
disqualify himself if his “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Fla. Stat. § 38.10,
supplemented by Rule 2.330, allows a party to have a judge disqualified for the same reason.
Canon 3E(1)(f), which the Florida Supreme Court adopted in January 2006, covers areas in
which a judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” See In re Amendment to
Code of Judicial Conduct, 918 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 2006). In addition to the Florida Supreme
Court, the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee (Ethics Committee) and the Judicial
Qualifications Commission (JQC) have roles in administering the Code. The Florida
Supreme Court established the Ethics Committee “to render written advisory opinions to
inquiring judges concerning the propriety of contemplated judicial and non-judicial conduct.”
Petition of Comm. on Standards of Conduct for Judges, 327 So. 2d 5, 5 (Fla. 1976). Here,
Def. Judge Honeywell’s fabrications and perversions of the law were reckless and for
criminal purposes. Canon 3E is enforced by the Judicial Qualifications Commission,
which has the authority to bring disciplinary charges against a judge.
SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS – WELL-GROUNDED FEARS
59. Here under 28 U.S.C. § 455, Plaintiffs have been specifically alleging the above facts and
reasons upon which the movants rely as the grounds for Defendant Judge Honeywell’s
disqualification/recusal. Here, Defendant Honeywell has been silencing and shutting up
the Plaintiffs without any authority and for criminal purposes of cover up and concealment
of organized Government crimes. Honeywell’s gag, pre-filing injunction,
19
60. Here, the Plaintiff Government racketeering & corruption victims had well grounded
fears that they will not receive a fair trial at the hands of Defendant objectively partial and
bribed Judge Honeywell, who fraudulently concealed said fabrications of, e.g.:
a. Fake “judgment”;
b. Fake “writ of execution”;
c. Facially forged “land parcels”;
d. Fake park.
PATTERN & POLICY OF ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIME, EXTORTION …
61. Here, Def. Honeywell has been just another Def. Crook on a long list of Government
Officials and Defendants who conspired to cover up and conceal the publicly recorded
crimes and corruption. Here, Defendant Honeywell is a named party Defendant. See
summons, service on file. Here, Defendant bribed Judge Honeywell had multiple conflicts
of interest.
DEF. HONEYWELL COERCED PLAINTIFFS TO REFRAIN FROM PROSECUTION
62. Here, Defendant Honeywell intimidated, threatened, and coerced and conspired to coerce
the Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecution for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of
covering up, concealing, and extending the record racketeering, retaliation, extortion,
corruption, et al.
“The Court’s concern centers around Plaintiffs’ tireless filings of scandalous material.”
See Doc. # 245, p. 16.
Here, Defendant Crooked Judge Honeywell’s “concern centered around” organized crime,
cover up, concealment, and racketeering. Here, Def. Honeywell deceived the Court by
fraudulently pretending that the conclusive proof of, e.g., fraud, deliberate deprivations,
and public corruption was purportedly “scandalous material”. Here vexatiously, Def.
20
Honeywell obstructed justice in exchange for bribes. “Judicial whore” Honeywell knew
and fraudulently concealed that
a. Florida law specifically prohibited any execution proceedings;
b. The Plaintiffs were entitled to relief;
c. Defendant JACK N. PETERSON had perjured himself and falsified an affidavit, Doc.
## 386, 432;
d. The Clerk had falsified a “writ of execution” absent any mandate, Doc. # 425;
DEF. HONEYWELL OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE & PERVERTED FLORIDA LAW
63. A judgment, order, or decree does NOT become a lien on real property unless the address of
the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree is contained in the
judgment, order, or decree or an affidavit with such address is simultaneously recorded with
the judgment, order, or decree, § 55.10, Florida Statutes.
PUBLICLY RECORDED NOTICES OF ORGANIZED JUDICIAL CRIMES
64. Multiple publicly recorded NOTICES, and NOTICES OF APPEAL such as, e.g., Doc. ##
427, 428, had given this Court repeated notice and conclusive proof of, e.g., publicly
recorded organized Government and judicial crimes, racketeering, extortion,
retaliation, obstruction of justice, bribery, and corruption.
PATTERN, POLICY, AND CUSTOM OF ORGANIZED CRIME & CORRUPTION
65. However, this Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit only intensified their
publicly recorded retaliation, obstruction of justice, oppression, racketeering, and
extortion. See, e.g., Doc. ## 435, 434, 425, 426, 2:2007-cv-00228. Said Courts are operating
just like crime organizations. Public records and conclusive record evidence mean
absolutely nothing. Silencing, shutting up, threatening, intimidating, punishing, and
sanctioning whistleblowers are the policy, custom, and pattern of said corrupt Courts.
21
DEF. JOHN E. STEELE EXTENDED EXTORTION & RACKETEERING SCHEME
66. Here, Def. Honeywell knew that there had been NO judgment in the falsified amount of
“$5,000.00” and/or “$5,048.60”. Here, there had been NO “July 29, 2009” judgment, order,
or decree. Here, there had only been a final mandate and money judgment for “copies”
under Rule 39, Fed.R.App.P., in the amount of $24.30, Doc. # 365. Here, Dr. Jorg Busse had
paid the $24.30 for the “copies” to Defendant Appellee K. M. Wilkinson. Therefore here,
Defendant Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson had NO lien, and the “motion for entry of order
directing public sale of real property”, Doc. # 432, was a prima facie racketeering,
extortion, and fraud scheme of record, civil RICO provisions.
DEF. STEELE CONCEALED PERJURY & GOVERNMENT EXTORTION SCHEME
67. Here, Defendant Steele fraudulently concealed that the fraudulent “Affidavit” by Def.
JACK N. PETERSON had falsified a fake “July 29, 2009” “judgment” “in Docket 08-
13170-BB”.
68. Here, CASE No. 2008-13170-BB had been CLOSED on 06/11/2009. See said Case Docket.
69. Here, Defendant Steele fraudulently concealed that NOTHING could have possibly
“become a lien on real property” and/or on Plaintiff(s)’ riparian Parcel, S-T-R-A-P # 12-44-
20-01-00015.015A, PB 3 PG 25 (1912) pursuant to § 55.10, Florida Statutes.
PUBLICLY RECORDED LACK OF ANY “lien” and “writ of execution”
70. Here, Defendant Appellee Forger and Racketeer K. M. Wilkinson
a. NEVER had any lien;
b. NEVER was the holder of said forged judgment.
71. Here, Defendants Honeywell and Steele fraudulently concealed that the facially fraudulent
“writ of execution”, Doc. # 425:
a. Was a prima facie extortion and racketeering scheme;
b. Perverted $24.30 into the falsified amount of “5,048.60”;
22
c. Had NOT been witnessed by any U.S. Judge.
72. Plaintiff Dr. Jorg Busse had asserted and conclusively proven in his Third Amended
Complaint, Doc. ## 282, 288, 2:2007-cv-00228:
“24. Without title evidence in the public Grantor/Grantee Index, Defendant [Kenneth M. Wilkinson; Property Appraiser] conspired to concoct un-platted lot A (Property I.D. 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0), block 1 (Property I.D. 07-44-21-01-00001.0000), and park.” Id., p. 24. See attached Exhibits, USA, Ex Rel. et al. v. USA et al.
CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT & CORRUPT FLORIDA LAW & OFFICIAL RECORDS
73. Defendant Crooked Judges Honeywell and Steele conspired with other Judges, Defendants,
and Officials to pervert official records, documents, and Florida law. Here, e.g., s. 55.10,
Fla. Stat. stated:
“55.10 Judgments, orders, and decrees; lien of all, generally; extension of liens; transfer of liens to other security.-- (1) A judgment, order, or decree becomes a lien on real property in any county when a certified copy of it is recorded in the official records or judgment lien record of the county, whichever is maintained at the time of recordation, provided that the judgment, order, or decree contains the address of the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree or a separate affidavit is recorded simultaneously with the judgment, order, or decree stating the address of the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree. A judgment, order, or decree does not become a lien on real property unless the address of the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree is contained in the judgment, order, or decree or an affidavit with such address is simultaneously recorded with the judgment, order, or decree.”
FRAUDULENT PRETENSES AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & FILINGS 74. Defendant Corrupt U.S. Judge John Edwin Steele fraudulently pretended, Doc. # 434:
“This matter comes before the Court on review of defendant’s Motion for Entry of Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property (Doc. # 432) filed on May 21, 2010. No response has been filed and the time to respond has expired. Upon review, the Court desires a response from plaintiff.”
Here over and over again, Plaintiffs Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott had
“filed”, e.g., multiple “responses”, court actions, appeals to directly attack, defend
against, and expose Defendant Crooked U.S. Judge C. E. Honeywell’s and John E. Steele’s
publicly recorded:
a. Racketeering;
23
b. Extortion; c. Obstruction of justice; d. Deliberate deprivations; e. Acceptance of bribes; f. Fraud upon the State and Federal Courts; g. Destruction and alteration of Court records; h. Corruption. See attached Exhibit of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ex Rel. et al. v. UNITED
STATES et al., as filed in U.S. District Court.
DEF. STEELE’S RECKLESS DECEPTION AND FRAUD ON THE COURT
75. Def. Honeywell knew that Def. Steele had recklessly deceived the Court, because he
disallowed the Plaintiffs to “respond” and then fraudulently pretended that the Plaintiffs
had purportedly not responded. However as a matter of record, the Plaintiffs had published
conclusive evidence of their filed “responses” worldwide. Here, more than one Million
readers had read the “responses”, which Def. Crook Steele had destroyed, altered, and
rejected, and caused others to destroy, alter, and reject. See, e.g., Google and YouTube.
DEF. STEELE OBSTRUCTED PLAINTIFFS’ COURT ACCESS – FRAUD ON COURT
76. As part of a criminal organization, Def. Honeywell knew that Def. Steele fabricated and
conspired to fabricate a publicly recorded “card house of judicial shit”:
“In this regard, some of the allegations in the Third Amended Complaint are contradicted by the resolution which is attached to it. The copy of the Resolution attached to the Third Amended Complaint establishes that it was signed, executed, and duly recorded in the public records, and plaintiff will not be allowed to assert otherwise.” See Doc. # 338, p. 12.
Here, no authentic genuine “resolution” was “attached to the Third Amended Complaint”,
Doc. ## 288, 282. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 44, there was a lack of any publicly recorded
“resolution”. No genuine resolution had ever legally existed; none had ever been legally
recorded.
24
Here by not allowing the Plaintiffs to assert otherwise, Def. Steele recklessly deprived the
Plaintiffs of any opportunity of justice. Here, Def. Criminal Steele perpetrated fraud on the
Court, covered up, and concealed Government crimes.
Just like other crime organizations, Steele relied on silencing his opponents, retaliation,
intimidation, and injury.
77. Def. Charlene E. Honeywell knew that in “the Third Amended Complaint”, the Plaintiff(s)
had “asserted” and conclusively proven, e.g., the:
a. Prima facie illegality of the fictitious “resolution”, “O.R. 569/875”; b. Prima facie nullity of the fake “resolution”; c. Prima facie criminality of the falsified “resolution”.
78. Only a “court judgment” could have possibly transferred title to Government and/or Lee
County. Here on its face, the facially forged “resolution” was
a. Not any court judgment; b. Not any muniment of title; c. Not any genuine instrument: d. Not any conveyance; e. Not authentic.
RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, DECEPTION, AND FRAUD ON THE COURT
79. Therefore, any “resolution” – forged or genuine – would have been, and could have only
been, entirely irrelevant, immaterial to any involuntary title transfer, because only a court
judgment could have possibly divested the Plaintiffs of their private riparian street easement
and street land on the Gulf, PB 3 PG 25 (1912), against their will.
DEF. CROOK STEELE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO SILENCE THE PLAINTIFFS
80. Here in exchange for bribes, Def. Criminal Steele perverted supreme law and “disallowed“
the Plaintiffs to assert the truth and public record evidence without which any justice was
absolutely impossible.
25
81. The Plaintiff(s) do not submit to said Criminal on the bench just like they would not submit
to a Roman Catholic priest demanding to fuck the Plaintiff(s) in the ass. Here, the Plaintiffs
defended against organized Government crimes & sodomy and sued Defendant Racketeer J.
E. Steele in Federal Court.
82. Here on the record, Def. Crook Steele adopted the policies and custom of crime
organizations such as, e.g., silencing opponents, retaliation, intimidation, racketeering,
extortion, and injury.
DEF. RACKETEER STEELE’S FACIALLY IDIOTIC & ILLEGAL “order”, DOC. # 434
83. No intelligent, rational, fit, and reasonable judge and/or person in Def. Crooked Judge
Steele’s shoes could have possibly allowed the fake “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, and the
facially fraudulent “public sale” motion, Doc. # 432.
84. Any enforcement of a non-existent “judgment” against Dr. Busse by “public sale” of said
adjoining riparian street land and private implied street easement on the Gulf of Mexico
would have been absolutely impossible, if the record title had been in the name of
“Government” and/or Lee County.
85. “Publicly selling” the very riparian street land and private Gulf-front street easement, PB
3 PG 25 (1912), which Lee County had fraudulently “claimed” to “own” [but never did and
could not possibly have owned as a matter of law] further exposed and conclusively proved
the prima facie idiotic and criminal mind of Def. Racketeer John Edwin Steele.
Emboldened by absolute power and public corruption, Def. Steele continued his record
“Government shit flies-policy”, Doc. # 434.
IDIDOCY & IMPOSSIBILITY OF “public sale of real property”
86. One of the legal issues had been Plaintiff(s)’ unimpeachable record ownership of the
platted riparian street land and implied private street easement adjoining Plaintiffs’ upland on
the Gulf of Mexico, S-T-R-A-P 12-44-20-01-00015.015A (Lot 15A, Cayo Costa) as legally
26
described and perfectly conveyed to Plaintiff Dr. Busse and J. Franklin Prescott in reference
to the 1912 Plat of Survey of the private undedicated “Cayo Costa” Subdivision in Lee
County Plat Book 3, Page 25. See Plaintiffs’ WARRANTY DEED, Lee County
INSTRUMENT # 2010000171344, which expressly stated the extent of Plaintiff(s)’
conveyance; see PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th
Circuit Apr. 21, 2009).
FOR BRIBES, DEF. STEELE MADE A MOCKERY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
87. Here as a matter of law, “Public Sale of Real Property”, which Def. Steele had
fraudulently pretended to have been “claimed” by Lee County was absolutely impossible.
Here, Def. Steele made a fool of himself, because that which had been “claimed” by
Government could not be simultaneously “publicly sold”.
BRAZEN FABRICATIONS AND FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC RECORD
88. Here in his fraudulent “opinion and order”, Doc. # 338, Steele brazenly fabricated and
falsified “Government ownership” without any evidentiary support whatsoever. Def. Steele
knew that “those [fake] lots” had never been “owned by government”, which had been the
very issue for the Court’s review. Here, “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-20-01-
00001.0000” were prima facie fake “land parcels”, which Defendants Steele and Sheri
Polster Chappell could not find on the 1912 Cayo Costa Plat, PB 3 PG 25, because they had
been forged by Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson. See Transcript of November 2007
Hearing before Def. Crooked Judge Polster Chappell.
DEF. CRIMINAL STEELE IN CRIMINAL JUDICIAL ORGANIZATION
89. As a Criminal in this Crime Organization of record, Def. Steele extended the
racketeering and retaliation scheme.
“Third Amended Complaint states that defendants have taken over 200 acres pursuant to the Resolution, far in excess of his 2.5 acres. The only assertion of disparate treatment is for those lots owned by government, which plaintiff alleges
27
did not have their rights taken. However, a private owner such as plaintiff can not be compared to a public owner such as a government unit. Therefore, no equal protection claim is stated, and such claims will be dismissed without prejudice.” See Doc. # 338, p. 13.
90. Here in essence, the scheme was:
“Plaintiffs will not be allowed to assert” “those [fake] lots owned by Government”, which nobody can find on the Cayo Costa Plat. Plaintiffs will not be allowed to assert the public record evidence of the non-existence and forgery of said fake “lots”. Therefore, the case is dismissed and fixed in exchange for bribes.
91. By criminal means of fake “land parcels”, and a fake “resolution”, Defendant Governments
and Officials extorted, defrauded, deprived, and treated the Plaintiffs disparately, while
the Plaintiffs were never even allowed to assert the conclusive record evidence and truth.
Here, there was fraud on the Court, and any and all of Def. Steele’s “orders” were null and
void ab initio.
92. Pleading, e.g., fraud, conspiracy to defraud, deprivations, conspiracy to deprive, forgery
of “land parcels”, and extortion were remedies available in Florida and Federal Courts. See
Doc. ## 288, 282, “Third Amended Complaint”.
DEF. BUNGLING GOVERNMENT IDIOTS COVERED UP & CONCEALED
93. Just like bungling Government idiots, Defendants Honeywell and Steele concealed and
conspired with other Officials to conceal that, e.g.:
a. Plaintiff(s)’ perfect record title to their adjoining street land never transferred to Lee County, FL;
b. Plaintiff(s)’ unimpeachable record title could not have possibly transferred under any existing law or modification thereof, Fed.R.Civ.P. 11;
c. Lee County’s sham “claims” were facially fraudulent and frivolous “claims” for criminal and illegal purposes of racketeering, retaliation, extortion of money ($5,048.60) and land, and illegal “sale of real property”, Doc. # 434;
d. Lee County never “claimed” and could not have possibly claimed Plaintiff(s)’ street land under any law;
e. The law did not recognize Lee County’s racketeering & extortion scheme “O.R. 569/875”.
See Chapters 73, 74 (Eminent Domain); 95 (Adverse Possession); 712 (Florida’s self-
enforcing Marketable Record Title Act), Fla. Stat.; Florida’s express Const. Guarantees of
28
fundamental rights to own real property and exclude Government without, e.g.,
retaliation, extortion, racketeering, oppression, bribery, and public corruption.
94. Because Def. Steele is part of a criminal organization, Def. Steele retaliated and silenced
the Plaintiff(s) in said idiotic, arbitrary, capricious, and malicious manner of public record. In
particular, Steele shut up the Plaintiffs by calling them names such as, e.g., “vexatious”.
95. Only if Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable record title to said riparian street land and private riparian
street easement had never transferred from the Plaintiffs to Lee County and/or Government,
could there possibly be any “public sale” of said private riparian street easement and land
“on the Gulf of Mexico”. See PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395,
396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). Here for bribes, and under color of authority, sanctions
and punishment, Def. Steele retaliated and called the Plaintiffs names such as, e.g.,
“vexatious”.
96. Because pursuant to their publicly recorded Warranty Deed, the Plaintiff(s) were the
exclusive record owners and title holders of said street land and private street easement on
the Gulf of Mexico, PB 3 PG 25 (1912), Lee County’s facially criminal and illegal “claims”
of a “regulation”, “resolution”, “O.R. 569/875”, fake “land parcels”, et al. had been a prima
facie extortion and racketeering scheme. See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ex Rel. et
al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
DEF. JOHN E. STEELE’S FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT AND COVER-UP
97. Here, Def. Honeywell knew that under publicly recorded fraudulent pretenses of, e.g.,
“frivolity”, “vexatiousness”, “sanctionability”, “lack of jurisdiction”, “ripeness
requirements”, et al., Def. Steele had covered up and fraudulently concealed the recorded
Government pattern and policy of, e.g.:
a. Racketeering; b. Extorting “under color of” a fake “July 29, 2009 judgment”; c. Extorting “under color of” a non-existent “$5,048.60 judgment”;
29
d. Extorting & defrauding “under color of” fake “land parcels” which could not be found; e. Extorting & defrauding “under color of” prima facie scam “O.R. 569/875”; f. Perverting a final “$24.30” money judgment & mandate into a fake “writ of
execution”, Doc. # 425.
DEF. STEELE CONCEALED DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL AND ILLEGAL MOTION,
DOC. # 432 98. Def. Honeywell knew that Def. Steele had fraudulently concealed the prima facie
criminality and illegality of Doc. # 432: Here, no genuine “$5,048.60” and/or $5,000.00
money mandate” had ever existed, because, e.g.:
a. The 11th Circuit had lost jurisdiction on 06/11/2009; b. The only and final mandate was in the amount of “$24.30”, Doc. # 365; c. Def. Appellee Wilkinson had never filed any Rule 38 motion; d. The $24.30 money judgment pursuant to Rule 39, Fed.R.App.P., had become final on
June 15, 2009, Doc. # 365; e. No Bill of Costs for “$5,000.00” and/or “$5,048.60” had ever existed or could have
possibly existed. See FED.R.CIV.P. 54; 28 U.S.C. 1921-1928; FRAP 39: LOCAL RULE 4.18: “LOCAL RULE 4.18 APPLICATIONS FOR COSTS OR ATTORNEY'S FEES (a) In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, all claims for costs or attorney's fees preserved by appropriate pleading or pretrial stipulation shall be asserted by separate motion or petition filed not later than fourteen (14) days following the entry of judgment. The pendency of an appeal from the judgment shall not postpone the filing of a timely application pursuant to this rule.”
J. E. STEELE & B. B. MARTIN FABRICATED “writ of execution”, DOC. # 425, 434, 435
99. In the recorded presence of a final “$24.30” money judgment issued as mandate on
06/11/2009 for costs of Appellees’ copies, Doc. # 365, and in the record absence of any
“$5,048.60 judgment”, Def. Steele knew and fraudulently concealed that the fake “writ of
execution”, Doc. # 425, had been falsified and was null and void. On its very face, no U.S.
judge and no witness had appeared on the falsified “writ”, Doc. # 425.
CONSPIRACY TO COVER UP AND CONCEAL GOVERNMENT CRIMES
100. Def. Honeywell fraudulently concealed that Def. Steele conspired with other
Government Officials and Defendants to cover up and fraudulently conceal the prima facie
criminality, illegality, and nullity of, e.g.:
30
a. Fake “$5,048.60 judgment”; b. Fake “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”; c. Fake “land claim” “O.R. 569/875”; d. Fake “resolution”, fake “resolution 569/875”; e. Fake “regulation”, fake “land use regulation”; f. Fake “regulatory taking” in the recorded absence of any “regulation”; g. Fake “inverse condemnation” while Plaintiffs objected to and defended against any
involuntary title transfer to Lee County; h. Fake “eminent domain” claims in the record absence of any condemnation proceedings.
101. Here, Government and judicial racketeering, extortion, obstruction of justice & court
access, bribery, public corruption, fraud, and deliberate deprivations did not, and could
not possibly, involuntarily divest the Plaintiff(s) of their record title to riparian Parcel “12-44-
20-01-00015.015A” on the Gulf of Mexico.
§ 55.10 REQUIRED A JUDGMENT - NO LIEN ON PROPERTY
102. Under Florida law, a non-existent judgment did not become, and could not have possibly
become a lien on real property. Here, section 55.10 could not have possibly applied to a
non-existent “mandate”. Here, the final mandate of $24.30” for “copies”, Doc. # 365, had
been paid. See Affidavits on file. Furthermore here, Defendant Steele fraudulently
concealed that
“A judgment, order, or decree does not become a lien on real property unless the address of the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree is contained in the judgment, order, or decree …” See Ch. 55, Florida Statutes.
Here, the judicial Defendants knew and fraudulently concealed that there could not have
possibly been any lien on real property and/or on Plaintiffs’ property.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, BRIBERY, AND RACKETEERING
103. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeers Charlene E. Honeywell and John E. Steele
silenced the Plaintiffs and kept them away from the Court:
a. Disallowed the Plaintiffs to assert the truth and conclusive public record evidence; b. Removed Plaintiffs’ State action to Federal Court; c. Removed and destroyed Plaintiffs’ State Court records; d. Unlawfully sanctioned and punished the Plaintiffs; e. Arbitrarily & capriciously denied the Plaintiffs equal electronic court access;
31
f. Illegally enjoined the Plaintiffs from filing their pleadings; g. Rejected Plaintiffs’ pleadings; h. Caused the Def. Clerk to alter and destroy Court records and crime evidence; i. Retaliated against the Plaintiffs; j. Caused the Def. U.S. Marshal to threaten, intimidate, and harass the Plaintiffs.
CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE & PERPETRATE FRAUD ON THE COURTS 104. Defendants Charlene E. Honeywell and John Edwin Steele conspired with, e.g.,
Defendant Crooked U.S. Judge Charlene E. Honeywell and other Officials to shut up the Plaintiffs by criminal and illegal means of, e.g.:
a. Enjoining Plaintiffs from filing their pleadings [“Pre-filing injunction”]; b. Destroying Plaintiffs’ pleadings c. Rejecting Plaintiffs’ pleadings; d. Falsifying a “regulation”; e. Fabricating “law”; f. Concocting a fictitious involuntary title transfer to Lee County absent any court
judgment. FINAL 06/11/2009 MANDATE
105. The 11th Circuit decided Case 2008-13170-BB by opinion entered on “03/05/2009”. On
06/11/2009, the Defendant Clerk of said Appellate Court filed the mandate, which consisted
of a copy of the opinion and a judgment that had been drafted and signed by a Clerk of said
Court, and directions as to costs in the amount of $24.30. See Fed.R.App.P. 41.
106. The Clerk of the Court signed her name on a copy of the judgment, which was stamped
"ISSUED AS MANDATE 06/11/2009" and CLOSED SAID CASE on 06/11/2009.
CONSPIRACY TO COVER UP & CONCEAL ORGANIZED CRIME & EXTORTION
107. Here, Defendants C. E. Honeywell, Beverly B. Martin, Kenneth M. Wilkinson, John E.
Steele, Sheri Polster Chappell, Sherri L. Johnson, Jack N. Peterson conspired to cover up
and conceal that
a. No “$5,048.60 judgment”, “order”, or “decree” had ever been entered.
b. No “$5,048.60 judgment” had ever been issued as mandate.
c. No “$5,048.60 judgment” had ever been received by the U.S. District Court.
d. No “$5,048.60 judgment” had ever been recorded by the U.S. District Court Clerk.
32
J. E. STEELE’S, S. P. CHAPPELL’S & B. MARTIN’S RACKETEERING OF RECORD
108. Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott are suing Defendant Racketeers C.
Edwards Honeywell and J. Edwin Steele for, e.g., racketeering, extortion, retaliation,
fraud, and reckless deprivations.
JOHN E. STEELE’S EXTORTION ON THE PUBLIC RECORD
109. Def. Racketeer John E. Steele perverted a publicly recorded $24.30 money judgment
(“issued as mandate June 11, 2009”) into a $5,048.60 and real property extortion scheme
and conspiracy. See Doc. ## 434, 435, 425, 422, 365, 386, 288, 282, 1, 25, 338.
RACKETEER JOHN E. STEELE’S RECORD RETALIATION
110. By criminal means of falsifying a fake “$5,048.60 judgment”, Def. Corrupt Judge
Steele retaliated against Plaintiffs Dr. Jorg Busse & J. F. Prescott, Doc. ## 434, 425, 435.
RACKETEER JOHN E. STEELE’S CONCEALMENT OF $24.30 JUDGMENT
111. Def. U.S. Racketeers Charlene E. Honeywell and John E. Steele fraudulently concealed
the publicly recorded $24.30 money judgment “issued as mandate June 11, 2009”, Doc.
## 365; 434, 435, 422, 425, 338, 2:2007-cv-00228.
CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT AND RETALIATE
112. Def. Honeywell knew that Def. Racketeer John E. Steele conspired with other
Government Officials and Defendants to extort “$5,048.60”, Dr. Jorg Busse’s and Jennifer
Franklin Prescott’s riparian real property, and Hundreds of Acres of land and implied
private easements under, e.g., false and fraudulent pretenses of fake “land parcels” “12-
44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-20-01-00001.0000”, and “under color of” prima facie
forged and fraudulent “O.R. 569/875”.
33
STEELE CONCEALED RECORD ABSENCE OF FAKE PARCELS AND JUDGMENT
113. Defendant Crooked U.S. Judges C. E. Honeywell, S. Polster Chappell, and John E.
Steele could not locate said fake “land parcels” on the 1912 Plat of Survey of the private
undedicated residential Cayo Costa Subdivision in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25.
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL LACK OF ANY RECORD OF FAKE “LAND PARCELS”
114. Def. Extortionists C. E. Honeywell, S. Polster Chappell, and J. E. Steele conspired with
other Officials and Defendants to fraudulently conceal the lack of any “$5,048.60
judgment” and said fake “land parcels”.
DOCUMENTATION OF FINAL $24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT (JUNE 15, 2009)
115. The publicly recorded $24.30 money judgment “issued as mandate June 11, 2009”,
Doc. ## 365 (pp. 1), “documented”:
a. In-House Reproduction of Appellee’s Brief; b. No. of Original Pages: “18”; c. Total No. of Documents Reproduced: “11 (9)”; d. Total No. of Copies: “198”; e. Costs Requested: “$29.70”. f. Costs Allowed: “$24.30”.
116. Here, no “sanctions”, no “fees”, and no “$5,048.60” had ever been “documented”.
DEF. RACKETEER STEELE’S FALSIFCATION OF “writ of execution”, DOC. # 425
117. In the record absence of any “$5,048.60 judgment” against Dr. Jorg Busse, no “witness”
and no “United States Judge” appeared on the face of the falsified “writ of execution”, Doc.
# 425, Case 2:2007-cv-00228. See also scam Doc. ## 434, 435, 425, 422, 338.
DEF. RACKETEER JOHN EDWIN STEELE’S OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
118. For criminal and illegal purposes of concealing racketeering and extortion, Defendant
Crooked Judge John E. Steele had obstructed justice and Plaintiff(s)’ Court access, Doc. #
422. In Doc. # 434, 07/22/10, Def. Steele pretended:
“No response has been filed and the time to respond has expired. Upon review, the Court desires a response from plaintiff…”
34
RECORDED & PUBLISHED RACKETEERING & EXTORTION
$24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT ISSUED AS MANDATES JUNE 11, 2009
119. The publicly recorded $24.30 money judgment “issued as mandate June 11, 2009”. See
Doc. ## 365 (p. 1), 386-3 (p. 1).
$24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT UNDER FRAP 39, COSTS
120. The $24.30 money judgment was awarded pursuant to Rule 39, Fed.R.App.P.
COPY OF $24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT, DOC. # 386-3
121. A copy of the final $24.30 money judgment issued as mandate was included in
Defendant Appellee’s facially fraudulent “motion for issuance of a writ of execution”, Doc.
# 386. See pages 10 and 24.
122. Of the $29.70 requested in Racketeer Wilkinson’s Bill of Costs, Doc. # 386, the 11th
Circuit allowed $24.30 for Costs under FRAP 39:
$24.30 WERE THE ALLOWED ACTUAL AND NECESSARY COSTS
123. Here, $24.30 were the allowed actual and necessary costs.
$24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT BECAME FINAL ON JUNE 15, 2009
124. Pursuant to Doc. ## 365 (p. 1), 386-3 (p. 1), the U.S. District Court received and filed the
$24.30 money judgment on June 15, 2009:
35
RACKETEERING: EXTORTION OF MONEY:
“FRIVOLOUS APPEAL” MOTION WAS ADMITTEDLY NEVER FILED
125. Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson extorted money, Doc. # 386, by fraudulently
pretending a Rule 38 motion, which Wilkinson knew he had never filed:
“The Judgment 4. On August 22, 2008, Wilkinson filed a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Eleventh
Circuit Rule 27-4 …”
Said Rule 27-4 motion could not have possibly been for a “frivolous appeal”.
THE 11th CIRCUIT HAD CLOSED CASE ON 06/11/2009
126. The 11th Circuit had CLOSED THE CASE on 06/11/2009:
BRIBERY
127. Here, Defendant Appellee K. M. Wilkinson and his Attorney had no right to bribe the
11th Circuit and illegally cause the 11th Circuit to fraudulently alter the recorded final
$24.30 mandate after the CASE HAD BEEN CLOSED and the 11th Circuit had LOST
JURISDICTION.
DEFENDANT’S APPELLEE’S RACKETEETING AND EXTORTION WERE ILLEGAL
128. Def. Wilkinson’s record racketeering and extortion were illegal and unauthorized by
law.
36
RACKETEERING & EXTORTION IN VIOLATION OF:
FED.R.CIV.P. 54; LOCAL RULE 4.18; 28 U.S.C. 1921-1924; FRAP 39
129. The $24.30 money judgment pursuant to Rule 39, Fed.R.App.P., became final on June
15, 2009.
“LOCAL RULE 4.18 APPLICATIONS FOR COSTS OR ATTORNEY'S FEES (a) In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, all claims for costs or attorney's fees preserved by appropriate pleading or pretrial stipulation shall be asserted by separate motion or petition filed not later than fourteen (14) days following the entry of judgment. The pendency of an appeal from the judgment shall not postpone the filing of a timely application pursuant to this rule.”
DEF. WILKINSON VIOLATED REQUIREMENTS UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920-1924
130. Here, Def. Honeywell knew that with wanton disregard for Plaintiff(s)’ rights and due
process, Def. Wilkinson had violated the law and Rules. Because there had never been any
“title transfer” to Lee County, any “legislative act” and/or “resolution 569/875”, any eminent
domain document, any involuntary alienation, the proceedings had been a charade.
Therefore, even the $24.30 for “copies” had made a mockery of the proceedings. In the
context of keeping the Plaintiffs away from Court and perpetrating fraud on the Courts,
the record had evidenced:
Itemization was for “copies”, $24.30 The record unauthorized Bill of Costs was for $24.30. Bill of Costs must be verified as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1924. No known affidavit. Plaintiff(s) objected to the unauthorized $24.30 money judgment, because there had
been no “resolution 569/875” as a matter of public record; The unauthorized $24.30 money judgment was procured through, e.g., publicly
recorded racketeering and extortion by illegal and criminal means of fraud and extortion scheme “O.R. 569/875”, and facially forged “land parcels” “00A0” and “00001”. See RICO Complaint in U.S. District Court.
RACKETEERING & EXTORTION IN VIOLATION OF:
FRAP 39 [FED.R.APP.P. 39]
131. A copy of Rule 39, Fed.R.App.P., is attached.
“(d) Bill of Costs: Objections; Insertion in Mandate.
37
(1) A party who wants costs taxed must — within 14 days after entry of judgment — file with the circuit clerk, with proof of service, an itemized and verified bill of costs.”
132. Here, the “judgment”, No. 2008-13170-BB had been “entered: March 5, 2009”, Doc. ##
365, 386. Defendant Appellee Wilkinson had filed with the circuit clerk a $24.30 Bill of
Costs. “Date signed” was “3-17-2009”, which was “issued on: Jun 11 2009”, Doc. ## 365,
386, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
133. No “proof of service” existed on the record.
134. The “14 days after entry of judgment” on “March 5, 2009” had expired on March 19,
2009.
APPEAL BECAME FINAL ON JUN 15, 2009
135. An appeal becomes final on the date the mandate is issued. Here, the judgment entered
March 5, 2009 was issued as mandate Jun 11 2009.
136. Since the clerk had responsibilities for entering a judgment, Fed.R.App.P. 36, and for
taxation of costs, Fed.R.App.P. 39(d), the duty to issue the mandate contemplated by Rule 41
was the responsibility of the clerk.
137. The Eleventh Circuit has held that the action becomes final on the date the district court
receives the appellate court's mandate. See U.S. v. Lasteed, 832 F.2d 1240-43 (11th Cir.
1987). The District Court received and filed the Appellate Court’s June 11, 2009 mandate on
JUN 15 2009 when the Appeal, No. 2008-13170-BB, became final. Thereafter, the 11th
Circuit had no jurisdiction as a matter of law. Here, there have been publicly recorded
racketeering and extortion by Government Agents.
NO 11th CIRCUIT JURISDICTION AFTER JUN 15, 2009
138. Jurisdiction followed the mandate. “The effect of the mandate is to bring the
proceedings in a case on appeal in our Court to a close and to remove it from the jurisdiction
of this Court, returning it to the forum whence it came.” It was the date on which the $24.30
38
mandate was received and filed, Jun 15, 2009, which determined when the district court
reacquired jurisdiction for further proceedings.
139. Issuance of the $24.30 mandate on June 11, 2009, and the District Court’s receipt and
filing on June 15, 2009 was an event of considerable institutional significance. A
mandate could NOT possibly “simply” "issue", because it should have been issued, or
because the panel may have intended it to issue, or because the statute commands it to issue.
See F.R.App.P. 27, 41.
ADOPTION BY REFERENCE OF FEDERAL LAWSUIT, CIVIL RICO…
140. The Plaintiffs hereby adopt by reference their attached Federal action in this published
Government Racketeering and Corruption Notice, USA, Ex Rel et al. v. USA et al.
WILKINSON’S RACKETEERING, RETALIATION, AND COERCION
141. Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson retaliated on or around August 20, 2008, Doc. # 386-2:
“In order to discourage the Appellant from engaging in the same practices …”
142. Wilkinson coerced Plaintiff Appellant to refrain from rightful prosecution for prima facie
criminal and illegal purposes of concealing crimes and covering up.
CRIMINAL AND ILLEGAL FALSIFICATIONS
143. Just like Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson had falsified fake “land parcels”, and a fake
“real property transaction”, “O.R. 569/875”, Defendant Forger Wilkinson falsified a fake
“judgment”; “July 29, 2009 in Docket 08-13170-BB against Appellant JORG BUSSE in the
amount of $5,048.60.” See, e.g., INSTR 4371834, O.R. 4517 PG 1914, Collier County
Circuit Court.
144. Here, Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson could not have possibly held that which had never
existed. Here, said $24.30 money judgment had been the final mandate, and the facially
null and void “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, was a prima facie racketeering and
39
extortions scheme just like the fake “regulation”, fake “legislative act” and/or “O.R.
569/875” that had never legally existed and never been legally recorded.
RACKETEERING-EXTORTION-FRAUD SCHEMES, DOC ## 432, 434, 435
145. Plaintiff Dr. Jorg Busse attached a copy and Exhibits of prima facie racketeering-
extortion-fraud schemes, Documents ## 432, 434, and 435, 2:2007-cv-00228 and adopted
them by reference in this NOTICE OF APPEAL and EMERGENCY MOTIONS.
FRAUDULENT ATTACHMENT OF FICTITIOUS DEBT TO CAYO COSTA LAND
146. The publicly recorded and facially fraudulent attachment of a fake judgment and/or
debt to Plaintiff(s)’s Lee County property was a criminal and illegal scheme.
DECEPTION, TRICKERY, AND FRAUDULENT MEMORANDUM
147. Jack N. Peterson and Def. Appellee K. M. Wilkinson conspired to perpetrate fraud on
the Courts and attach a sanctionable “memorandum” to their unlawful motion, Doc. # 432.
“TRANSFER” PURSUANT TO FLORIDA LAW
148. Here, there had been NO lien. Here, Def. Wilkinson did NOT have any lien. Here, Def.
Wilkinson had NOT been any “$5,048.60 judgment holder”. Here, there had been NO
affidavit as required by section 55.10, Fla. Stat.
149. Here that which did NOT exist and/or was NULL and VOID could NOT have possibly
been enforced under Florida law.
150. If there had been any authentic judgment, any valid order, and any genuine lien,
Plaintiff(s) would have been entitled to “transfer” under Florida law, s. 55.10, Fla. Stat.:
“(5) Any lien claimed under this section may be transferred, by any person having an interest in the real property upon which the lien is imposed or the contract under which the lien is claimed, from such real property to other security by either depositing in the clerk's office a sum of money or filing in the clerk's office a bond executed as surety by a surety insurer licensed to do business in this state. Such deposit or bond shall be in an amount equal to the amount demanded in such claim of lien plus interest thereon at the legal rate for 3 years plus $500 to apply on any court costs which may be taxed in any proceeding to enforce said lien. Such deposit or bond shall be conditioned to pay any judgment, order, or decree which may be
40
rendered for the satisfaction of the lien for which such claim of lien was recorded and costs plus $500 for court costs. Upon such deposit being made or such bond being filed, the clerk shall make and record a certificate showing the transfer of the lien from the real property to the security and mail a copy thereof by registered or certified mail to the lienor named in the claim of lien so transferred, at the address stated therein. Upon the filing of the certificate of transfer, the real property shall thereupon be released from the lien claimed, and such lien shall be transferred to said security. The clerk shall be entitled to a service charge of up to $15 for making and serving the certificate. If the transaction involves the transfer of multiple liens, an additional service charge of up to $7.50 for each additional lien shall be charged. Any number of liens may be transferred to one such security.”
NO service OF ANY “writ of execution” UPON DR. JORG BUSSE
151. Here, Dr. Jorg Busse was never served and could not have possibly been served [with]
any “writ of execution”. No evidence of any service existed on the record. Doc. ## 425, 429,
430, 2:2007-cv-00228, were facially fraudulent and for criminal and illegal purposes of,
e.g., racketeering, extortion, retaliation, obstruction of justice, and unconstitutional
property seizure in brazen violation of, e.g., the 4th, and 14th U.S. Constitutional
Amendments, and Chapters 55, and 56, Florida Statutes.
MANDATORY SUSPENSION OF ANY ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS
152. Under color of a prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, Doc. ## 425, 435, 434 and in
the publicly recorded absence of any debt, and after Dr. Jorg Busse had paid the final
mandate of $24.30 for “copies” (under FRAP 39) to Def. Wilkinson, the Def. U.S. Marshal
and Defendants Richard Jessup and Ryan Barry recklessly extended, e.g., the extortion,
racketeering, and organized crimes of public record in order to retaliate against Dr. Busse,
extort fees and said real property without any authority and for organized and conspiratorial
criminal purposes. Here, said Officials coerced the Plaintiff(s) to refrain from rightful
prosecution and obstructed justice. Here, any and all Marshal(s), Sheriff(s), and/or law
enforcement Officials were under the absolute obligation to NOT enforce and/or suspend
any proceedings on the illegal execution of the facially fraudulent and forged “writ”, Doc.
## 425, which had never been served upon Dr. Busse.
41
AFFIDAVIT; DEMAND FOR MANDATORY SUSPENSION OF PROCEEDINGS ON
FRAUDULENT AND ILLEGAL execution, CH. 56, 55, U.S. CONST. AMENDMENTS
153. Here Dr. Jorg Busse had demanded, has been demanding, and again demands the
absolutely mandatory suspension of any proceedings to enforce and/or execute a prima
facie fictitious, un-documented, un-substantiated, un-recorded and null and void debt in
the facially falsified amount of “$24.30”. Here. Dr. Busse had fully paid the $24.30 final
money judgment and 06/11/2009 mandate (“copies”). Here, the Defendants and Wilkinson
knew that the 11th Circuit never had any jurisdiction and authority to alter and amend the
“$24.30 mandate/judgment” and to sanction and punish the Plaintiff corruption victim Dr.
Jorg Busse, who rightfully prosecuted Crooked Government Officials.
AFFIDAVIT: ORGANIZED CRIME, RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, CORRUPTION
154. In this organized crime scheme, Defendant Beverly Martin had suspended, and
conspired with, e.g., judicial Def. Steele, Chappell, Lazzara, Pizzo, Honeywell, and other
Defendants and Officials to suspend, the Rules and extended anarchy and lawlessness to
obtain unlawful benefits. Here, Def. Crooked Judge Martin recklessly violated Section
838.022, Official Misconduct, Fla. Stat.
PUBLICLY RECORDED ORGANIZED CRIME EVIDENCE
155. Def. Honeywell deceived this Court, Doc. # 213, p. 18:
“In this case, Plaintiffs allege that all Defendants conspired to deprive them of their alleged property rights in Lot 15A. Plaintiffs repeatedly state that various judicial officers accepted bribes to deprive them of this alleged property interest. However, these statements are merely conclusory, and Plaintiffs provide no factual basis to support a conspiracy among Defendants.”
Here, e.g., the idiotic Court orders, opinions, 1912 Plat of Survey of the private undedicated
residential Cayo Costa Subdivision, PB 3, PG 25, the WARRANTY DEEDS, surveys, title
abstracts, and binding precedent on file were an indisputable “factual basis” to support
said well proven allegations. Here, Def. Honeywell’s and Def. Chappell’s orders in this and
42
the related Cases were conclusive record evidence of organized judicial crime, because they
evidenced the brazen perversion of the law and public record evidence.
CASE 2:2007-CV-00228: ORGANIZED CRIME
156. Upon receipt of 443 pages on 08/03/2010, Case 2:2007-cv-00228, the Clerk of this Court
filed 533 pages, thereby fabricating 90 pages, Doc. # 436.
157. Here pursuant to the Docket, 2:2007-cv-00228, Defendant Clerk Drew Heathcoat
a. Altered the public record and obstructed justice;
b. Falsified a “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, 2:2007-cv-00228;
c. Fraudulently concealed the lack of any recorded money judgment and mandate other
than the final $24.30 mandate, Case 2:2007-cv-00228;
d. Refused to accept the appeal fee in the amount of $455.00 while wrongfully alleging
that it was after 4:00 PM;
e. Refused to just file the original 443 pages but fabricated 90 additional pages (533 p.);
158. In this Case, 2:2009-cv-00791, hundreds of pages of Plaintiffs Complaint, Doc. # 1, had
disappeared. See Doc. # 213, p. 3, fn 3:
“Plaintiffs’ Complaint, that was transferred from the West Palm Beach Division of the Southern District of Florida, contains 103 pages. However, the last two pages of the Complaint are numbered 179 and 180. Pages 101-178 are not included in the instant Complaint. The Court has confirmed, through inquiry of the Clerk of the Southern District of Florida, that Plaintiffs’ Complaint was filed without pages 101 - 178 and without any exhibits.”
POLICY OF DESTRUCTION, ALTERATION, AND FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS
159. Here, this Court exhibited its pattern and policy of
a. Altering and falsifying official records and documents;
b. Falsifying a fake “resolution 569/875”;
c. Falsifying judgments;
d. Falsifying mandates;
43
e. Falsifying a “writ of execution”;
f. Falsifying a “legislative act”;
g. Falsifying a “land claim”;
h. Falsifying an idiotic and incomprehensible “public land claim” of Lot 15A in the
presence of a controverting WARRANTY DEED;
i. Destroying public records for, e.g., cover-up, concealment, and racketeering;
j. Destroying public records as “scandalous material” for criminal purposes;
k. “Striking” and removing official documents and records, because they conclusively
proved judicial and Government corruption, racketeering, retaliation, and organized
crime.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Government corruption and racketeering victims demand
1. An Order recusing Def. Crooked Charlene E. Honeywell because of publicly recorded
organized crime, racketeering, corruption, bribery, retaliation against the Plaintiffs, and
extortion of said money and Lot 15A in violation of Florida and Federal law;
2. An Order vacating and/or setting aside the prima facie unconstitutional and null and void
“pre-filing injunction”, Doc. # 245, which was for criminal and illegal purposes of, e.g.,
cover-up, concealment, and conspiracy to extort said money and land, Lot 15A;
3. An Order recusing Def. Crooked S. Polster Chappell, because she conspired to conceal
said falsifications and extend the record racketeering and retaliation;
4. An Order vacating and/or setting aside any and all orders by Defendants Sheri Polster
Chappell and Charlene Edwards Honeywell, because they were procured through fraud,
and falsification and destruction of official records, documents, and conclusive evidence;
5. An Order declaring that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson did NOT “have any lien”;
6. An Order declaring that Defendant Wilkinson did NOT “hold any $5,048.60 judgment” as
falsely pretended and falsified by said Defendant Wilkinson and Defendant Crooked
44
Attorney JACK N. PETERSON [see falsified, fraudulent and deceptive “affidavits”
asserting a fake “July 29, 2009 judgment” in the Collier and Lee County Public Records;
7. An EMERGENCY Order suspending and enjoining as absolutely mandatory any
proceedings on any illegal and criminal execution in violation of, e.g., Chapters 55 and 56,
Fla. Stat., and the 4th, 14th, 1st, and 7th U.S. Const. Amendments, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 – 1968;
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242; s. 838.022, Fla. Stat.;
8. An Order sanctioning Defendant Attorney JACK N. PETERSON for recorded perjury and
conspiring with Def. Wilkinson and other Government Officials to extort, racketeer,
retaliate, and deliberately deprive Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott;
9. An Order declaring the final record mandate in the amount of $24.30 paid;
10. An Order vacating and setting aside the facially oppressive and unconstitutional “pre-filing
injunction”, Doc. # 245, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, which on its face was for criminal and
illegal purposes of racketeering, retaliation, intimidation, oppression, and “protection” of
the organized Criminals and criminal Defendants in this Court and the 11th Circuit;
11. An Order restraining and preventing the record violations of section 1962 under the RICO
civil provisions;
12. An Order declaring the lack of any recorded mandate and/or money judgment other than the
$24.30, which was “issued as mandate on June 11, 2009” and recorded on June 15, 2009
pursuant to the certified Docket, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, U.S. District Court, M.D.
Florida, Fort Myers Division;
13. An Order declaring that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had lost jurisdiction
on 06/11/2009, as had also been evidenced by its own Case Docket, 08-13170-BB];
14. An Order sanctioning and punishing Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson for the publicly
recorded falsifications of, e.g., said fake “judgment”, “land parcels”, fake “resolution”,
extortion, and racketeering, all of which obstructed justice;
45
15. An Order declaring INSTRUMENT 4371834, O.R. 4517 PG 1914, Collier County Public
Records, and the equally fraudulent filing in Lee County part of a racketeering, extortion,
and fraud scheme
16. An Order restraining any further racketeering by Defendant Government Officials and in
particular the illegal forced selling of Plaintiffs’ said riparian Cayo Costa property, Lot 15A,
in the absence of any recorded “$5,048.60” “judgment”;
17. An Order dissolving and/or reorganizing the corrupt Government enterprise under, e.g., civil
RICO, and 18 U.S.C. 1964(a);
18. An Order removing the publicly recorded corrupting influence and make due provision for
said express fundamental rights of innocent persons under the Florida and Federal
Constitutions and, e.g., the 14th, 1st, 7th, 4th, 5th, and 11th U.S. Constitutional Amendments;
19. An EMERGENCY Order recusing Defendant Crooked, Objectively Partial, and Unfit
Government Racketeer John E. Steele;
20. An Order making the Government enterprise of record subject of injunctive relief, because it
is designed to aid the illegal enterprise of, e.g., obstructing justice, retaliating and
punishing, and extorting money, Government fees, and property;
21. An Order enjoining said U.S. Courts from retaliating against the Plaintiffs because they
blew the whistle on Government crimes & corruption, rather than punishing the Defendant
Racketeers of record and providing remedies and relief to the Plaintiff racketeering and
corruption victims;
22. An EMERGENCY Order recusing Defendant Crooked and Objectively Partial and Unfit
Judge C. E. Honeywell;
23. An EMERGENCY Order recusing Defendant Corrupt and Objectively Partial and Unfit
Judge S. Polster Chappell;
24. An Order for equitable relief;
46
25. An Order declaring Plaintiffs’ record title to Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, free & clear and
unencumbered;
26. An Order declaring fake “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-
00001.0000” falsified and prima facie forgeries as conclusively evidenced by the 1912
Cayo Costa Plat in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25;
27. An Order for EMERGENCY relief from the publicly recorded public corruption, extortion,
coercion, fraud, and concealment in said Courts;
28. An Order for compensatory damages;
29. An Order for triple punitive damages;
30. An Order for triple punitive damages under, e.g., Civil RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 1964(c);
31. An Order for expenses, costs, legal expenses, and fees;
32. An Order enjoining any and all Governments and the Defendants and Officials from any
trespass onto the private undedicated “Cayo Costa” “Subdivision” as legally described in
reference to said 1912 Plat in PB 3 PG 25;
33. An Order declaring the prima facie forgeries of non-existent “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-
00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” fraudulent and criminal acts of record;
34. An Order permanently enjoining any and all entries and publications of any “resolution
569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, “legislative act 569/875”, and non-existent “land parcels” “12-
44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” from any and all Government
records and publications;
35. An Order permanently enjoining any and all Governments and Defendants from fraudulently
“claiming” “asserting” “publishing” Government ownership of the street lands along the
Gulf of Mexico as legally described and conveyed in reference to the Plat of the prima facie
private “Cayo Costa” Subdivision;
47
36. An Order enjoining and restraining any extortion of property and money and foreclosure
fraud by Defendants Eugene C. Turner, Richard D. DeBoest, II, Chene M. Thompson, and
Hugh D. Hayes.
___________________________ /s/Jorg Busse, M.D., M.M., M.B.A. Private Attorney General; Plaintiff public corruption & racketeering victim 10 Benning ST # 135 West Lebanon, NH 03784-3402, U.S.A. c/o International Court of Justice Peace Palace The Hague, Netherlands _____________________ [/s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott] Private Attorney General; Plaintiff Government racketeering & corruption victim 10 Benning Street # 135 West Lebanon, NH 03784-3402, U.S.A. c/o International Court of Justice Peace Palace The Hague, Netherlands
48
EXHIBITS
SUPPORTING PUBLIC RECORD EVIDENCE
EXTORTION, FRAUD, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, RETALIATION, BRIBERY …
A. FACIALLY FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVIT [DEF. JACK N. PETERSON, K. M.
WILKINSON] INSTR 4371834, O.R. 4517 PG 1914, Collier County Public Records
B. PRIMA FACIE NULL & VOID “writ of execution”, Case No. 2:07-cv-00228
C. PRIMA FACIE NULL & VOID “O.R. 569/875” AND LAND EXTORTION SCHEME
D. 07/21/2010 letter by Def. Racketeer JACK N. PETERSON
E. Def. CHARLIE GREEN’S recording instructions
F. RACKETEERING AND EXTORTION record evidence, Doc. # 429, Case 2:07-cv-228
G. Docket as CERTIFIED by Def. Diane Nipper on 07/16/2010, Case No. 2:07-cv-00228
Conclusively evidencing record absence of fictitious and fabricated appeal “09-13196”
H. FALSIFICATION of “appeal no. 09-13196” by Def. Beverly B. Martin pursuant to
CERTIFIED docket at B., which evidenced the lack of any such “appeal” and the
“frivolity”-racketeering-and-extortion-scheme of record; “JUL 19 2010” CASE FIXING &
“DISMISSAL AS FRIVOLOUS”
I. DOC. # 434, 07/22/2010, by Def. JOHN E. STEELE, CASE NO. 2:2007-CV-00228
J. Third Amended Complaint, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 288, 282 (11 pages),
PRIMA FACIE NULL AND VOID “legislative act” and/or “law”, Fake “O.R. 569/875”,
FACIALLY FALSIFIED “regulation” and/or “resolution” attached as Page 9 of 11;
ETHICS COMPLAINT against Def. Crooked Lee County Official JACK N. PETERSON
Attached as Page 10 of 11
K. PRIMA FACIE FRAUDULENT and FRIVOLOUS motion by Defendant Racketeer and
“land parcel” Forger K. M. Wilkinson; “Appellee Property Appraiser’s Motion for
49
Sanctions for Filing of a frivolous Motion”, “Rule 27-4”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. #
386-2, pp 1-3, Doc. # 386-3, p. 15
L. BINDING PRECEDENT and RECORD EVIDENCE of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE,
JUDICIAL RETALIATION, and EXTORTION under color of fake “judgment” & “writ”,
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490(11th
Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959)
M. Lee County, FL, INSTRUMENT # 2010000171344, WARRANTY DEED Lot 15A, “Cayo
Costa, Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912) (2 pages)
N. RECORD RACKETEERING EVIDENCE: “Motion for Issuance of writ of execution …”,
RECORDED EVIDENCE of EXTORTION, FRAUD & FALSIFICATION of un-recorded
judgment, Doc. # 386, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, by Def. Racketeer Jack N. Peterson;
PERVERSION of recorded “$24.30 judgment” into fake “$5,048.60 debt”
O. Lee County Tax Collector’s Office, Statement of Paid Property Taxes, Lot 15A, Cayo Costa
(2 pages)
P. DENIAL of “Appellee Wilkerson’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”,
FALSIFICATION of “Rule 38 motion”, record evidence, Doc. # 386-5
FALSIFICATION of “Rule 38 judgment”, record evidence, Doc. # 386-5
FALSIFICATION of “Rule 38 bill of costs”, record evidence, Doc. # 386-5
FALSIFICATION of unsubstantiated “$5,000 in attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5
By Defendant Racketeers Dubina, Chief Judge, Tjoflat, and Birch, Circuit Judges
Facially forged and pasted “certification”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 2, right lower corner
Q. MEMORANDUM OF NO DEDICATION OF THE CAYO COSTA ROADS TO PUBLIC,
From The Office of Lee County, Florida, Attorney, Dec. 29, 2000, Joan C. Henry, Esq.
R. 1912 Plat of undedicated private “Cayo Costa” Subdivision in Lee County Plat Book 3, P. 25
S. Recorded Survey of riparian Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, PB 3 PG 25 (1912) on the Gulf of Mexico
50
T. Fraudulent Lee County Inventory Control File, FALSIFIED parcel 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0
O.R. 1651 / 2488, O.R. 2967 / 1084 – 1090, BLUE SHEET 980206, 03/24/1998(6 pages)
U. Falsified “Parcel 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” by Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson (2 p)
V. Falsified “resolution”, “legislative act”, and/or “law” by Def. Racketeer John Edwin Steele,
Doc. ## 288, 282, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228
W. “Judgment Issued as Mandate June 11 2009”, in the amount of $24.30, FRAP 39 (1 p)
RACKETEERING/EXTORTION EVIDENCE: March 5, 2009 “opinion”, 11th Circuit
X. Bill of Costs Issued as Mandate June 11 2009, in the amount of $24.30, FRAP 39 (1 p)
Y. Fraudulent “Conclusion” and Case Fixing by Defendant U.S. Circuit Judges, Doc. # 365,
Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228; Doc. # 386.
Z. STATE Court Docket, Plaintiffs’ Case No. 2006-CA-003185, BUSSE v. STATE OF
FLORIDA, Defendant Judge GERALD, LYNN, Jr., Filed 07/31/2006,
REMOVED to U.S. District Court by Def. Judges John E. Steele and S. Polster Chappell
AA. EXTORTION & PUBLIC CORRUPTION NOTICE to Def. Drew Heathcoat, U.S.
Clerk (2 pages)
BB. Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge, Steven E. Ibison
CC. DESTRUCTION of official records as evidenced by search of “2007-00228”, 11th
Circuit
DD. DESTRUCTION of Docket No. 201010963, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit
EE. CASE FIXING, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, AND RETALIATION by Def. Judges
Black, Carnes, and Martin, dated “JUL 19 2010” (2 pages)
FF. NOTICE OF CORRUPTION AND LETTER DEMANDING AUTHENTICATION,
Def. JOHN LEY, U.S. Circuit Clerk, 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit (2 pages)
GG. Motion to Stay Prima Facie Illegal Execution as a Matter of Law, Case No. 2:10-cv-
00390 (5 pages)
51
HH. Section 838.022, Florida Statutes, OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT
Chapter 838, Fla. Stat., BRIBERY, MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE
II. Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 29, pp. 4, 7, Def. U.S. Attorney, Tony West, Matthew
L. Fesak, affirming U.S. jurisdiction under “civil RICO”
JJ. FACIALLY FALSIFIED “writ of execution”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 425
KK. Section 55.10, Florida Statutes, Judgments…,
Chapter 55 Judgments, Florida Statutes
LL. Defendant Racketeer K. M. Wilkinson’s Answers to Plaintiff’s First Set of
Interrogatories” under oath, 10/22/2007; in particular, asserting under oath the RECORD
ABSENCE of “public Cayo Costa easements”, Answer # 24
MM. Florida 19th Statewide Grand Jury on Public Corruption (09/30/2009 Petition),
Florida Statewide Prosecution Office, Office of the Attorney General of Florida.
NN. FALSIFIED “Plat” of “Cayo Costa Subdivision” as falsified and filed by Defendant
Racketeer K. M. Wilkinson as “Exhibit A”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228
OO. Publicly recorded Case Fixing and Obstruction of Justice by Defendant Judges Gerald
B. Tjoflat, Susan Birch, and Joel F. Dubina, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit,
Doc. # 365, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228
PP. Fraudulent Order, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 422, pp. 17-18, by Defendant
Racketeer John E. Steele, evidencing extortion, obstruction of justice, obstruction of court
access, and retaliation under fraudulent pretenses of, e.g., “writ of execution”, “lack of
jurisdiction”, “ripeness requirements”, “frivolity”, “sanctions”, and under color of authority
and office.
QQ. FBI Complaint against Def. Lee County Commissioner John Manning
RR. Concealment of fake writ, Doc. # 434, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, by Def. J. E.
Steele
52
SS. FBI Complaint against Def. U.S. Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin,
Including “JUL 19 2010” CASE FIXING FOR BRIBES and RACKETEERING
TT. Record Evidence of Destruction of Plaintiffs’ Appeal Records, ## “10-10963, 10-10967”
UU. GOVERNMENTAL FORGERIES, “O.R. 569/875”, FORENSIC EVIDENCE
VV. Facially Fraudulent Order, Doc. # 338, Case 2:2007-cv-00228, by Def. John E.
Steele
WW. March 08, 2010 Letter by Def. John Ley, U.S. Circuit Clerk
XX. DESTRUCTION AND ALTERATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, EVIDENCE
YY. FRAUDULENT 04/06/2010 Order by Def. Crooked Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin
ZZ. Supreme Court Justice David Souter Communications, including binding precedent of
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY
AAA. OTHER; OTHER PUBLIC RECORDS
53
CC: Federal Bureau of Investigation
U.S. Department of Justice
Eric Holder, Attorney General
Barack Hussein Obama, The White House
Florida Department of Law Enforcement
The Florida Bar
Real Property Probate and Trust Lawyer Section, The Florida Bar
54
AFFIDAVIT OF DR. JORG BUSSE
STATE CERTIFIED RESIDENTIAL APPRAISER, REAL ESTATE BROKER
STATE OF FLORIDA
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority authorized to administer oaths and take
acknowledgments, personally appeared Dr. Jorg Busse, and who, after first being duly sworn,
deposes and says upon oath the foregoing and attached Complaint in U.S. District Court,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Ex Rel. et al. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
__________________________
/s/JORG BUSSE, M.D., M.M., M.B.A.
Sworn to and subscribed before me on this ___ day of August, 2010.
Name of Notary Public:
Expiration of Commission:
__________________
/s/Notary Public
Attachments: 450 pages / 505 pages total
55
AFFIDAVIT OF JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT
STATE OF FLORIDA
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority authorized to administer oaths and take
acknowledgments, personally appeared Jennifer Franklin Prescott, and who, after first being duly
sworn, deposes and says upon oath the foregoing, 54 pages, and attached publicly recorded
Complaint in U.S. District Court, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Ex Rel. et al. v. UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA et al.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
__________________________
/s/JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT
Sworn to and subscribed before me on August 16, 2010.
Name of Notary Public:
Expiration of Commission:
__________________
/s/Notary Public Attachments: 450 pages / 505 pages total
Document Selection Menu
Select the document you wish to view.
Document Number: 436 33 pages 1.2 mb
Attachment Description
1 Exhibit 31 pages 1.1 mb
2 Exhibit 27 pages 0.9 mb
3 Exhibit 30 pages 1.0 mb
4 Exhibit 30 pages 1.0 mb
5 Exhibit 35 pages 1.1 mb
6 Exhibit 36 pages 1.1 mb
7 Exhibit 30 pages 1.0 mb
8 Exhibit 47 pages 1.9 mb
9 Exhibit 23 pages 0.7 mb
10 Exhibit 23 pages 0.7 mb
11 Exhibit 27 pages 1.0 mb
12 Exhibit 30 pages 1.1 mb
13 Exhibit 34 pages 1.0 mb
14 Exhibit 40 pages 1.4 mb
15 Exhibit 33 pages 1.1 mb
16 Exhibit 24 pages 0.8 mb
Note: You must view each document individually because the combined PDF would be over the 10 MB size limit.
8/5/2010 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/…/show_doc.pl?… 1/1
U.S. District CourtMiddle District of Florida (Ft. Myers)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC
Busse v. Lee County, Florida et alAssigned to: Judge John E. SteeleReferred to: Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster ChappellCase in other court: 08-13170B
09-12372-B09-13517F09-13519F09-13522F09-14281F09-14282F09-14284F09-14285F09-16211F09-16212F09-16213F09-16214F09-16335F10-10963-I10-10967-I10-11884-I
Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Date Filed: 04/10/2007Date Terminated: 05/06/2008Jury Demand: PlaintiffNature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: OtherJurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
Jorg Busse represented by Jorg Busse P.O. Box 1126 Naples, Fl 34106-1126 239/595-7074 PRO SE
Plaintiff
Kenneth M. Roesch, Jr. TERMINATED: 09/21/2007
represented by Kelly Lina Rooth Rooth Law Group, PA Suite 322 4399 35th St N St Petersbsurg, FL 33714 727/824-6212 Fax: 727/822-8048 Email: [email protected]
8/5/2010 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 1/6
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
Anita M. Roesch TERMINATED: 09/21/2007
represented by Kelly Lina Rooth (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
Troy Parnell TERMINATED: 09/21/2007
represented by William Alfred Keyes , Jr. Stewart & Keyes, PL 2125 First St - Ste 101 PO Drawer 790 Ft Myers, FL 33902 239/334-7477 Fax: 239/334-7941 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
Lee County, Florida represented by Jack Neil Peterson Lee County Attorney's Office 2115 Second St PO Box 398 Ft Myers, FL 33902 239/533-2236 Fax: 239/485-2118 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Board of Lee County Commissioners represented by Jack Neil Peterson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
The Lee County Property Appraiser represented by Jack Neil Peterson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
8/5/2010 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 2/6
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sherri L. Johnson Dent & Johnson, Chartered 3415 Magic Oak Lane Sarasota, FL 34232 941/952-1070 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
State of Florida, Board of Trustees ofthe Internal Improvement Trust Fund past & present
represented by Harold George Vielhauer Florida Department of EnvironmentalProtection MS 35 3900 Commonwealth Blvd Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 850/245-2242 Fax: 850/245-2296 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda Kathryn Funchess Florida Department of EnvironmentalProtection MS 35 3900 Commonwealth Blvd Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 850/245-2242 Fax: 850/245-2296 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Reagan Kathleen Russell Florida Department of EnvironmentalProtection* MS 35 3900 Commonwealth Blvd Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
8/5/2010 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 3/6
Defendant
Kenneth M. Wilkinson represented by Jack Neil Peterson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sherri L. Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Lee County Attorney represented by Jack Neil Peterson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
State of Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection, and Divisionof Recreation and Parks
represented by Harold George Vielhauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda Kathryn Funchess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Reagan Kathleen Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Jack N. Peterson
Date Filed # Docket Text
02/02/2010 425 WRIT of Execution issued per Order 424 . (drn) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
02/04/2010 426 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) dismissing for want of prosecution as to 404 Noticeof appeal filed by Jorg Busse. EOD: 1/22/2010; USCA number: 09-16335-F. (slp)(Entered: 02/04/2010)
02/10/2010 427 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 425 Writ issued by Jorg Busse. Filing fee not paid.(RMT) (Entered: 02/11/2010)
8/5/2010 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 4/6
02/24/2010 428 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 422 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by JorgBusse. Filing fee not paid. (kma) (Entered: 03/01/2010)
04/06/2010 429 US Marshal 285 form for Writ of execution. (SPB) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
04/06/2010 430 WRIT of execution returned Executed as to Jorg Busse. (SPB) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
04/16/2010 431 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 429 US Marshal 285 form, 430 Writ returned by JorgBusse. Filing fee not paid. (SPB) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
05/21/2010 432 MOTION for order of sale and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by The LeeCounty Property Appraiser, Kenneth M. Wilkinson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit C)(Peterson, Jack) (Entered:05/21/2010)
05/25/2010 433 ORDER of USCA dimissing this appeal for want of prosecution as to 431 Notice ofappeal filed by Jorg Busse. EOD: 05/21/2010; USCA number: 10-11884I. (kma)(Entered: 05/25/2010)
07/21/2010 435 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) DISMISSING AS FRIVOLOUS as to 428 Noticeof appeal filed by Jorg Busse, 427 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse. EOD: 7/19/10;USCA number: 10-10963-I & 10-10967-I. (slp) (Entered: 07/23/2010)
07/22/2010 434 ORDER that plaintiff may file ONE response to defendant's 432 Motion for entry ofOrder directing public sale of real property within 14 days of this Order. Signed byJudge John E. Steele on 7/22/2010. (RKR) (Entered: 07/22/2010)
08/03/2010 436 RESPONSE re 434 Order filed by Jorg Busse. Document titled Affidavit Notice ofappeal, racketeering, and organized government crimes, Notice of appeal fromfraudulent "order(s)", Doc ## 434, 435, 424, and racketering, extortion, retaliation,obstruction of justice, and any and all null & void "orders" by Def. J.E. Steele & S.P.Chappell, and falsified "writ of execution", Doc. ## 425, 434, 435, 433, 430; affidavit;Emergency motion to enjoin fraud on court, Doc. ## 435, 434, 424, 425; Emergencymotion to enjoin "sale of property" which government had fraudulently "claimed" to"own" under color of forged "land parcel" ""12-44-20-01-00000.00A0", and faciallyforged "O.R. 569/875" and Fake "legislative act/resolution/regulation"; Directindependent attqck on organized government crimes; United Staes of America, Ex rel, etal. v. United States of America, et al.; Def. John E. Steele obstructed justice &perverted Florida law (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, #12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit)(kma) (Entered:08/05/2010)
PACER Service CenterTransaction Receipt
08/05/2010 18:01:30
PACER we0083 Client
8/5/2010 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 5/6
Login: we0083 Code:
Description: DocketReport
SearchCriteria:
2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Startingwith document: 425
BillablePages: 4 Cost: 0.32
8/5/2010 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 6/6
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 3 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 4 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 5 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 6 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 7 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 8 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 9 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 10 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 11 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 12 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 13 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 14 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 15 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 16 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 17 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 18 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 19 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 20 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 21 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 22 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 23 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 24 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 25 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 26 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 27 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 28 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 29 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 30 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 31 of 34
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64 Filed 08/03/10 Page 32 of 34
*.JS 44 (Rev. 12/07) CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local niles of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. DR. JORG BUSSE AND JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE, JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. DR. JORG BUSS
( b ) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
( c ) Attomev's (Firm Name, Address, and Teleohone Number) _ DR. JORG BUSSE AS PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT AS PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
DEFENDANTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES COURTS, UNITED STATES CUSTOM & IMMIGRATION SERVICE, TONY WEST, BEVERLY B. MARTIN, JOHN EDWIN STEELE, RYAN BAR
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant WASHINGTON, D.C.
NOTE:
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE
LAND INVOLVED.
Attorneys (If Known) U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL c:
CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Pia^n x inO^jforPi (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box$iCDt>*Hldant)
I I . B A S I S O F J U R I S D I C T I O N (Place an "X" in One Box Only)
D 1 U.S. Govenunent Plaintiff
M 2 U.S. Govenunent Defendant
O 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)
O 4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
in. Plaintiff
Citizen of This State
Citizen of Another State
Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country
PTF a i
a 2
a 3
DEF l N ^ I—-EfrP2 D E F
O 1 Incorporated or PrincipftPPlace T H r Q ^ ^ ^ of Business In This State 1 3 ^n™^
O 2 Incorporated and Principal Place -fB CS O 5 of Business In AnoffccP State 3 1 C Z
O 3 Foreign Nation f O O Tf 0 6 OD
IV. NATURE OF SUIT
G 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY O 610 Agriculture O 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 O 400 State Reapportionment O 120 Marine a 310Aiiplane O 362 Personal Injury - O 620 Other Food & Drug O 423 Withdrawal O 410 Antitrust O 130 Miller Act a 315 Airplane Product Med. Malpractice O 625 Drug Related Seizure 28 USC 157 o 430 Banks and Banking O 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability a 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC88I a 450 Commerce O 150 Recovery of Overpayment a 320 Assault, Libel & Product Liability O 630 Liquor Laws mwmwwsmwmrHimm a 460 Deportation
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander a 368 Asbestos Personal O 640 R.R.& Truck O 820 Copyrights H 470 Racketeer Influenced and • 151 Medicare Act a 330 Federal Employers' Injuty Product O 650 Airline Regs. O 830 Patent Corrupt Organizations O 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability Liability O 660 Occupational O 840 Trademark o 480 Consumer Credit
Student Loans a 340 Marine PERSONAL PROPERTY Safety/Health o 490 Cable/Sat TV (Excl. Veterans) a
a
345 Marine Product Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
O O O
370 Other Fraud 371 Truth in Lending 380 Other Personal
O 690 Other •
810 Selective Service a a
345 Marine Product Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
O O O
370 Other Fraud 371 Truth in Lending 380 Other Personal
"f"mi", TmtkB*,™:"- • 850 Securities/Commodities/ of Veteran's Benefits
a a
345 Marine Product Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
O O O
370 Other Fraud 371 Truth in Lending 380 Other Personal a 710 Fair Labor Standards O 861HIA(1395ff>
• Exchange
O 160 Stockholders'Suits a 355 Motor Vehicle Property Damage Act O 862 Black Lung (923) o 875 Customer Challenge O 190 Other Contract Product Liability O 385 Property Damage O 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations O 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 12 USC 3410 O 195 Contract Product Liability a 360 Other Personal Product Liability O 730Labor/MgmtReporting O 864 SS1D Title XVI o 890 Other Statutory Actions O 196 Franchise Iniury & Disclosure Act
O 740 Railway Labor Act O 790 Other Labor Litigation
O 8 6 5 R S I ( 4 0 5 ( B » o o o
891 Agricultural Acts ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ | | | | g p ^ | t a B B 4 | | | ^ ^ ^ ^ -«s lift; a D* wn tssmsmi m, mmsmMMMsm
& Disclosure Act O 740 Railway Labor Act O 790 Other Labor Litigation
O 8 6 5 R S I ( 4 0 5 ( B » o o o
892 Economic Stabilization Act O 210 Land Condemnation O 441 Voting 3 510 Motions to Vacate
& Disclosure Act O 740 Railway Labor Act O 790 Other Labor Litigation O 870 Taxes (U.S Plaintiff
o o o 893 Environmental Matters
O 220 Foreclosure o 442 Employment Sentence O 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. or Defendant) o 894 Energy Allocation Act O 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment o 443 Housing/ Habeas Corpus: Security Act O 871 IRS—Third Party o 895 Freedom of Information O 240 Torts to Land
o o
Accommodations 444 Welfare 445 Amer. w/Disabilities -
•J 530 General 535 Death Penalty 540 Mandamus & Other
26 USC 7609 o
Act O 245 Tort Product Liability o
o
Accommodations 444 Welfare 445 Amer. w/Disabilities -
•J 530 General 535 Death Penalty 540 Mandamus & Other
J£.J Wh3B^^«Hif»l!»*^«* ii..A
26 USC 7609 o 900Appeal of Fee Determination
O 290 All Other Real Property o o
Accommodations 444 Welfare 445 Amer. w/Disabilities -
•J 530 General 535 Death Penalty 540 Mandamus & Other O 462 Naturalization Application
26 USC 7609 o
Under Equal Access Employment a 550 Civil Rights O 463 Habeas Corpus - to Justice
o 446 Amer. w/Disabilities -Other
a 555 Prison Condition Alien Detainee O 465 Ot.ier Immigration
o 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes
a 440 Other Civil Rights Actions
V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One Box Only) Ameal to District 8 1 Original a 2 Removed from O 3 Remanded from O 4 Reinstated or O 5 T ^ A I ^ J T 1 O 6 Multidistrict O 7 wSSfJ™,?
ProSeedina State Court Annellate Court Reonened (swIcifV) Litigation J^agistrate Proceeding Appellate Court Reopened
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): 16USCS1964.18USC$g1961-1968.18USC$1341.4th.7th.14th.1st.5th.11th U.S. Const.Amend. Civil Rights Act
Brief description of cause: Racketeerina/Civil RICO. Corruption. Obstruction of Justice. Extortion of Property & Monev: 4th. 7th. 14th. 1st U.S.
VII. REQUESTED IN O CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMANDS
COMPLAINT: UNDER F R C P . 23 1 9 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
JURY DEMAND: fif Yes O No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY (See instructions).
JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE
07/27/2010 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERALS LIN PRESCOTT
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFF JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-18 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 1
UNITI-D SI AT[:S DIS1 RICI COURI DIStRICI OFNPW IIAMPSIIIRI-; U.S. OISTRICI COURT
DISTRICT OF N.H. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA /-.'A' RI-.L. DR. .l()R(i UUSSI- AND .lE^klFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT. DR. JORCi IH'SSE. JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTfj o. oo STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. DR. JORG BUSSI AND .IE.NNIFllft1OpRJANKLI5N L' 0
PRESCOTT. DR. JORG BUSSE AND JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT AS PRIVATE ATTORNEY(S) GENERAL.
Plaintill's,
v. Case No. 2010-cv-
UNITED STATES OI: AMERICA. UNITED STATES COURTS. UNITED STATES CUSTOM & IMMIGRATION SERVICE. TONY WEST. BEVERLY B. MARTIN, JOHN EDWIN STEELE. RYAN BARRY. CllAREENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL, SHERI POLSTER CIIAPPEI.L. KENNEFII M. WILKINSON. RICHARD A. LAZZARA. JACK N. PETERSON. RYAN BARRY. DREW HEAIHCOAT. BETTYE G. SAMUEL. STANLEY F. BIRCH. JR. GERALD B. LIOFLAT. SUSAN H. BLACK, JOEL F. DUB1NA. SHERRI L. JOHNSON. EUGENE C. TURNER. LEE COUNTY, FL, COMMISSION AND COMMISSIONERS. ED CARNES. JOHN E. MANNING, U.S. RACKETEERING AGENTS. HUGH D. HAYES. JOHN LEY. RICHARD JESSUP, DIANE NIPPER. LYNN GERALD. JR.. KINNE1II L. RYSKAMP. CHARLIE CRIST. CHARLES "BARRY" STEVENS. JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., MARK ALLAN PIZ/.O. ANNE CONWAY. CHARLIE GREEN. REAGAN KATHLEEN RUSSELL. RICHARD D. DEBOEST. II. CI ILNL M. 11 lOMPSON, el a/.,
Defendants.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND SI9,000,000.00
/
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMPLAINT OF RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, PUBLIC CORRUPTION IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA,
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, 20™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEE & COLLIER COUNTIES, FL, AND OF UNLAWFUL AND CRIMINAL ACTS BY GOVERNMENT AGENTS & OFFICIALS
IN THEIR PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES OUTSIDE ANY "IMMUNITY' COMPLAINT UNDER CIVIL RICO, 18 U.S.C. $ 1964, 1961-1968
COMPLAINT OF GOVERNMENTS' MALICIOUS CIRCULAR ARGUMENT FOR PURPOSES OF RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, AND RETALIATION:
'THE CONCLUSIVELY PROVENALLEGA TIONS ARE FRIVOLOUS. THEREFORE THE CASE IS FIXED AS FRIVOLOUS.'
l t t I $ R T TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, THE HAGljf
[PAGES TOTAL: 196 + 213 (IMiibii.s||
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 30
CORRUPT UNITED STATES, FLORIDA, LEE & COLLIER COUNTY OFFICIALS
1. Crooked United States, Florida State, and Lcc and Collier County Agents and Officials are
named party Defendants in this U.S. and international Complaint of organized rampant
extortion, obstruction of justice, public corruption, concealment of corruption, cover-up,
conspiracy to conceal, and deliberate deprivations of the most fundamental rights under the
Federal and Florida Constitutions.
2. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing the Defendant U.S., State, and County
Government Officials in their private individual capacities, because, e.g., the record
extortion, obstruction of justice, retaliation, corruption, coercion, concealment of crimes,
cover-up, conspiracy to corrupt, fraud on the Courts, slander, and reckless deprivations were
outside the scope of any immunity and official capacity.
PARTIES' RECORD PATTERN OF RACKETEERING, CIVIL RICO, 18 USC § 1964
3. The named Defendants engaged and conspired to engage in the record pattern of
racketeering and perpetrated RICO predicate acts of, e.g., retaliation against the
Caucasian pro se Plaintiff whistleblowers, extortion of money [e.g., $5,048.60] and
property under false pretenses of a "writ of execution", falsified and un-recorded
"judgmenf\ Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338, 365, 87, 25.
NAMED CROOKED ATTORNEYS, AND OTHER PARTIES
4. The Plaintiff corruption victims arc suing the other named Defendant parties and Attorneys,
who conspired with U.S., Florida, Lcc and Collier County, Florida, Government Officials
and Agents to, e.g., extort money and property, obstruct justice, retaliate, deliberately
2
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1 Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 30
3
deprive, defraud, coerce, conceal corruption, cover up for corrupt Officials, and perpetuate
the perpetration of fraud on the State and U.S. Courts of record since at least 2006.
THE PARTIES ORCHESTRATED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & ADJUDICATION
5. The multi-year record organized extortion, retaliation, obstruction of justice and
adjudication of Plaintiffs’ perfected claims of orchestrated deliberate violations of express
most fundamental rights under the Federal and Florida Constitutions were prima facie
illegal and criminal acts of record.
NAMED DEFENDANT CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT PREDATORS OF RECORD
6. Just like in the Catholic Church scandals of organized pedophilia, rape, concealment, and
cover-up, here U.S. Government Officials betrayed the trust, retaliated, threatened and
intimidated innocent victims of organized institutional crimes and illegal acts with e.g.,
“punishment”, sanctions, extortion of fees and property, and coercion to refrain from
rightful prosecution.
7. Just like in the worldwide Catholic Church scandals, here under facially fraudulent
pretenses and color of authority, institutional Government predators in and of the United
States concealed Plaintiffs’ record Complaints of exactly how, when, and where U.S. Agents
fucked and raped innocent corruption victims. E.g., Dockets in the U.S. Circuit Court for the
11th Circuit could “not be located”. See Docket ## 201010963; 201010967.
JULY AND JUNE 2010 PUBLIC CORRUPTION & OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE:
DEFENDANT GOVERNMENT WHORE C. E. HONEYWELL
8. Inexperienced and incompetent female Afro-American U.S. District Judge Charlene Edwards
Honeywell has emerged as the latest Defendant Crooked Judge in the record U.S.
4
Government culture of rampant retaliation, extortion, public corruption, bribery,
coercion, concealment, cover-up, fraud, slander, and deliberate deprivations of record.
9. In June and July 2010, Defendant “Judicial Whore” C. E. Honeywell ramped up, e.g., the
organized retaliation, coercion, corruption, threats, intimidation, harassment, and intensity
of facially idiotic, irrational, arbitrary, capricious, and malicious attacks upon the Plaintiff
public corruption victims.
10. Defendant Government Whore C. E. Honeywell forever tarnished the reputation of U.S.
Courts, because she conspired with other Defendants to, e.g., extort, obstruct justice, and
fraudulently conceal. Def. Honeywell falsified and caused others to falsify official records
and documents for criminal and illegal purposes of, e.g., extorting, retaliating, defrauding,
and deliberately depriving the Plaintiff record landowners of their unimpeachable and
unencumbered marketable title and record property ownership. Honeywell acted with
wanton disregard for Plaintiffs’ express fundamental right under the Federal and Florida
Constitutions such as, e.g., Plaintiffs’ rights to redress Governmental grievances; own
property, and exclude Governments, be free of publicly recorded Government extortion,
retaliation, fraud, deliberate deprivations, and corruption.
ORCHESTRATED EXTORTION, RETALIATION, COERCION, AND CORRUPTION
11. Defendant U.S. Whore Honeywell illegally orchestrated the institutional and methodical
obstruction of justice & court access, retaliation, extortion, illegal denial of “filing
privileges”, and the rejection of pleadings and appeals for criminal and unlawful purposes of
extorting fees and Plaintiffs’ property under color of a fraudulently procured and facially
forged “writ of execution”, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. ## 236; 213, 214; and Case No.
2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. ## 48, 49, 50.
5
PARTIES IRREPARABLY TARNISHED CORRUPT REPUTATION OF U.S. COURTS
12. Any faith in any Government Official would appear “fundamentally” misplaced, because the
named party Defendants conspired to extort Gulf-front property worth hundreds of Millions
of Dollars [see fake “land parcels” of record] and deliberately deprived the Plaintiff
corruption victims of, e.g., the most fundamental 7th, 1st, 14th, 4th, and 5th U.S.
Constitutional Amendment and Florida Constitutional rights to, e.g., own property, exclude
Government, be free of unlawful and criminal seizures, redress Government grievances,
prosecute by jury trial, et al.
PLAINTIFF CORRUPTION, RACKETEERING, AND CORRUPTION VICTIMS
13. With particularity, the Plaintiff Government corruption victims defend their unimpeachable
and free and clear record real property title, riparian Gulf-front Parcel and/or S.T.R.A.P. #
12-44-20-01-00015.015A as perfectly conveyed and legally described in reference to the
1912 “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat of Survey in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25, against,
e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud on the Courts, deprivations, oppression, bribery, et al.
PLAINTIFFS’ “EX RELATIONE” APPEARANCE IN COURT
14. The Plaintiffs also appear in U.S. Court “ex rel.” on behalf of the United States and the
Federal Government, the State of Florida, and the People of Florida and/or the United States.
15. Under express public policy, the interests to be free of Government corruption, crimes,
and oppression as advanced by Dr. Busse and Prescott are similar to the interests of the
Government.
16. The practice of using private parties to prosecute criminal offenses is derived from English
common law. Traditionally, English criminal procedure relied heavily on a system of private
6
prosecution. Said traditional English system of private prosecution has been supplemented by
public intervention. The public prosecutor has no greater advantages than any private party.
PROSECUTION OF PANDEMIC PUBLIC CORRUPTION IN FLORIDA
17. Under Florida and Federal law, private individuals may prosecute in the interest of the
People. The Plaintiff private prosecutors seek legal remedies to free the People of the State of
Florida and/or United States of endemic and pandemic public corruption in Florida.
FLORIDA STATEWIDE GRAND JURY ON PUBLIC CORRUPTION
18. The Governor of the State of Florida called to convene a statewide grand jury on
public corruption, because “too many cases of corruption have occurred in Florida, and
our goal will be to hold government accountable.”
19. The State and U.S. Courts in Florida have not been in any position to exercise fair-minded
judgment and therefore fixed Plaintiffs’ Cases in exchange for bribes. As a result, the People
and Plaintiffs continue to suffer injuries from the publicly recorded Government
falsifications of, e.g., “writ of execution” (Doc. ## 434, 432, 422, 424, 386, 365, 386, 87,
25), “judgment”, “land parcels”, a “park”, et al.
JURISDICTION AND PROSECUTION PURSUANT TO DEF. U.S. ATTORNEY
20. The Defendant U.S. Attorney asserted prosecution and jurisdiction under civil RICO on or
around 06/30/2010:
“The only other vehicle for charging essentially criminal conduct in a civil forum is a
suit under the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (“civil RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).”
See Case 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 29, p. 4.
7
PLAINTIFFS’ PRIVATE FUNCTIONS:
PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO PERFORM ATTORNEY GENERAL’S FUNCTIONS
21. The Plaintiffs have been entitled to prosecute and perform the functions of the attorney
general’s office.
22. For illegal cover-up purposes, Defendant Government Officials deceptively concealed that
some private parties literally perform the exact functions of the attorney general’s office
though they themselves are not attorneys general. The attorney general regularly hires a
private attorney to do the work of her public office. In the Microsoft antitrust trial, e.g.,
deputy Attorney General Joel Klein hired private David Boies to try the United States’ case
against Microsoft. In the tobacco litigation, e.g., state attorneys general hired plaintiffs’
private counsel on a contingent fee basis to recoup state governments’ monetary losses due to
smoking. In Brown v. Board of Education, the State of South Carolina hired private lawyer
John W. Davis.
COMMON PRACTICE OF PRIVATIZATION
23. In such instances, public officials privatize their functions, hiring private parties to perform
as attorneys general, thereby creating private attorneys general.
24. Given the ever-increasing record proof of utter Government incompetence, BP, Katrina,
Madoff, Plaintiffs’ choice has been wise and prudent under the shocking circumstances of
Florida Government corruption and racketeering. Customarily, Florida attorneys “play
along to get along” and extort. See, e.g., Defendant Brigham Moore.
QUI TAM ACTION
25. Another form of attorney general substitution is available through the qui tam action. In the
qui tam case, private parties bring claims on behalf of the government. The qui tam lawyer is
8
not hired by the attorney general or government officials. Rather the private party is a self-
appointed party, pursuing government fraud where the government has not done so.
26. Here Plaintiffs appointed themselves in the pursuit of, e.g., publicly recorded Government
extortion, obstruction of justice, retaliation, and fraud.
PLAINTIFFS SHALL SUPPLEMENT AND SIMULATE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
27. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs have been entitled to supplement and simulate the attorney
general and act as their own private advocates in their fight against, e.g., Government
corruption, fraud, extortion, and racketeering of public record.
28. Under public policy, deterrence and compensation have been the field of both private and
public lawyering. Given the corruption and utter incompetence of Government in Florida,
Plaintiffs have been wise to proceed privately. Under public policy, Plaintiffs shall deter
public corruption and racketeering. See RICO statute.
29. The purpose of Florida Government is organized crime. Judicial Officers in U.S. Courts in
Florida threatened, intimidated, and retaliated against the Plaintiffs, because Plaintiff
Government victims exposed Government corruption, extortion, bribery, and fraud in
Florida. See 19th Statewide Grand Jury on Public Corruption, Exhibit CC.
9
JURISDICTION:
PATENTLY CLEAR FEDERAL JURISDICTION SINCE AT LEAST 2006
30. 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968; Civil RICO; “Organized Crime Control Act”; “Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Organization Act”;
a. Section 1961 (Definitions) and Section 1962 (Prohibited Activities) apply to both
criminal and civil cases. As a result, decisions involving criminal charges are frequently
cited in civil appellate decisions.
b. Section 1963 provides criminal penalties.
c. Section 1964 creates the civil cause of action.
d. Section 1965 addresses venue service of processes in civil cases.
31. 18 USC § 1341 (relating to mail fraud);
32. 1st, 14th, 7th, 4th, 11th, 5th U.S. Constitutional Amendments;
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985; Civil Rights Acts;
28 U.S.C § 455; Recusal Statute;
33. [18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, deliberate deprivations under color of law (such as, e.g., fake “writ
of execution”; fake “$5,048.60 judgment”; fake “resolution 569/875”, et al.);
18 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4, cover-up of crimes;
18 U.S.C. §§ 1511, 1513, 3771, retaliation against whistleblowers.
34. Jurisdiction over U.S. Agents’ record perversions and rape of Florida law such as, e.g.:
a. Section 838.022, Florida Statutes, OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT;
b. Chapter 838, Fla. Stat., BRIBERY, MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE;
c. Chapter 55, 56, Final Process, 712 (Florida’s self-enforcing Marketable Record Title
Act), 73 and 74 (Eminent Domain), 95 (Adverse Possession);
10
d. Chapter 51 Summary Procedure, Fla. Stat.;
e. Florida express Constitutional Guarantees of Fundamental Right to own property, and
eminent domain due process and equal protection of the law.
JURISDICTION AND PROSECUTION PURSUANT TO DEF. U.S. ATTORNEY
35. The U.S. Courts have jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ causes of action regarding the eradication
of publicly recorded organized Government crimes under color of, e.g., falsified “land
parcels”, “writ of execution”, and fake “$5,048.60 judgment”.
36. The Defendant U.S. Attorney asserted prosecution and jurisdiction under civil RICO on or
around 06/30/2010:
“The only other vehicle for charging essentially criminal conduct in a civil forum is a suit under the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“civil RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).”
See Case 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 29, p. 4.
JURISDICTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
37. Plaintiffs are asserting Civil RICO claims, and in particular:
a. (1) Injury to Plaintiffs’ property and/or business, because the Defendants b. (2) while involved in one or more identified relationships with an enterprise, c. (3) engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity and/or collecting an unlawful debt.
See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, e.g., Doc. ## 434, 432, 422, 424, 365, 386, 87, 25.
CIVIL RICO LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION CLAUSE
38. RICO is a Federal statute with civil remedy provisions available to both the government
and private individuals. RICO is a substantive Federal statute with a liberal construction
clause. The clause specifically provides that "the provisions of this Title (Title IX) shall be
liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes". See PUB. L. No. 91452, Section
904(a), 84 STAT. 947 (1970).
39. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a) provides:
11
“The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 of this chapter by issuing appropriate orders, including, but not limited to: ordering any person to divest himself of any interest, direct, or indirect, in any enterprise; imposing reasonable restrictions on the future activities or investments of any person, including, but not limited to, prohibiting any person from engaging in the same type of endeavor as the enterprise engaged in, the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or ordering dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise, making due provision for the rights of innocent persons.”
See also S. Rep. No. 617, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 79 (1969)(referring to RICO's "civil law
approach of equitable relief broad enough to do all that is necessary to free the channels of
commerce from all illicit activity").
40. Here, the U.S. Courts had jurisdiction over Defendant Government Officials and Judges and
their retaliation, obstruction of justice, adjudication, and orders for Defendant Racketeers
to divest themselves of the extorted money and property such as, e.g., Hundreds of Acres of
land on the Gulf of Mexico and Charlotte Harbor, PB 3 PG 25 (1912), under color of, e.g., a
fake “writ of execution”, falsified “$5,048.60 debt”, and fake “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-
00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”.
FRAUD ON THE COURT, FALSE PRETENSES OF “NO JURISDICTION”
41. The corrupt U.S. District (Florida Middle District) and Circuit Courts (11th Circuit) have had
patently clear jurisdiction over the unlawful and criminal acts of public record by the
Defendant United States Agents and Government Officials. Fraudulently, Defendant United
States Judges had concealed patently clear U.S. jurisdiction under color of, e.g., “no
jurisdiction”, power, “authority”, “frivolity”, sham “regulatory taking” pretenses [absent
any regulation], sham “inverse condemnation” pretenses [Plaintiffs refused to exchange and
defended their perfected record title], and fake “ripeness requirements”.
INDISPUTABLE JURISDICTION OVER RECORD RACKETEERING & EXTORTION
12
42. Under, e.g., the Civil RICO statute and Civil Rights Acts, the U.S. Courts have had
indisputable jurisdiction over, e.g., record extortion, retaliation, concoctions of a non-
existent “07/29/2009 judgment”, fake “writ of execution”, Doc. # 434, 432, 425, 422, 424,
386, by Defendant U.S. Agents.
CLEAR U.S. JURISDICTION OVER RECORD BRIBERY AND EXTORTION
43. The U.S. Courts have had indisputable jurisdiction over the publicly recorded Government
corruption involving Defendant U.S. Government Agents and the acceptance of Defendants’
bribes by the Defendant U.S. and other Judges and Officials.
44. U.S. Courts have had indisputable jurisdiction over the fabrications of unsubstantiated
“attorneys fees” and non-existent “writ of execution” and “judgment” by Defendant
Government Officials, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 422, 424, 365, 360,
386, 87, 282, 288.
45. The U.S. Courts have had jurisdiction over unlawful and criminal acts perpetrated by U.S.
Government Defendants outside the scope of their official capacity.
46. The U.S. Courts have known and concealed that just like in the Catholic Church scandals of
institutional pedophiles and sexual predators, cover-up and concealment (from top Officials
all the way down the institutional hierarchy) have been the Defendant Governments’ custom
and policy in this and other Cases. Said Courts have known and concealed that just like the
Church predators, U.S. Government criminals covered up for each other, which invoked U.S.
jurisdiction.
47. Said Courts have
a. Known and concealed that public corruption has been pandemic in Florida and involved U.S. Courts at all levels; and
b. Fraudulently concealed that public policy therefore demanded the civil and criminal prosecution of Defendant corrupt U.S. Government Officials in U.S. Courts.
13
CLEAR U.S. JURISDICTION OVER ANY AND ALL CLAIMS
48. The U.S. Courts have had clear jurisdiction over any and all claims involving United States
Agents and Defendants such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, deprivations, fraud, Judicial
Officers’ fraud on the Courts, and of course including “state claims”.
PREVIOUS CONCEALMENT OF JURISDICTION BY U.S. DEFENDANTS
49. In exchange for other Defendants’ bribes, the judicial Defendants previously concealed and
conspired to conceal patently clear Federal jurisdiction.
50. The Federal Defendants’ deliberate deprivations of any meaningful opportunity of justice and
the just, speedy, and inexpensive adjudication of Plaintiffs’ claims for relief were unlawful
and criminal acts of record, which invoked U.S. jurisdiction.
51. Fraudulently and recklessly, Government Defendants had concealed jurisdiction under false
pretenses of, e.g., non-existent ripeness requirements, which invoked U.S. jurisdiction. In
particular, the U.S. Defendants have conspired to conceal that of course, the Plaintiffs
rightfully prosecuted 1st, 14th, 4th, 7th and 5th Amendment violations by Federal Defendants
in Federal Court.
52. The U.S. Courts have had jurisdiction over. e.g., Defendant corrupt U.S. Judge Honeywell’s
06/23/09 fabrications of “necessary state procedures”:
“They have not exhausted the necessary state procedures to address their dispute prior to filing in federal court. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Seventh Amendment claim.” See Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791; Doc. # 213, p. 18.
53. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that Plaintiffs’ prosecution of
Federal Defendants for Seventh Amendment Violations did of course not require “necessary
state procedures”. Brazenly and idiotically, Defendant Honeywell concocted “necessary
14
state procedures” on the record. Said reckless fabrications were outside Honeywell’s scope
of immunity and official capacity.
54. Fraudulently and recklessly, judicial Defendants had concealed jurisdiction under false
pretenses of, e.g., “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”. See Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 50,
p. 4.
55. Fraudulently and recklessly, judicial Defendants had concealed jurisdiction under false
pretenses of, e.g., “lack of subject matter jurisdiction” even though the Defendant Federal
Agents were subject to Federal jurisdiction whether or not the questions were Federal or non-
Federal questions.
56. Therefore, the Plaintiffs had always properly prosecuted the Federal Agents in this Court.
57. In all previous Cases, this Court had always patently clear jurisdiction.
58. E.g., judicial Defendant Honeywell fraudulently pretended, Doc. # 213, p. 21:
“B. Supplemental Jurisdiction The decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state claims rests within the discretion of the district court.” Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (11th Cir. 2004). Once a district court dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). This Court, therefore, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state claims.”
59. Any and all “state claims” involving Federal Agents and Defendants absolutely invoked
Federal jurisdiction. This corrupt Court deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of justice and
adjudication of their claims under fraudulent pretenses of, e.g., “lack of jurisdiction”, which
invoked Federal jurisdiction.
15
VENUE:
VENUE IN LIGHT OF PANDEMIC PUBLIC CORRUPTION & RACKETEERING
60. The Plaintiff Government racketeering and corruption victims are residing in New
Hampshire, U.S.A., and are entitled to redress their Government grievances in the UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. See public records.
61. The Plaintiffs are European citizens who have lived in fear of, e.g., the record unlawful and
criminal Government retaliation, extortion, obstruction of justice, threats, punishments,
pandemic corruption, coercion, fraud, and deliberate deprivations by Government Agents.
DEMAND FOR RELIEF FROM CORRUPTION: TRANSFER OF PENDING ACTIONS
62. Because of the record pandemic public corruption in the 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit and
the two previous U.S. District Courts, the Plaintiffs demand equitable and other relief and
immediate transfer of all pending actions to a non-corrupt venue outside of endemically
corrupted Florida, Georgia, and Alabama.
FLORIDA PATTERN AND POLICY OF FALSIFICATIONS
63. At the center of the public corruption and racketeering scandal and cover-up have been the
recorded Florida falsifications of, e.g., a “writ of execution”, “$5,048.60 judgment”, “land
parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” for criminal and illegal
purposes of, e.g., retaliating and extorting Court fees, money, and property through
organized illegal Government enterprises in Florida.
16
EXTORTION, PUBLIC CORRUPTION, AND RACKETEERING IN FLORIDA:
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL THAT PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE FUNDAMENTAL
64. The Federal Defendants conspired to fraudulently conceal that property rights are most
fundamental rights under Florida and Federal supreme law. E.g., on or around 06/23/2010,
Defendant Honeywell conspired to brazenly and irrationally concoct, Doc. # 213, p. 20:
“Property rights would not be fundamental rights since they are based on state law.” Id. Here, Plaintiffs claim that they have been denied their alleged property rights in Lot 15A. These property rights are defined by state law. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Substantive Due Process Claim.”
65. No halfway intelligent and non-corrupt judge in Defendant Honeywell’s shoes could have
possibly denied that property rights and the right to own property and exclude Government
are most fundamental rights.
IDIOTIC AND NAZI STYLE GOVERNMENT CRIMES IN FLORIDA
66. Any reading of most of the orders and judgments (in dozens of Plaintiffs’ Cases since 2006)
by the Defendant Judges in State and Federal Courts for Florida evidenced shocking
similarity with NAZI Government tactics of oppression and terror. See, e.g., BUSSE v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 2006-CA-003185, Lee County, Florida, Circuit Court.
67. Reckless destruction and erosion of most of the express fundamental rights under the
Florida and Federal Constitutions required transfer away from corrupt Florida Courts
with a totally tarnished reputation.
PLAINTIFFS ARE CORRUPTION VICTIMS IN FEAR OF FURTHER RETALIATION:
RECORD OWNERSHIP OF AND TITLE TO LOT 15A, 12-44-20-01-00015.015A
68. Plaintiffs are Government corruption victims in fear of further Government retaliation,
obstruction of justice, and extortion on the run from Florida’s pandemic culture of public
corruption and racketeering.
17
69. Defendant U.S. Government Agents fraudulently concealed, and conspired to conceal, their
recorded and published extortion, obstruction of justice, corruption, bribery, crimes, and
illegal acts of record. Defendant Government Racketeers covered up for each other for years.
70. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are the unimpeachable record owners of riparian Lot
15A on the Gulf on Mexico, S.T.R.A.P. # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See PRESCOTT v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009).
71. Plaintiffs’ Warranty Deed, Lee County INSTRUMENT # 2010000171344, expressly stated
the extent of Plaintiffs’ conveyance in reference to the 1912 Plat of Survey of the private
undedicated residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25.
72. Three other Plats of Survey in Plat Book 1, Pages 48, 51, and 52, conclusively evidenced the
history and accretion of the private “Cayo Costa” Subdivision lands since 1910.
73. Because Lot 15A, “Cayo Costa”, had naturally accreted the record designation was “Lot
15A”. See four “Cayo Costa” Plats of Survey in Lee County Plat Book 1, Pages 48, 51, and
52 (1910 through 1912) and Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912). See PRESCOTT v. STATE OF
FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009).
18
HISTORY OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION & RACKETEERING:
PREVIOUS LITIGATION IN STATE AND U.S. DISTRICT & CIRCUIT COURTS
STATE ACTION, 2006-CA-003185, BUSSE v. STATE OF FLORIDA
74. In State Court, 2006-CA-003185, BUSSE v. STATE OF FLORIDA, the Plaintiffs had
conclusively evidenced, e.g., fraud, deception, conspiracy to defraud and deliberately
deprive, corruption “”land grab scheme”), and their most fundamental rights to, e.g., own
their riparian Lot 15A, “Cayo Costa”, exclude Government, be free of Government seizures,
corruption, forgeries, and legally incomprehensible and fake “land parcels” and “land
claims”, which the law did not recognize.
PREVIOUSLY ALLEGED & CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN FRAUD, CORRUPTION…
75. Under “COUNT 4: CONSPIRACY TO FABRICATE UNPLATTED LOT A, BLOCK 1
& PARK; FRAUD; MALFEASANCE”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 288, p. 5, the
Plaintiffs had perfectly pleaded, e.g., “conspiracy to fabricate”, “fraud”, “malfeasance”,
“deception”, trickery, public corruption (“land grab scheme”), and “denial of the equal
protection of the laws”:
“24. Without title evidence in the public Grantor/Grantee Index, Defendant [Wilkinson] conspired to concoct un-platted lot A ([fake] Property I.D. 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0), block 1, ([forged] Property I.D. 07-44-21-01-00001.0000), and park. With malicious purpose, Defendant [Wilkinson] assisted the plan to deceive with materially altered plat, maps, and records to obtain benefits for State and County. Said acts and omissions were in willful disregard of property. Defendant denied agricultural classification of Plaintiff’s accreted lot, all of which had been formed by accretions since approx. 1910. Therefore, Defendant [Wilkinson] destroyed most of Plaintiff’s property value, deprived him of private easements without compensation, and denied equal protection of the laws in a land grab scheme pursuant to Ch. 768.” “A reasonable appraiser, surveyor or title agent cannot locate lot A or block 1 on the Plat and must presume invalidity of ‘OR 569/875’, lot A, and block 1 as a matter of established real property law, standards, and tenets…” See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 288, p. 5, ¶¶ 24, 25.
19
76. Defendant Government Officials and Defendants knew their false assertions of “eminent
domain” to be unlawful and criminal acts, because “eminent domain” had never occurred.
77. The Defendants knew and fraudulently concealed that Plaintiffs’ perfectly pleaded causes of
action were perfectly ripe for Federal adjudication. However, the Defendants conspired to
obstruct justice and adjudication in an organized orchestration of Government rape and
perversion of supreme Florida and Federal law.
78. The corrupt State and U.S. Courts never addressed the perfectly pleaded causes of action for
criminal and illegal purposes of concealing Government forgeries and covering up for
Government criminal who acted outside the scope of their official capacity.
79. Had there been [merely hypothetically] “eminent domain”, title would have transferred from
Plaintiffs to Government. Plain and short, Plaintiffs had pleaded, e.g., Government
“deception”, trickery, fraud, fraudulent concealment, and public corruption, which of course
invoked Federal jurisdiction did not require any
“23. Defendant Property Appraiser claimed and published that draft “569/875’ entitled Lee County to claim ownership of un-platted lot A, and block 1. Under oath, Defendant Appraiser admitted that Cayo Costa was unencumbered by public easements and not dedicated.” See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 288, Third Amended Complaint, p. 5, ¶ 23.
80. Defendant Government Officials knew and fraudulently concealed that as a matter of law, the
fraudulently pretended and fabricated “Lee County ownership” of non-existent “lot A”, fake
“parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”, and non-existent “block 1”, fictitious “parcel” “07-44-
21-01-00001.0000” had been absolutely legally impossible, because any ownership would
have implied easement rights the record absence of which Defendant Wilkinson had admitted
under oath thereby affirming the public record and PB 3 PG 25 (1912).
20
81. “Selective reading” of a complaint and “concealment of its essential parts did not constitute
failure to state a claim but reckless deprivations, public corruption, deception, trickery, fraud,
malfeasance as perfectly pleaded in said Third Amended Complaint.
82. The U.S. Courts [Defendant Crooked Judges Steele and Chappell removed 2006 State action
to Federal Court] obstructed the adjudication of Plaintiffs’ perfectly pleaded claims for relief.
The Defendant Corrupt Judges were obligated to review the entire Complaint: Pick and
choose was not any lawful option under the law.
21
ADOPTION:
ADOPTION BY REFERENCE OF THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, DOC. 288, 282
83. Hereby, the Plaintiffs adopt by reference the attached “Third Amended Complaint”, Doc. ##
288, 282, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228 in this Complaint. See Exhibit A.
84. In said Complaint, Plaintiffs had alleged and proven the prima facie illegality, criminality,
and nullity of facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-
00001.0000”.
22
DEFENDANT JACK N. PETERSON
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS
85. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing JACK N. PETERSON in his private
individual capacity and official capacity as Assistant Lee County Attorney. Defendant
Peterson’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official
capacity.
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
86. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly authorized
civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer PETERSON perpetrated record RICO predicate acts
such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
87. Defendant PETERSON knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,
Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of
extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering:
“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2.
Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded
extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
88. Defendant Crooked J. N. PETERSON injured the Plaintiff record property and business
owners by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C).
Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property,
riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section
23
1961(3). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses,
business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant
PETERSON’S extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice.
89. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official PETERSON extorted money, fees, and property
under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land
parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had
never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and
property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at
Brigham Moore.
90. Defendant PETERSON knew that
a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1;
b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386; c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record; d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”; e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”; f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired; g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed; h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could
not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson.
91. Said Defendant PETERSON fraudulently concealed that
“(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).”
See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS
92. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant
PETERSON’S Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the
publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation,
24
fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land
parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake
“writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness
requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338,
288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5.
CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY
93. Defendant PETERSON acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire
control of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such
as, e.g.:
a. Exercising various forms of extortion; b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such
as, e.g., “$5,048.60”; c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates; d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes.
FOR BRIBES DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT
94. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeer PETERSON concealed and conspired with
other Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent:
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490
(11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959)
DEFENDANT PETERSON’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY
95. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant J. N. PETERSON has been collecting
an unlawful debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie
illicit “park” enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision
25
as platted in 1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant
PETERSON’S and other Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”,
entertainment, and recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of
falsified “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an
area of Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25.
96. Section 1962(B) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.”
DEFENDANT’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION”
97. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant PETERSON has been collecting an
unlawful debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise.
Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant PETERSON’S and other Officials’
participation in said record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ##
“12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in
Government fraud and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”.
98. Section 1962(c) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.”
99. The Plaintiffs proved
1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce;
26
2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation” enterprise; 3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
100. As a Crooked Attorney overseeing Lee County Defendants’ prima facie fraudulent
defenses, claims, falsifications, and forgeries, Defendant PETERSON had a very
meaningful connection between the illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of
land, money, and fees for the enterprise under color of, e.g., office and authority.
101. Defendant PETERSON extorted and concealed, and conspired to extort and conceal,
that he procedure on execution did not accord with the procedure of the State of Florida. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 69. Defendant knew that Florida procedure required a recorded and certified
judgment, which here had never existed. The Court never had any authority to award
“$5,048.60”, and the judgment issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 in the amount of $24.30 had
been paid. The prima facie fraudulent “affidavit” by Defendant Racketeer JACK N.
PETERSON fraudulently pretended a “07/29/2009” “judgment”, Doc. # 432-2, Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228, which all Defendants knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal had
never existed. See also Ch. 55, 56, Florida Statutes.
CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT
102. Defendant PETERSON conspired with other Officials and Defendants to extort fees,
money, and property from the Plaintiffs in the recorded absence of any “judgment” and
“writ of execution”. See certified Docket of Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
27
COVER-UP AND CONCEALMENT OF DEF. WILKINSON’S RECORD FORGERIES
103. As latest Attorney for Defendant Forger K. M. Wilkinson, Def. PETERSON concealed
forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with
wanton disregard for Plaintiffs’ express fundamental property rights under the Florida
and Federal Constitutions.
CONSPIRACY TO BRIBE AND DELIBERATELY DEPRIVE
104. Def. PETERSON conspired with other Defendants to bribe Defendant Government
Officials and Judges and deliberately deprive the Plaintiffs of express fundamental rights
and guarantees of the Florida and Federal Constitutions such as, e.g., to own property,
exclude Governments from Plaintiffs’ Lot 15A, “Cayo Costa”, be free of Government
corruption, oppression, fraud, terror, prosecute by jury trial, and of due process and equal
protection of the law under fraudulent pretenses of, e.g., forged “land parcels” and “writ of
execution”.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF DEF. WILKINSON’S CRIMES
105. After Def. “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson had deceptively “claimed” 11th U.S. Const.
Amendment immunity, which in and by itself had invoked Federal jurisdiction, Defendant
Lee County Assistant Attorney PETERSON acted as Def. Forger Wilkinson’s Attorney and
concealed Wilkinson’s publicly recorded crimes and unlawful acts.
EXTENSION OF CULTURE OF ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIMES
106. Def. Peterson extended the policy and culture of organized Lee County Government
crimes and public corruption. Over the years dozens of Lee County Officials have been
criminally investigated and/or faced criminal charges. In particular, Peterson extended the
publicly recorded fabrications of fake “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-
28
44-21-01-00001.0000”, which Def. Peterson could not locate on the Plat of the private Cayo
Costa Subdivision as conveyed and legally described in reference to the 1912 Plat in Lee
County Plat Book 3, Page 25.
CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AND EVADE CLAIMS
107. In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, bribed Judges simply obstructed justice and evaded
the issues and claims for relief. In this recorded conspiracy and “Cayo Costa Gate”, any and
all Judges in the criminal gang of Judges conspired not to determine the obvious and
patently clear lack of any “lot 00A0” and “block “00001” on the 1912 “Cayo Costa”
Subdivision Plat, PB 3 PG 25. See “Third Amended Complaint”, Doc. ## 288, 282, Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228. While said “parcel” forgeries and fraud and extortion scheme could have
been certified and verified within seconds, Peterson managed to conspire with other
Government Officials and Defendants to perpetuate the decades old record crimes with
corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits at Plaintiffs’ expense and injury.
108. Perhaps Judge Douglas N. Frazier should be noted here, because he recused himself “in
the interest of justice”.
FABRICATION OF “writ of execution”
109. Def. PETERSON fabricated and conspired to fabricate:
“… along with this Court’s Writ of Execution …” See Doc. # 434, 425, 432, p. 1, Case
No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
110. With corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits and injure the Plaintiff corruption victims,
Defendant Peterson and Wilkinson “moved for entry of order directing public sale of real
property …”, Doc. # 432, 05/21/10, in the known record absence of any judgment that
could have possibly become a lien on property. See Ch. 56, § 55.10, Fla. Stat.
29
CONSPIRACY TO FABRICATE
111. Defendants Peterson and Wilkinson conspired with other Defendants to fabricate a
“$5,048.60 judgment” even though none could be found on the Docket of Case No. 2:2007-
cv-00228.
DEFENDANT RYAN BARRY
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS
112. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Ryan Barry in his private individual
capacity and official capacity as Supervising U.S. Deputy Marshal, Fort Myers, FL.
Defendant Barry’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and
official capacity.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF WRIT OF EXECUTION-EXTORTION-SCHEME
113. Defendant Ryan Barry knew and fraudulently concealed that no authentic and genuine
“writ of execution” had ever existed or been “issued”. Barry knew that on the face of a sham
“writ”, no judge could possibly be identified.
AFFIDAVIT AND OBSTRUCTION OF SUSPENSION OF EXECUTION
114. Defendant Barry acknowledged receipt of Plaintiffs’ AFFIDAVIT requiring
SUSPENSION of any and all proceedings on execution under Florida law. Def. Barry
obstructed justice, extorted, and retaliated. In the recorded absence of any “judgment”
and debt, Def. Barry conspired with other Officials to extort Plaintiffs’ property and money.
See recorded and published AFFIDAVIT.
CONSPIRACY TO FALSIFY OFFICIAL DOCUMENT
115. Defendant Barry conspired with other Officials and Defendants to falsify official
records. In the record absence of any genuine and valid “writ of execution”, Def. Supervisor
30
Barry refused to correct the fraudulent acts on the record and prevent further harm. With
corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits, Def. Barry deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of
their express fundamental rights and Constitutional guarantees to own property, exclude
Government, and be free of Government corruption, extortion, and illegal seizures.
CONSPIRACY TO INTIMIDATE AND RETALIATE AGAINST PLAINTIFFS
116. Because the Plaintiff public corruption victims had previously sued Richard Jessup, U.S.
Deputy Marshal, Defendant R. Barry agreed with other Officials to intimidate and retaliate
against the Plaintiff record landowners. Def. Barry conspired with other Government
Officials and Defendants to intimidate, harass, and coerce the Plaintiffs to refrain from
prosecuting and reporting the record public corruption in the U.S. District and Circuit Court.
CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT PROPERTY UNDER FRAUDULENT PRETENSES
117. Under fraudulent pretenses of a facially forged “writ of execution”, Def. Barry
conspired with other Officials to extort Plaintiffs’ property without any justifying
“judgment” or any other explanation and due process. When Plaintiffs notified Def. Barry
and proved the fraud on the record, Barry expressly stated that he did not care.
PATTERN AND POLICY OF THREATS AND COERCION
118. Previously under Def. Barry’s reported supervision, Co-Defendant Richard Jessup had
threatened Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorg Busse in Naples, Florida, in the presence
of a witnessing family member (B. P.).
119. Even though the Plaintiffs had filed police reports and complained about Co-Defendant
Richard Jessup’s coercion and threats, Jessup continued to harass and intimidate the
Plaintiffs. In particular, Co-Defendant Jessup continued to coerce the Plaintiffs to refrain
from prosecution or face seizure of their property in the “Cayo Costa” Subdivision.
31
120. Def. Barry knew that the Plaintiffs had specifically reported the prima facie nullity and
illegality of Jessup’s “writ of execution”-extortion-scheme. With particularity, Defendant
Barry knew and fraudulently concealed that there had never been any legitimate grounds for
any “writ of execution” and that the facially forged “writ” was for criminal and illegal
purposes of, e.g., record coercion and extorting fees and property from the Plaintiff public
corruption whistleblowers.
OBSTRUCTION OF COMMUNICATIONS AS TO COMMISSION OF CRIMES
121. Defendant Ryan Barry obstructed and prevented the communications of information
relating to the commission of felonies and unlawful acts directly involving, e.g., Defendant
Crooked Judges Honeywell, S. Polster Chappell, and John E. Steele.
THREATS, INTIMIDATION, AND HARRASSMENT
122. For unlawful purposes of, e.g., coercing the Plaintiffs to refrain from reporting crimes
and prosecuting corrupt Government Officials and concealing public corruption, Defendant
Samuel intimidated, harassed, and threatened the Plaintiffs with punishment and
prosecution under color of office and authority.
123. Defendant Barry knew and fraudulently concealed that Defendant U.S. Judges had
deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of express fundamental rights such as, e.g., due
process, equal protection of the law, prosecution by jury trial, equal court access, freedom
from Government oppression and terror, and freedom from unlawful seizures.
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL CORRUPTION AND BRIBERY
124. Defendant Ryan Barry conspired to conceal public corruption, and that in exchange for
bribes, Defendant Judges and Government Officials had deliberately deprived the Plaintiff
corruption victims of their express fundamental rights under the Florida and Federal
32
Constitutions. Def. Barry knew that on the record, U.S. Defendants had perverted, e.g., the
express fundamental rights to be free of Government corruption, oppression, fraudulent
seizure of property, to own property, exclude Government, redress Government grievances,
and defend against public corruption and Government crimes.
CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT COMMUNICATIONS OF CRIME INFORMATION
125. In direct communications, the Plaintiffs had repeatedly reported Government forgeries
of fictitious “land parcels” and a non-existent “park” to Def. Barry, who recklessly
obstructed Plaintiffs’ crime information about the land-grab-extortion-scheme and fake
“parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, which neither Def.
Barry nor Co-Defendant Jessup could identify on the 1912 “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat of
Survey in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25.
PERJURY AND/OR MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION FOR EXTORTION
126. Def. Barry knew and fraudulently concealed that for criminal and/or unlawful purposes
of extortion of property and coercion, Co-Defendant Barry had perjured himself and/or
materially misrepresented “service” and/or “process”. See Doc. # 429, Case No. 2:2007-cv-
00228. Def. Barry knew and fraudulently concealed that Co-Defendant Richard Jessup had
never served Dr. “Jorg Busse at Clerk’s office of U.S. Courthouse” on “2-8-10”.
FRAUD AND DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS
127. Defendants Ryan Barry and Richard Jessup knew the facially deceptive information on
the “process receipt and return” to be fraudulent, Doc. # 429, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228:
“Subject property is located as shown on maps contained in the website of the Lee County Property Appraiser, Parcel No. 12-44-20-01-00015.015A (www.leepa.org).”
33
CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT & MISLEAD UNDER COLOR OF OFFICE
128. Defendant Wilkinson was a named party Defendant without any authority to pervert
Plaintiffs’ record conveyance of riparian Lot 15A, “Cayo Costa”, on the Gulf of Mexico in
reference to said PB 3 PG 25 (1912). See Warranty Deed, Lot 15A, LEE COUNTY INSTR
# 2010000171344. Def. Supervisor Barry knew and fraudulently concealed that Defendant
Wilkinson was not any professional surveyor or real property attorney, and unauthorized to
determine any parcel boundaries or “site” on the soil. See also PRESCOTT v. STATE OF
FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009):
“I. BACKGROUND A. Current Action The Appellants are owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision in Lee County, Florida.”
CONSPIRACY TO DECEIVE AND PERPETRATE FRAUD ON THE COURT
129. Defendants R. Barry and R. Jessup ignored, concealed, and deceived, and conspired to
fraudulently misrepresent the specific “disclaimers” and notices on the referenced website,
“www.leepa.org”. Said website was only for “assessed property value” purposes. Plaintiff
Dr. Jorg Busse is a State Certified Appraiser who had proven the fraud and extortion
schemes by Def. “land parcel” Forger Kenneth M. Wilkinson.
EXTENSION OF RECORD EXTORTION AND FRAUD SCHEMES
130. Defendant Ryan Barry extended the record extortion and fraud schemes by Defendant
“land parcel” Forger Kenneth M. Wilkinson.
CONSPIRACY TO “POST” PLAINTIFFS’ UNENCUMBERED PROPERTY
131. Defendant Crooked Barry knew and fraudulently concealed that Plaintiffs’ riparian
property was unencumbered and free and clear of any “judgment”, because no unpaid
34
“judgment” could be found on the Docket of Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228 and no genuine valid
“writ of execution” had ever been “issued”.
132. Defendant Barry conspired with other Officials to “post” Plaintiffs’ facially
unencumbered property for illegal and criminal purposes such as, e.g., coercing and
retaliating against the Plaintiffs, and extorting their property. See Doc. # 429, Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228.
DEFENDANT BETTYE G. SAMUEL
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS
133. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing U.S. Defendant Bettye G. Samuel in her
private individual capacity and official capacity as Judicial Assistant to Defendant Crooked
Judge C. E. Honeywell. Defendant Samuel’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were
outside any immunity and official capacity.
OBSTRUCTION OF COMMUNICATIONS AS TO COMMISSION OF CRIMES
134. Defendant Samuel obstructed and prevented the communications of information
relating to the commission of felonies and unlawful acts directly involving, e.g., Defendant
Crooked Judge Honeywell and S. Polster Chappell.
THREATS, INTIMIDATION, AND HARRASSMENT
135. For unlawful purposes of, e.g., coercing the Plaintiffs to refrain from reporting crimes
and prosecuting corrupt Government Officials and concealing public corruption, Defendant
Samuel intimidated, harassed, and threatened the Plaintiffs with punishment and
prosecution under color of office and authority.
136. Defendant Samuel knew and fraudulently concealed that Def. Corrupt Honeywell
deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of express fundamental rights such as, e.g., due
35
process, equal protection of the law, prosecution by jury trial, equal court access, freedom
from Government oppression and terror.
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL CORRUPTION AND BRIBERY
137. Defendant Samuel knew and conspired to conceal public corruption, and that in
exchange for bribes, Defendant Judges and Government Officials had deliberately deprived
the Plaintiff corruption victims of their express fundamental rights under the Florida and
Federal Constitutions. On the record, U.S. Defendants had perverted, e.g., the express
fundamental rights to be free of Government corruption, oppression, fraudulent seizure of
property, to own property, exclude Government, redress Government grievances, and
defend against public corruption and Government crimes.
DEFENDANT RICHARD A. LAZZARA
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS
138. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Corrupt Richard A.
Lazzara in his private individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. District Judge.
Defendant Lazzara’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and
official capacity.
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
139. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer R. A. Lazzara perpetrated record RICO
predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
140. Defendant R. A. Lazzara knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,
Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of
extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering:
36
“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2.
Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against recorded extortion,
racketeering, corruption, and fraud.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
141. Defendant Crooked R. A. Lazzara injured the Plaintiff record property and business
owners by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C).
Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property,
riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section
1961(3). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses,
business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant R. A.
Lazzara’s racketeering, extortion, and obstruction of justice.
18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS
142. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant
Lazzara’s Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the
publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation,
fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land
parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake
“writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness
requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338,
288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5.
CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY
37
143. Defendant Lazzara acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire
control of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such
as, e.g.:
a. Exercising various forms of extortion;
b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such
as, e.g., “$5,048.60”;
c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates;
d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes.
FOR BRIBES DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT
144. In exchange for bribes, Defendant U.S. Racketeer Lazzara concealed and conspired
with other Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent:
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490
(11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959)
DEFENDANT LAZZARA’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY
145. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Lazzara has been collecting an
unlawful debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie
illicit “park” enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision
as platted in 1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Lazzara’s
and other Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”, entertainment, and
recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of falsified “land
38
parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an area of
Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25.
146. Section 1962(B) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.”
DEFENDANT LAZZARA’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION”
147. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Lazzara has been collecting an
unlawful debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise.
Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Lazzara’s and other Officials’
participation in said record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ##
“12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in
Government fraud and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”.
148. Section 1962(c) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.”
149. The Plaintiffs proved
1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce; 2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation” enterprise; 3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
39
150. As an objectively partial and Crooked U.S. Judge presiding over Defendants’ prima facie
fraudulent defenses, claims, falsifications, and forgeries, Defendant Lazzara had a very
meaningful connection between the illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of
land, money, and fees for the enterprise under color of, e.g., office and authority.
151. Defendant Lazzara extorted and concealed, and conspired to extort and conceal, that he
procedure on execution did not accord with the procedure of the State of Florida. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 69. Defendant knew that Florida procedure required a recorded and certified
judgment, which here had never existed. The Court never had any authority to award
“$5,048.60”, and the judgment issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 in the amount of $24.30 had
been paid. The prima facie fraudulent “affidavit” by Defendant Racketeer JACK N.
PETERSON fraudulently pretended a “07/29/2009” “judgment”, Doc. # 432-2, Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228, which all Defendants knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal had
never existed. See also Ch. 55, 56, Florida Statutes.
BRIBERY AND PUBLIC CORRUPTION
152. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Richard A. Lazzara deliberately deprived the
Plaintiff corruption victims of their express fundamental rights under the Florida and
Federal Constitutions. Defendant Lazzara perverted and conspired with other Officials to
pervert the express fundamental rights to be free of Government corruption, oppression,
fraudulent seizure of property, to own property, exclude Government, redress Government
grievances, and defend against public corruption and Government crimes.
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL AND COVER UP
153. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Crooked Lazzara conspired with other Government
and judicial Officials and Defendants to conceal that the U.S. Courts had jurisdiction over
40
any and all claims for relief, which U.S. Defendants Steele and Chappell had removed
from State to Federal Court, Case No. 2:2008-cv-00899. See State action, 2006-CA-003185,
BUSSE v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Lee County Circuit Court.
CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPT THE LAW AND FIX CASES FOR BRIBES
154. Defendant R. A. Lazzara made a mockery of the Federal proceedings by, e.g., illegally
“punishing” the Plaintiff corruption victims and fraudulently pretending authority under
Federal.R.Civ.P.11 for pleadings, which the Plaintiffs had filed in STATE Court. Just like a
bungling Government Whore, Defendant Lazzara perverted the law and rules and recklessly
misapplied them for criminal and unlawful purposes of, e.g., coercing the Plaintiffs to
refrain from prosecuting and reporting judicial and Governmental crimes and extorting
Plaintiffs’ property under color of a non-existent “regulation”.
FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS
155. Def. Lazzara falsified official records and fraudulently pretended a “regulation” and
“regulatory taking”.
RECORD DECEPTION, TRICKERY, AND FRAUD ON THE COURT
156. Just like a corrupt fool, Judicial Officer Lazzara deceived the Court and
“incomprehensibly” rambled about a “regulation”, “resolution”, and/or “resolution 569/875”
for criminal and illicit purposes of extorting Lot 15A, “Cayo Costa” under fraudulent
pretenses of, e.g., a “regulatory taking” and “frivolity”.
DECEPTIVE CONCEALMENT OF LACK OF RECORD AND COVER-UP
157. With corrupt intent to obtain benefits and harm the Plaintiff record owners, Crooked
Lazzara knew and recklessly concealed that nobody have ever “regulated” anything. See
41
Third Amended Complaint, Doc. ## 288, 282; see “O.R. 569/875”; see 2006-CA-003185;
see 2:2008-cv-00899.
CONCEALMENT OF PLAINTIFFS’ EXPRESS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
158. For bribes, Defendant Crooked Judge Lazzara conspired with other Defendants and
Officials to conceal Def. Crooked Appraiser Wilkinson’s prima facie record forgeries of
“land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” and cover up
for, e.g., Defendant Wilkinson and other Government Officials and Defendants.
CRIMINAL AND UNLAWFUL MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION
159. Crooked Lazzara materially misrepresented Plaintiffs’ claims for relief against Corrupt
Government and other Officials to cover up for Defendants and obstruct justice and
adjudication. Lazzara perverted Plaintiffs’s Complaint and conclusively proven allegations in
their Third Amended Complaint, Case # 2:2007-cv-00228 and subsequent Complaints of
public record. See Doc. ## 5, 87, 282, 288, 338, 422; Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
RECKLESS DENIAL OF COURT ACCESS & OBSTRUCTION OF COURT ACCESS
160. Just like Nazi Judges in Nazi Germany, Lazzara simply shut down Plaintiffs Cases and
fixed them for bribes. See Docket, Case 2:2008-cv-00899.
RECORD FRAUD ON THE COURTS
161. Just like sexual predators in the Catholic Church scandals, Government predator Lazzara
concealed and covered up to obstruct any opportunity of justice and keep the Plaintiffs
away from the Courts.
42
FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS
162. Just like in Nazi Germany and the Church scandals, official records mysteriously and
illegally disappeared. Capriciously, Lazzara falsified official records and documents for
illicit purposes of procuring “dismissal” through fraud and fraud on the Court.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT
163. Corrupt Lazzara knew and fraudulently concealed that on the record Defendant Forger
Wilkinson had forged “land parcels”, which Def. Lazzara could not locate on the 1912
“Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat recorded in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25.
FRAUDULENT PRETENSES
164. For illegal purposes of concealing the record forgeries of “land parcels”, a non-existent
“park”, non-existent “authority” to coerce, “punish”, and “sanction” Plaintiff
whistleblowers, Defendant Lazzara fraudulently pretended “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”
under non-applicable Federal R. Civ. P. 11, which Lazzara knew did not apply to Plaintiffs’
pleadings in STATE court.
POLICY AND CUSTOM OF ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIMES
165. Lazzara caused the record custom and policy of organized Government corruption and
crimes to be further extended.
166. The record depravity of Def. Lazzara’s acts was further evidenced by the organized
systematic cover-up and concealment of the State Court records. Defendant Lazzara
conspired with Def. U.S. Attorney, Def. Steele, and Chappell to in effect destroy any and all
State Court records in the corrupted process of removing Plaintiffs’ State action.
43
EXTORTION OF FEES AND PROPERTY
167. Just like Nazi and Catholic Church Officials, Defendant Crooked Lazzara recklessly
orchestrated a “punishment” and “sanctions” scheme of intimidation for criminal and illicit
purposes of extorting fees and property from the Plaintiffs and coercing the Plaintiffs to
refrain from pursuing justice in State and Federal Courts, 2006-CA-003185; 2:2007-cv-
00228; 2:2008-cv-00899.
CONCEALMENT OF RECORD FORGERIES & RETALIATION
168. Crooked Lazzara conspired to conceal record forgeries such as, e.g., fake “land
parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” and thereafter
retaliated and “punished” the Plaintiffs for blowing the whistle on said Government crimes.
DEFENDANT DREW HEATHCOAT
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS
169. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Crooked U.S. District Court
Clerk Drew Heathcoat (“deputy in charge”) in his private individual capacity and official
capacity. Defendant Heathcoat’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any
immunity and official capacity.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF LACK OF RECORD
170. Def. Crooked Clerk Heathcoat knew and fraudulently concealed that
a. No judgment pertaining to a non-existent “Rule 38 motion” existed;
b. No “Rule 38 motion” by Def. Forger Wilkinson could be found in the official records of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and U.S. District Court, Middle District of
Florida;
44
c. No mandated “July 2009 judgment” in the amount of “$5,048.60” had ever existed and/or
been received by the District Clerk;
d. No lawful, legitimate, and authentic “writ of execution” was “issued” by any U.S. Court
of Clerk.
FALSIFICATIONS OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
171. Defendant Crooked Clerk Heathcoat falsified official documents and records for
criminal and unlawful purposes of, e.g., obtaining unlawful benefits, extorting fees and
property from the Plaintiff whistleblowers, coercing the pro se Plaintiffs to refrain from
prosecution, obstructing justice and the just, speedy, and inexpensive adjudication of
Plaintiffs’ record claims for relief, et al.
CAUSING OTHERS TO FALSIFY OFFICIAL RECORDS
172. Defendant Crooked Clerk Heathcoat caused others such as, e.g., Defendants Kim Arnett
and Diane Nipper to falsify records such as, e.g., a non-authentic and non-genuine “writ of
execution” and a non-existent “Rule 38 motion”.
CAUSING OTHERS TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE
173. Defendant Crooked Clerk Heathcoat caused others such as, e.g., Defendants Kim Arnett
and Diane Nipper to obstruct Plaintiffs’ filing of their pleadings and Notices of Appeal.
174. In July 2010, Crooked Heathcoat caused Arnett and Nipper to obstruct justice and
Plaintiffs’ filing of their “NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM ORDER, DOC. # 213 …” for
criminal and unlawful purposes of concealing the prima facie illegal acts in this Court and
covering up for Defendant corrupt Judges, who on the record conspired to conceal the
fabrications of, e.g., fake “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-
00001.0000” in exchange for bribes.
45
DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
175. On July 16, 2009, Defendant Heathcoat deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of their
fundamental Constitutionally guaranteed rights to, e.g., redress Government grievances,
have meaningful court access, have electronic filing privileges, use the honest services of the
Clerk of U.S. Courts, be free of Government corruption, concealment, cover up, oppression
under, e.g., color of authority and office, fraudulent pretenses of a non-existent “writ of
execution”, non-existent “judgment”, non-existent “Rule 38 motion”, non-existent “bill of
costs”.
RECKLESS DEPRIVATIONS OF EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES
176. On July 16, 2009, Defendant Heathcoat deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of express
Constitutional guarantees such as, e.g., the fundamental rights to due process and equal
protection of the law.
CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT
177. Defendant Corrupt Heathcoat conspired with other Officials and Defendants to extort
fees and Plaintiffs’ real property, unlawfully seize Plaintiffs’ record property under facially
false pretenses of a non-existent “writ of execution”, and a “July judgment”, which
Heathcoat knew did not exist on the Docket of Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE
178. On July 16, 2009, Defendant Heathcoat obstructed, delayed, and prevented the
communication of crime information relating to the commission of felonies by Government
and judicial Officials and Defendants. Specifically, Clerk Heathcoat obstructed to issue
a. “A written statement that a diligent search of the designated records in Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228 revealed no record or entry of any valid “writ of execution”;
b. “A written statement that a diligent search of the designated records in Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228 revealed no record or entry of any valid “judgment in the amount of 5,048.60”;
46
c. “A written statement that a diligent search of the designated records revealed no record or entry of any “electronic filing privileges” in the names of Plaintiff corruption whistleblowers Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
179. On July 16, 2009, Defendant Heathcoat obstructed Plaintiffs’ filing of their “NOTICE
OF APPEAL FROM ORDER, DOC. # 213 …”, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, and
obstructed, delayed, and prevented the communication of crime information relating to the
commission of felonies and illegal acts by Government and judicial Officials and
Defendants.
DEFENDANT JOHN EDWIN STEELE
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS
180. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Corrupt John Edwin Steele
in his private individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. District Judge. Defendant
Steele’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official
capacity.
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
181. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer John E. Steele perpetrated record RICO
predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
182. Defendant Crooked Judge John E. Steele injured the Plaintiff record property and
business owners by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section
1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and
property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See
Section 1961(3). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property
47
losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant
Steele’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice.
18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS
183. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant John E.
Steele’s Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly
recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud
on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels”
“12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of
execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness
requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338,
288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5.
CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY
184. Defendant Steele acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire control
of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.:
a. Exercising various forms of extortion;
b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such
as, e.g., “$5,048.60”;
c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates;
d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes.
FOR BRIBES DEF. STEELE FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT
185. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeer Steele concealed and conspired with other
Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent:
48
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490
(11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959)
DEFENDANT STEELE’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY
186. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Steele has been collecting an unlawful
debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie illicit “park”
enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision as platted in
1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Steele’s and other
Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”, entertainment, and
recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of falsified “land
parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an area of
Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25.
187. Section 1962(B) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.”
DEFENDANT STEELE’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION”
188. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Steele has been collecting an unlawful
debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise. Plaintiffs’
injuries flowed directly from Defendant Steele’s and other Officials’ participation in said
record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ## “12-44-20-01-
49
00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in Government fraud
and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”.
189. Section 1962(c) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.”
190. The Plaintiffs proved
1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting
interstate commerce;
2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation”
enterprise;
3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the
affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and
4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which
included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion,
bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
191. As a Judge presiding over Defendants’ prima facie fraudulent defenses, claims,
falsifications, and forgeries, Defendant Steele had a very meaningful connection between the
enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of land and money for the enterprise under
color of office and authority.
DEFENDANT STEELE’S SECTION 1962(A) LIABILITY & DERIVED INCOME
192. Under color of prima facie falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution
569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, a falsified “writ of execution”, unrecorded fake “judgment in the
purported amount of $5,048.60”, official right, and a facially forged and non-authentic “writ
50
of execution”, Defendant J. E. Steele received bribes and income derived from a pattern of
racketeering and/or through collection of an unlawful debt in which Defendant Steele
participated as presiding Judge and principal. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434,
432, 424, 422, 338, 288, 282, 87, 5. Section 1962(A) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce …”
193. Plaintiffs demand relief for their injuries by reason of the investment and use of the
racketeering income from unlawful use of the private undedicated residential “Cayo Costa”
Subdivision and its private implied easements. Defendants and Steele have derived income
from people from all over the world, who unlawfully use the private implied easements and
Subdivision lands as conveyed in reference to said PB 3 PG 25 (1912).
194. Defendant Steele played a central Government role and participated in the
Government operation by extorting land and money for the enterprise.
195. With corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits at Plaintiffs’ expense and injury, Steele
falsified documents for the Government enterprise under color of office. Steele knew that it
would be extremely difficult to eradicate public corruption, and that he would most likely
“get away with the proverbial murder” and “racketeering”.
196. Because the “park and recreation” enterprise was a Government enterprise, Defendant
Steele was empowered to play a central role of obstructing, delaying, and preventing the
communication of crime and felony information.
DEFENDANT STEELE’S SECTION 1962(D) LIABILITY & CONSPIRACY
197. Defendant Steele conspired to violate all subsections. Section 1962(D) provides that:
51
“It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.”
198. The alleged violations, or "predicate acts", included violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1341,
relating to mail fraud. 18 USC Section 1341 provides that
"whoever, having devised . . . any scheme or artifice to defraud. . . for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice . . . places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service . . . shall be fined . . . or imprisoned . . .."
199. The Plaintiffs proved
a. The existence of a plan or scheme to defraud [fake “O.R. 569/875; fake “writ” …] b. That it was foreseeable that the defendant's scheme would cause the mails to be used; c. That the use of the mails was for the purpose of carrying out the fraudulent scheme. It was unnecessary to show that Defendant Steele’s mailings contained a misrepresentation
unlike common law fraud.
RECORDED SCHEME TO DEFRAUD AND DELIBERATELY DEPRIVE
200. As a matter of public record, Def. Steele’s scheme to defraud included, e.g.:
a. Prima facie idiotic fabrication of a “legislative act” [“O.R. 569/875”];
b. Prima facie idiotic fabrication of involuntary alienation by “law”;
c. Prima facie idiotic fabrication of a “writ of execution” absent any recorded judgment;
d. Removal of Plaintiffs’ State action to U.S. Court and destruction of official records;
e. Prevention of Plaintiffs’ communications about Def. Steele’s and other Defendants’
commission of felonies, extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
BRIBERY
201. In exchange for bribes, Defendant John E. Steele deliberately deprived the Plaintiff
corruption victims of their express fundamental rights under the Florida and Federal
Constitutions. Defendant Steele perverted the express fundamental rights to be free of
52
Government corruption, oppression, fraudulent seizure of property, to own property, exclude
Government, redress Government grievances, and defend against public corruption and
Government crimes.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF LACK OF RECORD
202. Crooked Steele knew and fraudulently concealed that
a. No judgment pertaining to the non-existent “Rule 38 motion” existed;
b. No “Rule 38 motion” by Def. Forger Wilkinson could be found in the official records of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit;
c. No lawful and legitimate “writ of execution” was “issued”;
d. No mandated “July 2009 judgment” in the amount of “$5,048.60” had ever existed and/or
been received by the District Clerk.
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL AND COVER UP
203. For bribes, Defendant Crooked Steele conspired with other Defendants and Officials to
conceal Def. Crooked Appraiser Wilkinson’s prima facie record forgeries of “land parcels”
“12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” and cover up for, e.g.,
Defendant Wilkinson and other Government Officials and Defendants. See Doc. ## 87, 338,
422; Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT
204. Corrupt Steele knew and fraudulently concealed that on the record Defendant Forger
Wilkinson had forged “land parcels”, which Def. Steele could not locate on the 1912 “Cayo
Costa” Subdivision Plat recorded in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25.
53
CONSPIRACY TO FABRICATE “RULE 38 MOTION”
205. Def. Corrupt Steele conspired with other Officials to fabricate a “Rule 38 Motion”,
which Defendant “land parcel” Forger K. M. Wilkinson had never signed and/or filed.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF FALSIFIED “motions” AND “orders”
206. Defendant Crooked Steele knew and fraudulently concealed that Def. S. F. Birch had
falsified “motions” and “orders”; e.g., on 03/05/09, Def. Birch had falsified a motion for
sanctions for Busse’s pursuit of a frivolous appeal, Doc. # 386-4, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
207. Corrupt Steele knew and concealed that the fraudulently pretended “grant” of a non-
existent “motion” was a fraud and extortion scheme on the public record.
FALSIFICATIONS OF RECORD AND NON-EXISTENT “$5,048.60 JUDGMENT”
208. Steele falsified the record and fraudulently pretended a “judgment” even though no
“judgment” in the amount of “$5,048.60” had ever existed on the Docket of Case No. 2:2007-
cv-00228, or could have possibly become a lien on Plaintiffs’ property.
FABRICATIONS OF “FRIVOLITY” FOR ILLEGAL PURPOSES
209. Defendant Steele knew and fraudulently concealed that Def. “land parcel” Forger
Wilkinson had never filed any motion for sanctions for a frivolous appeal, Fed.R.Civ.P. 38.
Defendant Corrupt Steele concealed that any time to file the non-existent “Rule 38 motion”
had expired on 08/08/2009. See 11th Cir. R. 38-1 and Dockets.
210. Def. Steele fabricated “frivolity” for criminal and unlawful purposes of “punishing” the
Plaintiffs and coercing them to refrain from prosecuting Government Officials and
Defendants and extorting fees and Plaintiffs’ property.
54
DEFENDANT STANLEY F. BIRCH (JR.)
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS
211. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Corrupt U.S. Circuit Judge
Stanley F. Birch, Jr., in his private individual capacity and official capacity. Defendant
Birch’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity.
FABRICATIONS OF “RULE 38 MOTION”
212. Defendant Crooked Judge Birch fabricated a “Rule 38 Motion” by Defendant Forger K.
M. Wilkinson. No “Rule 38 motion” by Def. Forger Wilkinson could be found in the official
records of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
CONSPIRACY TO FABRICATE “RULE 38 MOTION”
213. Def. Corrupt Birch conspired with other Officials to fabricate a “Rule 38 Motion”,
which Defendant Forger K. M. Wilkinson had never signed and/or filed.
FALSIFICATIONS OF “ORDERS”
214. Crooked Birch falsified “motions” and “orders”. E.g., on 03/05/09, Corrupt Birch
falsified a motion for sanctions for Busse’s pursuit of a frivolous appeal, Doc. # 386-4, Case
No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
215. Corrupt Birch knew that the fraudulently pretended “grant” of a non-existent “motion”
was a fraud and extortion scheme on the public record.
216. Defendant Birch knew and fraudulently concealed that Def. Forger Wilkinson had never
filed any motion for sanctions for a frivolous appeal, Fed.R.Civ.P. 38. Defendant Corrupt
Birch concealed that any time to file the non-existent “Rule 38 motion” had expired on
08/08/2009. See 11th Cir. R. 38-1 and Dockets.
55
CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT
217. Crooked Birch conspired with other Defendants and Officials to extort fees and
Plaintiffs’ property under fraudulent pretenses of a fictitious “Rule 38 Motion”, which Def.
Birch knew had never existed.
CAUSING DEFENDANT CIRCUIT CLERK OF COURT TO FALSIFY ENTRIES
218. Def. Crooked Birch caused the Defendant Clerk of the U.S. Circuit Court to falsify an
“entry” of a “Rule 38 motion”, which had never existed or been filed and signed by
Defendant Appellee “land parcel” Forger K. M. Wilkinson.
CONSPIRACY TO CAUSE DEF. CIRCUIT CLERK TO FALSIFY DOCKET
219. Defendant Crooked Circuit Judge Birch conspired with other Judges, Defendants,
judicial panelists, and Officials to falsify docket entries and in particular, falsify a “Rule 38
motion” “entry”.
RECORD FRAUD AND EXTORTION
220. Defendant Birch knew and fraudulently concealed that Def. Forger Wilkinson had
never submitted and/or filed any “bill of costs” for “attorney’s fees” or “costs” in the amount
of “$5,000.00”.
DECEPTION & TRICKERY
221. Def. Corrupt Judge Birch deceived the 11th Circuit about the record lack of any “costs”
in the amount of “$5,000.00” and arbitrarily and capriciously fabricated “$5,000.00” in a
publicly recorded conspiracy to extort fees and Plaintiff whistleblowers’ property.
56
CONSPIRACY TO RETALIATE AGAINST PLAINTIFF CORRUPTION VICTIMS
222. Defendant Birch conspired with other Defendants and Officials to retaliate against the
Plaintiffs under color of “frivolity” and a fictitious “Rule 38 motion” for criminal purposes of
extorting fees and property from the Plaintiffs.
CONSPIRACY TO COERCE THE PLAINTIFF RECORD OWNERS
223. Defendant Birch conspired with other Defendants and Officials to coerce the Plaintiffs
to refrain from prosecuting and communicating the commission of publicly recorded
Government crimes under color of “frivolity” and a fictitious “Rule 38 motion” for criminal
purposes of extorting fees and property.
DEFENDANT SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLEGAL ACTS
224. The Plaintiff public corruption and extortion victims are suing Defendant corrupt Sheri
Polster Chappell (“Chappell”) in her private individual capacity and official capacity as
U.S. Magistrate Judge. Defendant Chappell’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were
outside any immunity and official capacity.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND COMMUNICATIONS OF CRIME INFORMATION
225. Maliciously, Defendant Chappell obstructed and prevented Plaintiffs’ communications
of crime information relating to the recorded commission of felonies by, e.g., Defendant
Forger K. M. Wilkinson, and Defendant Attorneys Jack N. Peterson and Sherri L. Johnson.
ALTERATION, DESTRUCTION, AND CONCEALMENT OF PUBLIC RECORDS
226. With corrupt intent to obtain a benefit, Defendant Corrupt Chappell illegally altered,
destroyed and/or concealed public records. In particular, Chappell practiced the record
57
policy and custom of having Plaintiffs’ pleadings disappear from the Docket after they had
been filed.
FALSIFICATIONS OF “lien”
227. With corrupt intent to obtain unlawful benefits, Defendant Crooked Chappell falsified a
“lien” in the record absence of any mandated “judgment” “received” by this Court in Case
No. 2:2007-cv-00228. Because of the lack of any recorded “judgment”, nothing could have
possibly become a “lien”. See § 55.10, Fla. Stat.
FALSIFICATION OF “ORDERS”
228. Crooked Chappell falsified “motions” and “orders”. E.g., on 02/01/10, Corrupt Chappell
falsified a “motion for sanctions for Busse’s pursuit of a frivolous appeal”, Doc. # 424, Case
No. 2:2007-cv-00228. Defendant Whore Chappell knew and fraudulently concealed that Def.
Forger Wilkinson had never filed any “motion for sanctions for a frivolous appeal”,
Fed.R.Civ.P. 38. Corrupt Chappell concealed that any time to file the non-existent “Rule 38
motion” had expired on 08/08/2009. See 11th Cir. R. 38-1 and Dockets.
CAUSING OTHERS TO FALSIFY OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS
229. On or around 02/01/10, Def. Corrupt Chappell caused the Co-Defendant Clerk of this
Court to falsify an official document and “issue” a facially fraudulent “writ of execution”,
Doc. # 424, p. 2, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. In said bogus “order”, Def. Chappell brazenly
falsified:
“The motion was referred to this Court by the District Court on January 26, 2009.”
INTIMIDATION, HARASSMENT, AND OBSTRUCTION OF ADJUDICATION
230. Def. Forger Wilkinson’s forgeries of “land parcels”, which neither Corrupt Chappell
nor anyone else could possibly find on the 1912 “Cayo Costa” Plat of Survey, PB 3 PG 25,
58
were fully supported by the law. Whore Chappell’s “order”, Doc.# 424, was without any
“legal merit” and for record improper purposes such as, e.g., to harass, intimidate, and
threaten the Plaintiffs and to cause unnecessary delay and needlessly increase the cost of
litigation.
CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE & PERPETRATE FRAUD ON COURT
231. Any “Rule 27-4 motion” would have had to appear on the official Docket but never did.
Any “Rule 27-4 motion” would have required the following but never did:
“(2) Contents of a Motion.
(A) Grounds and relief sought. A motion must state with particularity the grounds
for the motion, the relief sought, and the legal argument necessary to support it.
(B) Accompanying documents.
(i) Any affidavit or other paper necessary to support a motion must be served and
filed with the motion.
(ii) An affidavit must contain only factual information, not legal argument.
(iii) A motion seeking substantive relief must include a copy of the trial court’s
opinion or agency’s decision as a separate exhibit.”
232. Crooked Chappell concealed that Def. Forger and Racketeer Wilkinson
a. Never “stated” any “grounds” and “legal argument necessary”;
b. Forged, e.g., “land parcels”, maps;
c. Falsified “real property data” to extort property worth Hundreds of Millions of Dollars
in 2007.
59
CONSPIRACY TO COERCE & EXTORT
233. Corrupt Chappell conspired with Defendant Forger Wilkinson to expressly
“discourage” and coerce Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecuting and communicating the
commission of felonies by Government Officials and to extort:
“5. In order to discourage the Appellant from engaging in the same practices in this Court, the Appellee would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 386-2, p. 2.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF PAID “$24.30” JUDGMENT
234. Corrupt Chappell fraudulently concealed the paid “$24.30” “judgment” “issued as
mandate on 06/11/2009” in Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Fed.R.App.P. 39.
FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION OF “BILL OF COST”
235. Corrupt Chappell concealed that Defendant Forger Wilkinson had never, and could have
never possibly filed any “$5,000” “bill of cost” and “Rule 38 motion”. Corrupt Chappell
concealed that any time to file the non-existent “Rule 38 motion” had expired on
08/08/2009. See certified Dockets and 11th Cir. R. 38-1.
236. Crooked Chappell concocted a “Rule 38 motion” for criminal and illicit purposes of
extorting fees and property from the Plaintiff corruption victims and whistleblowers.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF WILKINSON’S FORGED “LAND PARCELS”
237. Recklessly, Defendant Chappell concealed Defendant Forger K. M. Wilkinson’s facially
forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”.
COVER UP FOR DEFENDANT FORGER WILKINSON
238. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Whore Chappell covered up for Co-Defendant
Forger Kenneth M. Wilkinson under fraudulent pretenses of, e.g., purported “frivolity” and
“Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 violations”.
60
239. On, e.g., 11/07/2007, Corrupt Chappell obstructed Plaintiff(s)’ communications of
conclusive proof of the commission of felonies by the Defendant in Chappell’s own Court.
The Transcript of said 11/07/2007 Court Hearing conclusively proved public corruption
and Chappell’s criminal and illegal concealment of public corruption information under
oath.
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL RECORD FALSIFICATIONS
240. With corrupt intent to receive illegal benefits, Defendant Corrupt Chappell conspired
with other Officials and Defendants to conceal the record forgeries of said fake “land
parcels”. Chappell knew that Defendant Forger Wilkinson’s forged “land parcels” could
not be found on the 1912 “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat of Survey in Lee County Plat Book
3 Page 25.
BRIBERY
241. Defendant Crooked Chappell accepted Defendants’ bribes, and in exchange, fixed
Plaintiffs’ Cases under fraudulent pretenses of, e.g., lack of jurisdiction even though
Chappell knew that the U.S. Courts had jurisdiction over any and all claims against the U.S.
Agents and Defendants.
242. For bribes, corrupt Chappell fabricated that Plaintiffs’ conclusively proven allegations
of said forgeries were purportedly “frivolous”, covered up for Defendant corrupt Officials,
and concealed their record crimes.
FALSIFICATION OF “writ of execution”
243. With corrupt intent to obtain unlawful benefits for Government Officials, Defendant
Crooked Chappell falsified a “writ of execution” and/or “judgment” for illegal purposes of
extorting money and property from the Plaintiffs.
61
FALSIFICATION OF “regulation”
244. With corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits for Government Officials, Defendant
Crooked Chappell falsified a “regulation” and/or “law” for criminal and illegal purposes of
extorting fees and property from the Plaintiffs.
FALSIFICATION OF “Rule 38 motion”
245. Defendant Crooked Chappell falsified a “Rule 38 motion”, which she knew Defendant
Forger K. M. Wilkinson had never filed in the 11th Circuit.
EXTORTION
246. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Chappell extorted fees, money, and property from the
Plaintiff corruption victims.
MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE, CONCEALMENT, AND COVER UP
247. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Whore Chappell obstructed, delayed, and prevented
the communications of judicial and Government corruption information relating to the
commission of felonies by, e.g., U.S. Agents J. E. Steele, S. Polster Chappell, M. A. Pizzo,
R. A. Lazzara, and Def. record Forger of “land parcels” K. M. Wilkinson, and Crooked
Attorney Jack N. Peterson, § 838.022 (1)(c), Fla. Stat.
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
248. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Chappell perpetrated record RICO
predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
249. Defendant Crooked Chappell injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners
by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs
62
are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian
Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3).
Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business
interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Chappell’s
extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice and court access.
18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS
250. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant
Chappell’s Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the
publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation,
fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land
parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake
“writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness
requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338,
288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5; see Transcript of November 2007 Court Hearing during which Def.
Chappell concealed Wilkinson’s falsified “land parcels”.
CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY
251. Defendant Chappell acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire
control of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such
as, e.g.:
a. Exercising various forms of extortion;
b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such
as, e.g., “$5,048.60”;
c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates;
63
d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes.
FOR BRIBES CHAPPELL FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT
252. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeer Chappell concealed and conspired with
other Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent:
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490
(11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959)
DEFENDANT CHAPPELL’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY
253. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Chappell has been collecting an
unlawful debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie
illicit “park” enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision
as platted in 1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant
Chappell’s and other Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”,
entertainment, and recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of
falsified “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an
area of Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25.
254. Section 1962(B) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.”
DEFENDANT CHAPPELL’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION”
255. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
64
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Chappell has been collecting an
unlawful debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise.
Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Chappell’s and other Officials’
participation in said record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ##
“12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in
Government fraud and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”.
256. Section 1962(c) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.”
257. The Plaintiffs proved
1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ Government fee, entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce; 2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Recreation” and Government fee and money extortion enterprise; 3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
258. As a Magistrate presiding over Defendants’ prima facie fraudulent defenses, claims,
falsifications, and forgeries, Defendant Chappell had a very meaningful connection between
the illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of land, fees, and money for the
enterprise under color of office and authority.
DEFENDANT BEVERLY B. MARTIN
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS
259. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Beverly B. Martin (“Martin”)
in her private individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. Circuit Judge. Defendant
65
Martin’s unlawful and criminal acts on record were outside any immunity and official
capacity.
FELONIES OUTSIDE ANY “official” CAPACITY
260. Under color of undocketed and/or falsified Cases ## 2010-10963 and 2010-10967, Def.
Martin falsified official records and documents and caused others to falsify for criminal and
illegal purposes of extorting money and property under fraudulent pretenses of “frivolity”.
261. Def. Martin knew and concealed that the only paid judgment of record had been in the
amount of $24.30. When the Plaintiffs conclusively proved the prima facie criminality,
illegality, and nullity of a falsified “$5,048.60 judgment”, which could nowhere be found,
Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Def. Martin retaliated with further case fixing on “Jul 19 2010”.
COERCION, EXTORTION UNDER FALSE PRETENSES, AND COVER-UP
262. Def. Martin coerced the Plaintiff corruption victims to refrain from redressing their
grievances of a facially falsified and un-recorded “$5,048.60 judgment”, fake “writ of
execution”, Doc. # 425, and forged “land parcels”. No court had ever reviewed the record
forgeries of said fake “land parcels”, and Def. Martin conspired with other Offenders to
keep it that way and keep Plaintiffs out of Court. Just like a Government whore, Def. Martin
procured her order through brazen fraud on the Court, Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540; see also 1.550.
CONTEMPT OF FLORIDA LAW, CHAPTERS 55, 56, 71, 73, 74, 95, 712, FLA. STAT.
263. Def. Martin concealed that here nothing could have possibly become a lien on Plaintiffs’
property under Ch. 55, 56, 71, Fla. Stat.
MARTIN’S KNOWLEDGE OF CRIMES AND UNLAWFUL ACTS
264. Defendant Corrupt Martin had knowledge of the actual commission of felonies such as,
e.g., the falsifications of
66
a. a “$5,048.60 judgment”;
b. an appeal [see Case ## 2010-10967, and/or 2010-10963];
c. a “writ of execution” [Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 425];
d. “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”;
e. a “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “legislative act”, and/or “O.R. 569/875”.
However, Def. Martin concealed and conspired to conceal said record falsifications. Here
even though Def. Martin had knowledge of, e.g., judicial Co-Defendant Polster Chappell’s,
Steele’s, Pizzo’s, and Lazzara’s obstruction of justice and fraudulent concealment of
facially forged “land parcels”, a falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “$5,048.60
judgment”, Corrupt Martin did not make the same known to some judge or person in
authority, but covered up for said Offenders in exchange for bribes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4.
ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT
265. Defendant Crook Martin knew that Defendant principal Offenders Steele, Chappell,
Pizzo, and Lazzara had committed record offenses and assisted said Offenders, 18 U.S.C. §§
3, 4. In particular, Martin assisted said Offenders with a facially fraudulent “writ of
execution” and the falsification and/or destruction of official records.
DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS UNDER COLOR OF FAKE “writ” AND “resolution”
266. Defendant Martin deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs, e.g., under color of a fake “writ
of execution”, “resolution 569/875”, and “frivolous appeal”, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242.
RECORD RETALIATION UNDER COLOR OF WRIT OF EXECUTION & SANCTIONS
267. With the intent to retaliate, Corrupt Martin knowingly took actions harmful to the
Plaintiff public corruption victims, which included interference with Plaintiffs’ livelihood
and record land ownership, because the Plaintiff landowners had provided truthful
67
information relating to the commission of Federal offenses to law enforcement, 18 U.S.C. §§
1513.
EXTORTION ASSISTANCE UNDER COLOR OF “FRIVOLOUS APPEAL”
268. Knowingly, Def. Martin assisted the extortion of Plaintiffs’ property and/or threatened
to do so, with corrupt intent to retaliate against the Plaintiffs because the Plaintiffs had
blown the whistle on public corruption; in particular, because the Plaintiffs had produced
records and testimony conclusively evidencing Government corruption and fraud, and
information about the commission of Federal offenses by Government Officials. Here,
Plaintiff Government crime and corruption victims had the right to be reasonably protected
from the Government Offenders and Judges of record, 18 U.S.C. § 3771.
CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AND COURT ACCESS
269. Def. Martin conspired with other Defendants and Officials to “restrict Appellant’s ability
to pursue future appeals” for, e.g., criminal and unlawful purposes of concealing:
a. Facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-
00001.0000”;
b. Falsification of [a recorded “$24.30 judgment” into] an un-recorded“$5,048.60”-
extortion-and-execution scheme;
c. Falsification of a “writ of execution” in the absence of a recorded “$5,048.60”
“judgment”;
d. Destruction and falsification of official Court records.
68
EXACTION OF MONEY BY THREAT OF, E.G., ARREST AND CIVIL CONTEMPT
270. Def. Martin conspired to exact money from Plaintiffs under color of, e.g., “frivolous
appeal” even though Martin knew that no legal basis for and justification of “frivolity” had
ever or could have possibly ever existed.
CONSPIRACY TO ASSIST EXTORTION AND BLACKMAIL
271. In particular, Def. Martin conspired and assisted to extort $5,048.60 and property in the
absence of any recorded authentic judgment and justification. Martin caused other
Government Officials to falsify, alter, and destroy official records for criminal and illegal
purposes of concealing other Defendant Officials’ extortion, coercion, obstruction of
justice and other crimes of record.
272. Def. Martin made unlawful communications and threatened Plaintiff public corruption
whistleblowers with obstruction of court access and deliberate deprivations of Plaintiffs’
express fundamental rights to redress Government grievances, own property, and exclude
Governments.
MISCONDUCT AND EXTENSION OF RECORD CRIMES AND FALSIFIED “WRIT”
273. Under prima facie fraudulent pretenses of “frivolous appeal”, Def. Martin recklessly
extended the record Government crimes, and FIXED and “DISMISSED AS
FRIVOLOUS”. Def. Martin assisted and conspired the reckless perversion and
falsification of a recorded “Judgment” and “Bill of Costs” in the amount of $24.30 “issued as
mandate on 06/11/2009” for criminal and illegal purposes of extortion, coercion, and
retaliation against the Plaintiff corruption whistle blowers. In order for the record fraud
under said fake “land parcels” to continue and for illegal purposes of silencing the Plaintiff
69
landowners, Def. Martin “SUSPENDED” and perverted the Rules and caused the Clerk to
“discard” more documents.
FALSIFICATION OF APPEAL NUMBERS
274. The payment records regarding Plaintiffs’ multiple appeals conclusively proved the
falsifications and fabrications of “Appeal Number 10-10963 and/or 10-10967”. See U.S.
District Court payment records and receipts. The U.S. Clerk refused to certify and
authenticate the payment record. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 44.
275. Def. Martin pulled “frivolity” out of her ass without any explanation and/or justification
whatsoever. Review of the recorded judgment patently clearly evidenced that the District and
Circuit had fabricated “lack of jurisdiction” for illegal purposes of concealment and cover-
up. Plaintiffs were entitled to defend their unimpeachable, unencumbered, and marketable
record title against Government extortion and fraud, which of course had invoked Federal
jurisdiction directly under the express guarantees of the Federal and Florida Constitutions.
276. Here with wanton disregard for the law, and including Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540, 1.550, Ch.
55, 56, 71, 73, 74, 95, 712, Fla. Stat., Def. Martin conspired to oppress Plaintiffs with prima
facie non-existent and/or illegal orders, judgments, and/or mandates…
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
277. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Martin perpetrated record RICO predicate
acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
278. Defendant Martin knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,
Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of
extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering:
70
“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2.
Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded
extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
279. Defendant Crooked Martin injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by
reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are
holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot
15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3).
Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business
interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Martin’s
extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice.
280. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official Martin extorted money, fees, and property
under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land
parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had
never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and
property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at
Brigham Moore.
281. Said Defendant knew that
a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1;
b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386;
71
c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record;
d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”;
e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”;
f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired;
g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed;
h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could
not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger
Wilkinson.
282. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that
“(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).”
See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS
283. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant
Martin’s Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the
publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation,
fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land
parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake
“writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness
requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338,
288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5.
CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY
284. Defendant Martin acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire control
of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.:
72
a. Exercising various forms of extortion;
b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such
as, e.g., “$5,048.60”;
c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates;
d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes.
FOR BRIBES DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT
285. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeer Martin concealed and conspired with other
Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent:
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490
(11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959)
DEFENDANT MARTIN’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY
286. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Martin has been collecting an unlawful
debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie illicit “park”
enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision as platted in
1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Martin’s and other
Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”, entertainment, and
recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of falsified “land
parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an area of
Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25.
287. Section 1962(B) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly,
73
any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.”
DEFENDANT’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION”
288. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Martin has been collecting an unlawful
debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise. Plaintiffs’
injuries flowed directly from Defendant Martin’s and other Officials’ participation in said
record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ## “12-44-20-01-
00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in Government fraud
and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”.
289. Section 1962(c) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.”
290. The Plaintiffs proved
1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce; 2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation” enterprise; 3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
291. As a Judge presiding over Defendants’ prima facie fraudulent defenses, claims,
falsifications, and forgeries, Defendant Martin had a very meaningful connection between
the illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of land, money, and fees for the
enterprise under color of, e.g., office and authority.
74
292. Defendant Martin extorted and concealed, and conspired to extort and conceal, that he
procedure on execution did not accord with the procedure of the State of Florida. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 69. Defendant knew that Florida procedure required a recorded and certified
judgment, which here had never existed. The Court never had any authority to award
“$5,048.60”, and the judgment issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 in the amount of $24.30 had
been paid. The prima facie fraudulent “affidavit” by Defendant Racketeer JACK N.
PETERSON fraudulently pretended a “07/29/2009” “judgment”, Doc. # 432-2, Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228, which all Defendants knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal had
never existed. See also Ch. 55, 56, Florida Statutes.
DEFENDANT CHARLENE E. HONEYWELL
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS
293. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant corrupt U.S. District Judge
Charlene Edwards Honeywell (“Honeywell”), a female Afro-American Judge, in her private
individual capacity and official capacity. Defendant Honeywell’s unlawful and criminal acts
on record were outside any immunity and official capacity.
FELONIES OUTSIDE ANY “official” CAPACITY
294. Defendant Corrupt Honeywell had knowledge of the actual commission of felonies and
concealed them. Here even though Def. Honeywell had knowledge of, e.g., judicial Co-
Defendant Chappell’s, Steele’s, Pizzo’s, and Lazzara’s obstruction of justice and
fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels”, a falsified “writ of execution”,
falsified “$5,048.60 judgment”, Corrupt Honeywell did not make the same known to some
judge or person in authority, but covered up for said Offenders in exchange for bribes, 18
U.S.C. §§ 3, 4.
75
ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT
295. Defendant Crook Honeywell knew that Defendant principal Offenders Steele, Chappell,
Pizzo, and Lazzara had committed record offenses and assisted said Offenders, 18 U.S.C. §§
3, 4. See, e.g., Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 50, assistance with facially fraudulent
“writ of execution”; see Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. ## 213, 236, assistance with record
forgeries.
DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS UNDER COLOR OF FAKE “writ” AND “resolution”
296. Defendant Government Whore deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs, e.g., under color of a
fake “writ of execution” and “resolution 569/875”, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242.
RECORD RETALIATION UNDER COLOR OF WRIT OF EXECUTION & SANCTIONS
297. With the intent to retaliate, Corrupt Honeywell knowingly took actions harmful to the
Plaintiff public corruption victims, which included interference with Plaintiffs’ livelihood
and record land ownership, because the Plaintiff landowners had provided truthful
information relating to the commission of Federal offenses to law enforcement, 18 U.S.C. §§
1513.
298. Knowingly, Honeywell extorted Plaintiffs’ property and/or threatened to do so, with
corrupt intent to retaliate against the Plaintiffs because the Plaintiffs had blown the whistle
on public corruption; in particular, because the Plaintiffs had produced records and testimony
conclusively evidencing Government corruption and fraud, and information about the
commission of Federal offenses by Government Officials. Here, Plaintiff Government crime
and corruption victims had the right to be reasonably protected from the Government
Offenders and Judges of record, 18 U.S.C. § 3771.
76
RECORD POLICY, CUSTOM, AND CULTURE OF CORRUPTION
299. Customarily, and over and over again, Honeywell coerced the Plaintiffs to refrain from
prosecuting and producing crime evidence. Idiotic lies and threats of “sanctions” have played
a central role in Honeywell’s record crimes and concealment. Just like Jews and
Government opponents in Nazi Germany, the Plaintiff Government crime victims are
running from the anarchy, extortion, and coercion in Honeywell’s court of perversions
where un-recorded and non-existent judgments can be perverted into a “lien on property”.
BLACKMAIL, EXTORTION, UNLAWFUL COMMUNICATIONS & THREATS
300. In retaliation and exchange for bribes, Defendant Crooked Judge Honeywell made
threatening demands without any justification under color of law, authority, and falsified
official records. In particular, Defendant Corrupt Judge threatened, e.g., “monetary
sanctions”, “civil contempt”, and/or arrest, merely because the Plaintiff public corruption
victims had exposed and blown the whistle on, e.g., Honeywell’s crimes, extortion,
coercion, and fraud on the Court.
EXACTION OF MONEY BY THREAT OF, E.G., ARREST AND CIVIL CONTEMPT
301. Honeywell exacted, threatened to exact, and/or conspired with other Officials and
Defendants to exact money from Plaintiffs by threat of “monetary sanctions”, “civil
contempt”, and/or arrest under color of, e.g., office and falsified official records. In
particular, Def. Honeywell conspired to extort $5,048.60” in the absence of any recorded
authentic judgment and justification. Honeywell caused other Government Officials to
falsify, alter, and destroy official records for criminal and illegal purposes of concealing
Honeywell’s extortion, coercion, obstruction of justice and other crimes of record.
77
Honeywell made unlawful communications and threatened Plaintiff public corruption
whistleblowers. See, e.g., Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 50, p. 3:
“Shortly thereafter, the writ was issued (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 425).”
Defendant Government Whore Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that no “writ”
had ever been issued and/or could have possibly been issued, because, e.g., no recorded
“$5,048.60 judgment” had ever existed. For criminal & illegal purposes of, e.g., extorting
and obstructing justice, said Defendant falsely and idiotically pretended lack of
“authority” over record extortion under color of a falsified official record by U.S.
Defendants, Case No. 2:2010-00089, Doc. # 50, 07/14/10, p. 3:
“Because Case No. 2:07-CV-228 was assigned to Judge John Steele, this Court does not have the authority to grant relief from the writ of execution.”
302. Just like a bungling Government idiot, Def. Honeywell contradicted herself in the next
paragraph, in which she cited “Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)”, Doc. # 50, pp. 3-4:
“A party may move for relief from a final judgment or order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).”
“As such, the matter is closed, except for the issue of sanctions.”
“Plaintiffs have given the Court more than enough grounds to impose sanctions for
their misconduct.”
MISCONDUCT AND EXTENSION OF RECORD CRIMES AND FALSIFIED “writ”
303. Def. Honeywell recklessly extended the record Government crimes and falsified “writ”,
Doc. # 425:
“To the extent that Plaintiffs request injunctive relief, the Motions will be denied.”
See Doc. # 50, p. 4.
304. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed that sanctions were not any “issue” but
Honeywell’s record crimes and unlawful acts such as, e.g., extortion, concealment, and
78
fraud were. In said organized cover-up, Defendant Honeywell concealed that there had
never been any “$5,048.60 judgment” of record and that no “judgment” of record had ever
even referenced any “frivolous appeal”.
305. Honeywell promoted the record culture and policy of corruption, anarchy,
lawlessness and perversion of law and facts. With corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits,
Honeywell “incomprehensibly” and “disjointedly” copied and pasted together illegal
“orders” and judicial trash without ever addressing the complained about legal issues and
claims for relief.
RECKLESS DEPRIVATIONS AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & COURT ACCESS
306. For criminal and illegal purposes of obstructing justice, extorting, coercing, and
concealing, Defendant Criminal Honeywell obstructed, and caused other Officials and
Defendants to obstruct, the filing of, e.g., Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal from “order”, Doc. #
213, Notice of Appeal from “order”, Doc. # 236, Case No. 2-2009-cv-00791:
“The Clerk is directed to terminate these motions. 3. The Clerk is further directed to no longer accept ANY filings from Plaintiffs in this case because a judgment has been entered and Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal as to the Court’s Order (Dkt. 213), and this case is CLOSED. 4. Finally, the Clerk is also directed to strike Published Public Notices from the record (Dkt. 220, 221, 223, 225, 226, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, 235).” ILLEGAL DESTRUCTION AND MUTILATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
307. With corrupt intent to extort, blackmail, coerce, defraud, deprive, and obtain illegal
benefits, Defendant Corrupt Honeywell destroyed, mutilated, caused others to destroy and
mutilate, and conspired with, e.g., other Officials to destroy and mutilate official records,
Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. # 236, 07/02/2010, p. 3:
“Plaintiffs have also filed several documents entitled “Published Public Notice” (Dkt. 220, 221, 223, 225, 226, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, and 235). These documents do not relate to any pending motion. Further, they are not motions which request affirmative relief by the Court. They are immaterial to this case, which has been dismissed.
79
Moreover, some of the documents contain scandalous materials. These notices should, therefore, be stricken.” See Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. # 236, pp. 2-3.
MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE, CONCEALMENT, AND COVER UP
308. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Government Whore Honeywell obstructed, delayed,
and prevented the communication of judicial and Government corruption information
relating to the commission of felonies by, e.g., U.S. Agents J. E. Steele, S. Polster Chappell,
M. A. Pizzo, R. A. Lazzara, and Def. record Forger of “land parcels” K. M. Wilkinson, and
Crooked Attorney Jack N. Peterson, § 838.022 (1)(c), Fla. Stat.
DELIBERATE DERPRIVATIONS AND PERVERSIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
309. U.S. Defendant Honeywell recklessly perverted express Florida and Federal
Constitutional guarantees of, e.g., the rights to due process, equal protection of the law, to
own property, exclude Governments from private property, redress Government grievances,
prosecute by jury trial, be free of Government corruption, extortion, coercion, oppression,
falsification of records, unlawful seizure of private property under fraudulent pretenses such
as, e.g.:
a. Idiotically and brazenly, Def. Whore Honeywell manufactured and conspired with
other Government Officials to pervert express Constitutional guarantees and concoct
that property rights are not fundamental rights;
b. Def. Honeywell concocted and conspired to concoct that Plaintiffs could not assert their
perfected “state claims” against U.S. Agents in U.S. Courts;
c. Def. Honeywell fabricated and conspired to fabricate that Defendant Forger of “land
parcels” Wilkinson had filed a non-existent “Rule 38 motion”. Here, Defendant
Honeywell falsified and caused others to falsify dockets, docket entries, and official
records. See § 838.022 (1)(a), Fla. Stat.;
80
d. Def. Predator Honeywell concealed, covered up, and/or altered official records and
documents, § 838.022 (1)(b), Fla. Stat.;
e. With corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits for Lee County Officials and to harm the
Plaintiff record landowners & corruption victims, Def. Honeywell maliciously fabricated
and conspired to fabricate a “regulation” by nameless, un-named, and non-existent
“legislators”. See § 838.022 (1), Fla. Stat.
OBSTRUCTION OF COURT ACCESS & FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL, DOC. 213
310. On or around 07/16/2010, Defendant Whore Honeywell prevented and conspired with
other Officials such as, e.g., Defendant Clerks Drew Heathcoat and Diane Nipper the filing
of Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal from Order, Doc. # 213 …, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, and
the communication of information relating to the commission of felonies in the U.S. District
Court, Fort Myers, Florida.
311. Recklessly, Honeywell’s illegal and felonious acts deprived the Plaintiffs of their rights
as stated in Doc. # 214, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791.
“RULE 38/WRIT OF EXECUTION”-FRAUD-SCHEME, CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT
312. Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39, costs may be taxed against the appellant, if a judgment is
affirmed. Defendant Whore Honeywell knew and concealed that the “costs allowed” and/or
taxed were “$24.30”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 365, p. 15; 386-3, p. 15. Def.
Honeywell concealed that no costs were ever allowed under purported “Rule 38”.
“FRIVOLOUS APPEAL”-FRAUD & EXTORTION-SCHEME
313. “FRAP 38, Frivolous Appeal - Damages and Costs” provides that
“if a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.”
81
314. Defendant Government Whore Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that pursuant
to 11th Cir. R. 38-1, Time for Filing Motions, Motions for damages and costs pursuant to
FRAP 38 must be filed no later than the filing of appellee’s brief. Here, Defendant Wilkinson
had tendered and/or filed his prima facie fraudulent brief on or around 08/08/2008. See
Appellate Case No. 2008-13170-BB, certified Docket sheet. Admittedly, Defendant
Wilkinson never filed any “Rule 38 motion” before 08/08/2008.
315. Admittedly, Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any Rule 38 motion. Rule 38 only
provided for damages and costs. Here, Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any such motion
and perpetrated fraud on the Court. See certified Docket. Defendant Government Whore
Honeywell concealed said “Rule 38 motion”-fraud-scheme and conspiracy to extort.
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL ILLEGALITY & CRIMINALITY OF FAKE “WRIT”
316. On or around 07/14/10, Defendant corrupt U.S. Judge Honeywell conspired with, e.g.,
U.S. Defendants Chappell and Steele to fraudulently conceal the prima facie nullity and
illegality of a facially forged “writ of execution” and “July judgment”, Case No. 2:2010-cv-
00089, Doc. # 48, p. 1:
“On February 1, 2010, Magistrate Judge Chappell issued an order granting Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson's Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 424). Shortly thereafter, the writ was issued (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 425).”
317. Defendant crooked Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that
Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any “Rule 38 motion”, Fed.R.App.P.
318. Defendant corrupt U.S. Judge Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to
conceal that Defendant Co-conspirator Chappell had fabricated a mandate and/or judgment,
Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 424:
“On July 28, 2009, the Eleventh Circuit issued a Judgment awarding Wilkinson $5,000.00 in attorney’s fees and double costs in the amount of $48.60, as sanctions for Busse’s pursuit of a frivolous appeal.”
82
319. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that admittedly
Defendant Wilkinson had never alleged a “frivolous appeal” and that no mandate or
“judgment awarding Wilkinson $5,000.00 in attorneys fees…” had ever existed, Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228.
320. In the certified record absence of any “Rule 38 motion” by Def. Wilkinson, a fraudulent
“judgment” in the amount of “$24.30” “issued as mandate on June 11 2009”, Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228.
321. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that the mandated
“amount of $24.30” had been paid and was not “outstanding”:
“The Judgment to date remains outstanding.”
322. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired with other U.S. Agents to
conceal that
a. No such mandated “judgment” existed, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228;
b. No mandated “judgment” was ever “recorded in the Public Records of Lee County”;
c. The fraudulently alleged “certification” was facially forged;
d. “Instrument No. 2009000309384” could not have possibly become any “lien” on any
property pursuant to Ch. 55, 56; and 55.10 Florida Statutes; and
e. No “writ of execution” legally existed.
323. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired with U.S. Defendants
Chappell, Steele, and other U.S. Agents to conceal that nothing in that or any other Case
could have possibly “served as a lien against” any property under Florida and Federal law:
“A certified copy of the Judgment was recorded in the Public Records of Lee County,
Florida at Instrument No. 2009000309384 and serves as a lien against the property.”
83
324. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that
a. Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any “Rule 38 motion”;
b. Kenneth M. Wilkinson had never been awarded any mandated “judgment”;
c. Def. Wilkinson was not “entitled to tax….”;
d. The prima facie fraudulent “Writ” was due to be denied as unlawful and unauthorized.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF JURISDICTION & FRAUD ON THIS COURT
325. On or around 06/23/10, Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed the jurisdiction of
this Court over the unlawful acts of the Defendant U.S. Agents and recklessly deprived the
Plaintiffs of any chance of justice and adjudication of their perfected claims, Doc. # 213:
“B. Supplemental Jurisdiction The decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state claims rests within the discretion of the district court.” Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (11th Cir. 2004). Once a district court dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). This Court, therefore, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state claims.”
326. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that this Court had jurisdiction of
any and all claims involving the Defendant U.S. Government Officials and including “state
claims”. Defendant Honeywell had no “discretion” but was absolutely obligated to adjudicate
Plaintiffs’ claims, because United States Agents had perpetrated unlawful and criminal acts
of record.
327. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Co-Defendant U.S. Judges Steele and
Chappell themselves had removed Plaintiffs’ State action, 2006-CA-003185, BUSSE v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, to Federal Court. See 2:2008-cv-00899.
328. “Declining jurisdiction” over unlawful and criminal U.S. Governmental acts proved
Defendant Honeywell’s fraud on the Courts and required her disqualification.
84
RECKLESS OBSTRUCTION OF COURT ACCESS
DISPARATE DENIAL OF COURT ACCESS RIGHTS
329. Recklessly, Defendant Honeywell again obstructed Plaintiffs’ court access on 06/23/10,
Doc. # 213, p. 21:
“With its discretionary authority, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state claims.”
OBSTRUCTION OF COURT ACCESS UNDER FALSE PRETENSES OF “misconduct”
330. On 07/07/10, Defendant Honeywell again fabricated “misconduct” and/or “loss” of
“electronic filing privileges” in response to Plaintiffs’ “specific” demand for “equal court
access and privileges for filing purposes.” See Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 38, p. 1;
see Def. Honeywell’s previous fabrications, Case No. 2:09-CV-791, Doc. ## 133, 151.
RECORD CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE & ADJUDICATION
331. Defendant Honeywell conspired with other Defendant U.S. Judges and Officials not to
justly and speedily adjudicate Plaintiffs’ conclusively proven “state claims” against Federal
Defendants.
DENIAL & FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS
332. On or around 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell recklessly and disparately denied the
Plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws under fraudulent pretenses, Doc. # 213, p. 19:
“In this case, Plaintiffs claim that they were denied equal protection of the laws by Defendants in relation to Lot 15A. As a general matter, Florida counties may exercise eminent domain over property not owned by the state or federal government. Fla. Stat. § 127.01(1)(a); id. “Since a state landowner would not be subject to eminent domain power but [Plaintiffs], as . . . [alleged] private landowner[s], would be,” Plaintiffs cannot be similarly situated to a state landowner. Busse, 317 Fed. Appx. at 973. Plaintiffs, “therefore cannot rely on [their] disparate eminent domain treatment vis-a-vis state landowners as the basis for an equal protection claim.” Id. Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Equal Protection claim.”
85
333. In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, Defendant Honeywell fixed and fraudulently
concealed Plaintiffs’ perfected “equal protection claim” and the record absence of any
“eminent domain” “exercise”. On 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed
that none of the Government Defendants ever had any “eminent domain power” and
perpetrated fraud on the Court.
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL U.S. JURISDICTION & OBSTRUCT COURT ACCESS
334. Defendant Honeywell conspired with other Federal Defendants to conceal Federal
jurisdiction and obstruct Plaintiffs’ meaningful court access.
335. In particular, Defendant Honeywell conspired to conceal that of course, the Plaintiffs
rightfully prosecuted 1st, 14th, 4th, 7th and 5th Amendment violations by Federal Defendants in
Federal Court.
336. On or around 06/23/10, Defendant U.S. Judge Honeywell fabricated “necessary state
procedures”, Doc. # 213, p. 18:
“They have not exhausted the necessary state procedures to address their dispute prior to filing in federal court. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Seventh Amendment claim.”
337. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that Plaintiffs’ prosecution of
Federal Defendants for Seventh Amendment Violations did of course not require “necessary
state procedures”. Brazenly and idiotically, Defendant Honeywell concocted “necessary
state procedures” on the record. Said reckless fabrications were outside Honeywell’s scope
of immunity and official capacity.
86
DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS OF COURT ACCESS UNDER FALSE PRETENSES
338. Without any meritorious “defense” or “claim”, and under facially idiotic pretenses of
“frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, Defendant Honeywell deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of
court access.
CONCEALMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY AND
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL THAT PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE FUNDAMENTAL
339. Defendant Honeywell conspired to fraudulently conceal that property rights are most
fundamental rights. On or around 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell conspired to brazenly
and irrationally concoct, Doc. # 213, p. 20:
“Property rights would not be fundamental rights since they are based on state law.” Id. Here, Plaintiffs claim that they have been denied their alleged property rights in Lot 15A. These property rights are defined by state law. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Substantive Due Process Claim.”
340. No halfway intelligent and non-corrupt judge in Defendant Honeywell’s shoes could
have possibly denied that property rights and the right to own property are most fundamental
rights. Honeywell’s above assertion was recklessly false and for unlawful and criminal
purposes of extorting property and fees and illegally bypassing due process and equal
protection of the law.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF PLAINTIFFS’ PREVIOUS “STATE ACTION”
341. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed Plaintiffs’ State action, Case No. 2006-CA-
003185 (Lee County Circuit Court), BUSSE v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Doc. # 213, p. 15:
“Although they have been previously told by the Eleventh Circuit that they must proceed in state court prior to bringing suit in federal court for several of their claims, Plaintiffs refuse to do so and continue to re-file their complaints with additional Defendants and claims all surrounding the same property dispute.”
87
342. Defendant Honeywell conspired with other Officials such as, e.g., Defendants Steele and
Polster Chappell to conceal Plaintiffs’ 2006 State action of record, 2006-CA-003185.
Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Defendants Steele and Chappell had removed
Plaintiffs’ record 2006 State action to Federal Court. See 2:2008-cv-00899.
343. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed Plaintiffs’ fundamental entitlement to sue
Defendant U.S. Agents in Federal Court for any and all claims.
06/23/2010 SLANDER OF RECORD REAL PROPERTY TITLE, DOC. # 213
344. On or around 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell unintelligently slandered Plaintiffs’
record marketable title to riparian Lot 15A, “Cayo Costa”, Doc. # 213, 2:2009-cv-00791:
“In a resolution adopted in December 1969 by the Board of Commissioners of Lee County, Florida, Lot 15A, among other property, was claimed as public land (“Resolution 569/875") (Dkt 5, Ex. 3, p. 9). See Prescott, et al., v. State of Florida, et al., 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2009); Busse, et al. v. Lee County, Florida, et al., 317 Fed. Appx. 968, 970 (11th Cir. Mar 5, 2009).”
07/14/2010 FABRICATION OF “WRIT OF EXECUTION”
345. On or around 07/14/2010, Defendant Honeywell irrationally fabricated a “writ of
execution”, Doc. # 48, p. 1, 2:2010-cv-00089:
“In the motion, Plaintiffs appear to seek a release of the writ of execution and attachment of a lien to property issued in Busse v. Lee County, Florida, et al., Case No. 2:07-CV-228-FtM-29SPC. That case was before Judge John Steele and Magistrate Judge Sheri Chappell.”
346. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed the record lack of any “writ of execution”
mandated “July 2009 judgment”, and of any ‘Rule 38 motion” by Def. “land parcel” Forger
Wilkinson. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228; see Case Docket as certified on 07/16/2010 by
Def. Clerk D. Nipper.
88
347. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the record 03/05/2009 “judgment” and
paid “amount of $24.30” “issued as mandate on 06/11/2009”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228,
had ruled out any possibility of a “writ of execution”.
348. Because of her irrational contradictions on record, Defendant Honeywell’s “orders” were
facially arbitrary, capricious, incomprehensible, and idiotic:
349. In particular, no rational, competent, and honest judge in Defendant Honeywell’s shoes
could have possibly reconciled a fake “writ of execution” with a fake “claim”.
350. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that in the hypothetical event of any
involuntary title transfer to Government, no “writ of execution” could have possibly existed.
351. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that in the hypothetical event of a “writ of
execution”, there could not have possibly been any involuntary title transfer to Lee County,
Florida. For bribes, Def. Whore Honeywell conspired to extort Plaintiffs’ property under
fraudulent pretenses of a non-existent “Rule 38 motion”, fake “judgment”, and fake “writ”.
TRESPASS ONTO PRIMA FACIE PRIVATE “CAYO COSTA” SUBDIVISION
352. Defendant Honeywell’s unlawful and criminal acts of record, reckless orders, Case ##
2:2009-cv-00791; and 2:2010-cv-00089, slander of title, fraudulent pretenses and/or
fabrications of a non-existent mandated “judgment”, “writ of execution”, “lien” proximately
caused unlawful and criminal trespass onto Plaintiffs’ private street and up lands on the Gulf
of Mexico in the private undedicated residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision.
353. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that the public had no
Subdivision access, because as a matter of law, the public had no right to use any of the
prima facie private street and alley easements as legally conveyed in reference to the 1912
Plat of Survey in PB 3 PG 25.
89
ILLEGAL FIRES AND ARSON
354. Defendant Honeywell’s reckless orders, Case ## 2:2009-cv-00791, and 2:2010-cv-00089,
slander of title, fraudulent pretenses and/or fabrications of a non-existent mandated
“judgment”, “writ of execution”, “lien” have been inducing the public to start unlawful fires
and perpetrate arson on private “Cayo Costa” Subdivision property, PB 3 PG 25 (1912).
CONSPIRACY TO COVER UP FOR GOVERNMENT CROOKS
355. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal the record crimes
and illegal acts of, e.g., U.S. Defendants John E. Steele, Sheri Polster Chappell, Richard A.
Lazzara, Mark Allan Pizzo, and to cover up for said Government Crooks.
RECORD THREATS AND FABRICATIONS OF “VIOLATION OF ORDER”
356. On or around 07/14/20, Defendant Honeywell again threatened, intimidated, and
coerced the Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecuting Defendant Honeywell, 2:10-cv-00089, Doc.
# 49, p. 2:
“…Plaintiff Busse has directly violated an order of this Court.”
357. Defendant Government Whore Honeywell has been a named party Defendant, because
she, e.g., accepted Defendants’ bribes, fixed Plaintiff’s Cases under false pretenses of a
“regulation”, fabricated a “writ of execution”, perverted the Florida and Federal
Constitutional guarantees of the most fundamental rights to own property and exclude
Governments, redress Government grievances, be free of Government corruption,
oppression, unlawful seizure of property, et al. The Plaintiff corruption victims sued Def.
Honeywell in her individual private capacity outside any immunity, because Def.
Honeywell maliciously extended, e.g., record Government extortion, corruption, and crimes
90
and unlawful acts. See, e.g., Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. # 213, 236; Case No. 2:2010-
cv-00089, Doc. ## 48, 49, 50.
358. Under color of office, Defendant Honeywell falsified and/or caused other persons to
falsify official record and documents. See § 838.022, Fla. Stat.
RECORD EXTORTION OF FEES AND PROPERTY
359. For unlawful and criminal purposes of extorting fees and Plaintiffs’ record property,
Defendant Honeywell fabricated a “writ of execution”.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF RECORD “06/11/2009 MANDATE”
360. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that a facially fraudulent 03/05/2009
“judgment” “issued as mandate on June 11, 2009” and was received by the U.S. District
Court on 06/15/2009. See Doc. # 365; Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF CLOSURE OF CASE 08-17130-BB ON 06/11/2009
361. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th
Circuit had closed Case No. 2008-13170-BB on 06/11/2009.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF “$24.30” MANDATE
362. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th
Circuit had “allowed the amount of $24.30” “issued as mandate on June 11, 2009”
363. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the “amount of $24.30” was not
outstanding.
364. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that no “writ of execution” could have
possibly existed on the record.
91
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF NON-EXISTENCE OF “RULE 38 MOTION”
365. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Defendant crooked Official Kenneth M.
Wilkinson had never filed any Rule 38 motion.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF RECORD COERCION
366. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson expressly
coerced the Plaintiff corruption victims to refrain from prosecution on the record. See
Wilkinson’s “Rule 27-4 motion”.
COERCION
367. On the record, Defendant Honeywell coerced the Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecution
under color of authority and office.
368. Without any authority or justification, Defendant Honeywell threatened, intimidated,
harassed, and “punished” the Plaintiffs on the record, including the obstruction of court
access.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF NON-EXISTENT “LAND PARCELS”
369. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Defendant Forger K. M. Wilkinson had
unlawfully and criminally forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-
01-00001.0000”. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that said forged
“parcels” did not appear on the 1912 “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat of Survey in Lee
County Plat Book 3 Page 25.
370. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that said non-existent and forged “land
parcels” had never been legally described, platted, and/or conveyed in reference to said Plat
of Survey, PB 3 PG 25 (1912) and had never existed.
92
BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION
371. In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, Defendant Honeywell concealed said evident record
forgeries and covered up for Defendant K. M. Wilkinson.
372. Defendant Honeywell accepted Defendants’ bribes and enforced the culture and policy of
corruption in her office even though Honeywell knew that the prima facie fake “writ of
execution”, “lien”, “judgment”, and “land parcels” had never existed and could not have
possibly existed.
DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS & FRAUD ON THE COURT
373. With wanton disregard for Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights to, e.g.
a. Be free of Government racketeering, corruption, extortion, coercion, and threats;
b. Be free of unlawful seizure, bribery, and retaliation;
c. Redress Government grievances without retaliation, coercion, extortion, and threats;
d. Have meaningful and free court access;
e. Have due process and equal protection of the law;
f. Own property;
g. Exclude Defendant Governments from Plaintiffs’ record property.
Defendant Honeywell perpetrated fraud on the Court and deliberately deprived the
Plaintiffs of their express fundamental rights under the Federal and Florida Constitutions.
DEF. HONEYWELL’S PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
374. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Honeywell perpetrated record RICO
predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
93
375. Defendant Honeywell knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,
Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of
extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering:
“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2.
Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against recorded extortion,
racketeering, corruption, and fraud.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
376. Defendant Crooked Honeywell injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners
by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs
are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian
Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3).
Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business
interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Honeywell’s
extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice.
18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS
377. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant
Honeywell’s Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the
publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation,
fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land
parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake
“writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness
94
requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338,
288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5.
CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY
378. Defendant Honeywell acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire
control of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such
as, e.g.:
a. Exercising various forms of extortion;
b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such
as, e.g., “$5,048.60”;
c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates;
d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes.
FOR BRIBES DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT
379. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeer Honeywell concealed and conspired with
other Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent:
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490
(11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959)
DEFENDANT HONEYWELL’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY
380. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Honeywell has been collecting an
unlawful debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie
illicit “park” enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision
as platted in 1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant
95
Honeywell’s and other Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”,
entertainment, and recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of
falsified “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an
area of Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25.
381. Section 1962(B) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.”
DEFENDANT HONEYWELL’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION”
382. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Honeywell has been collecting an
unlawful debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise.
Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Honeywell’s and other Officials’
participation in said record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ##
“12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in
Government fraud and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”.
383. Section 1962(c) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.”
384. The Plaintiffs proved
1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce; 2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation” enterprise;
96
3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
385. As a Judge presiding over Defendants’ prima facie fraudulent defenses, claims,
falsifications, and forgeries, Defendant Honeywell had a very meaningful connection
between the illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of land, money, and fees
for the enterprise under color of, e.g., office and authority.
Defendant Honeywell extorted and concealed, and conspired to extort and conceal, that he
procedure on execution did not accord with the procedure of the State of Florida. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 69. Defendant knew that Florida procedure required a recorded and certified
judgment, which here had never existed. The Court never had any authority to award
“$5,048.60”, and the judgment issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 in the amount of $24.30 had
been paid. The prima facie fraudulent “affidavit” by Defendant Racketeer JACK N.
PETERSON fraudulently pretended a “07/29/2009” “judgment”, Doc. # 432-2, Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228, which all Defendants knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal had
never existed. See also Ch. 55, 56, Florida Statutes.
DEFENDANT GERALD BARD TJOFLAT
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY
386. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant corrupt Gerald Bard Tjoflat
(“Tjoflat”) in his private individual capacity and official capacity as very old U.S. Circuit
Judge. Defendant Tjoflat’s unlawful and criminal acts on record were outside any immunity
and official capacity.
97
387. Because of record setting very old age, Defendant Tjoflat has no longer been capable to
keep up with the demands of Government work and customary corruption in the 11th Circuit.
388. Due in part to professional deficiencies evident on the record, Defendant Tjoflat
fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that Plaintiffs had fundamental
Constitutionally guaranteed rights to, e.g., own property, exclude Government from their
property, defend against arbitrarily and capriciously fabricated “land parcels”, redress
Government grievances and corruption, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 365, “received”
June 15, 2009:
“Property rights would not be fundamental rights since they are based on state law. See id. Busse thus could not bring a viable substantive due process claim based on the alleged denial of a state-defined property right. See id. Accordingly, we find that the district court properly dismissed his substantive due process claims.”
389. On or around March 5, 2009, Defendant Tjoflat fixed and conspired to fix Plaintiffs’
perfected “substantive due process claims” by fraudulently concealing, and conspiring with
other U.S. Agents to conceal, that Plaintiffs’ “property rights” were most fundamental
Constitutionally guaranteed rights. See Florida and Federal Constitutions.
390. U.S. Def. Tjoflat’s “finding” “that the district court properly dismissed” and fixed
Plaintiffs’ perfected “due process claims” were prima facie unlawful and criminal acts of
perverting supreme Florida and Federal law. Just like institutional sexual predators in the
Catholic Church, judicial predator Tjoflat betrayed the public trust and raped innocent
victims who had faith in the Government institution and the reasonable expectation that they
would not get fucked.
391. While very old Defendant demented Circuit Judge Tjoflat fixed Plaintiffs’ perfected
claim, and fucked innocent public corruption victims, Defendant “judicial whore” Honeywell
98
further fabricated that Plaintiffs had “failed to state a claim”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228,
Doc. # 213.
392. Defendant Tjoflat fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that no “regulatory
taking” had ever existed or could have possibly existed, because no “regulation” had ever
existed.
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
393. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Tjoflat perpetrated record RICO predicate
acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
394. Defendant Tjoflat knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,
Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of
extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering:
“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2.
Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded
extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
395. Defendant Crooked Tjoflat injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by
reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are
holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot
15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3).
Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business
99
interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Tjoflat’s
extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice.
396. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official Tjoflat extorted money, fees, and property
under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land
parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had
never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and
property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at
Brigham Moore.
397. Said Defendant knew that
a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1;
b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386;
c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record;
d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”;
e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”;
f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired;
g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed;
h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could
not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger
Wilkinson.
398. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that
100
“(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment
shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule
does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).”
See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS
399. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant
Tjoflat’s Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the
publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation,
fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land
parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake
“writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness
requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338,
288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5.
CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY
400. Defendant Tjoflat acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire control
of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.:
a. Exercising various forms of extortion;
b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such
as, e.g., “$5,048.60”;
c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates;
d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes.
FOR BRIBES DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT
101
401. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeer Tjoflat concealed and conspired with other
Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent:
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490
(11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959)
DEFENDANT TJOFLAT’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY
402. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Tjoflat has been collecting an unlawful
debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie illicit “park”
enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision as platted in
1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Tjoflat’s and other
Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”, entertainment, and
recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of falsified “land
parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an area of
Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25.
403. Section 1962(B) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.”
DEFENDANT’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION”
404. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Tjoflat has been collecting an unlawful
debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise. Plaintiffs’
102
injuries flowed directly from Defendant Tjoflat’s and other Officials’ participation in said
record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ## “12-44-20-01-
00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in Government fraud
and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”.
405. Section 1962(c) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.”
406. The Plaintiffs proved
1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce; 2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation” enterprise; 3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
407. As a Circuit Judge presiding over Defendants’ prima facie fraudulent defenses, claims,
falsifications, and forgeries, Defendant Tjoflat had a very meaningful connection between
the illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of land, money, and fees for the
enterprise under color of, e.g., office and authority.
408. Defendant Tjoflat extorted and concealed, and conspired to extort and conceal, that he
procedure on execution did not accord with the procedure of the State of Florida. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 69. Defendant knew that Florida procedure required a recorded and certified
judgment, which here had never existed. The Court never had any authority to award
“$5,048.60”, and the judgment issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 in the amount of $24.30 had
been paid. The prima facie fraudulent “affidavit” by Defendant Racketeer JACK N.
103
PETERSON fraudulently pretended a “07/29/2009” “judgment”, Doc. # 432-2, Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228, which all Defendants knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal had
never existed. See also Ch. 55, 56, Florida Statutes.
DEFENDANT SUSAN H. BLACK
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY
409. The Plaintiff Government racketeering and corruption victims are suing Defendant
Corrupt Susan H. Black (“Black”) in her private individual capacity and official capacity as
U.S. Circuit Judge, 11th Appellate Circuit. Defendant Black’s unlawful and criminal acts on
record were outside any immunity and official capacity.
410. Irrationally and capriciously, Defendant corrupt U.S. Circuit Judge Black fabricated on
the record:
“The Resolution constituted a legislative act since it was a general provision that affected a large number of persons and area, 200 acres in all, rather than being specifically targeted at Busse or his immediate neighbors.” See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 365, p. 10.
411. No such “resolution”, “legislative act”, and/or “general provision” had ever existed
and/or could be found anywhere. Def. Racketeer Black knew that under the separation-of-
Government-powers-Doctrine, involuntary Government alienation by any “law” was legally
absolutely impossible. Def. Racketeer Black’s orders were facially deceptive, fraudulent,
and for extortion and racketeering purposes.
412. Under Ch. 73, 74, Eminent Domain, Fla. Stat., any involuntary title transfer and/or
eminent domain transaction would have “specifically” identified [“targeted”] each and every
parcel and each and every corresponding record title holder. Defendant Black made no sense
whatsoever.
104
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
413. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Susan H. Black perpetrated record RICO
predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
414. Defendant Susan H. Black knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-
4”, Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of
extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering:
“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2.
Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded
extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
415. Defendant Crooked S. H. Black injured the Plaintiff record property and business
owners by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C).
Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property,
riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section
1961(3); PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th
Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible
property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of
Defendant S. H. Black’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice.
416. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official Black extorted money, fees, and property
under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land
105
parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had
never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and
property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at
Brigham Moore.
417. Said Defendant knew that
a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1;
b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386;
c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record;
d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”;
e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”;
f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired;
g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed;
h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could
not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger
Wilkinson.
418. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that
“(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).”
See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS
419. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant Black’s
Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly
recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud
106
on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels”
“12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of
execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness
requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338,
288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5.
CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY
420. Defendant Black acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire control
of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.:
a. Exercising various forms of extortion;
b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such
as, e.g., “$5,048.60”;
c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates;
d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes.
FOR BRIBES DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT
421. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeer Black concealed and conspired with other
Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent:
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490
(11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959)
DEFENDANT BLACK’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY
422. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Black has been collecting an unlawful
debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie illicit “park”
107
enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision as platted in
1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Black’s and other
Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”, entertainment, and
recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of falsified “land
parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an area of
Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25.
423. Section 1962(B) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.”
DEFENDANT’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION”
424. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Black has been collecting an unlawful
debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise. Plaintiffs’
injuries flowed directly from Defendant Black’s and other Officials’ participation in said
record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ## “12-44-20-01-
00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in Government fraud
and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”.
425. Section 1962(c) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.”
426. The Plaintiffs had proven:
108
1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce; 2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation” enterprise; 3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
427. As a Crooked Circuit Judge presiding over Defendants’ Appellees’ prima facie
fraudulent defenses, claims, falsifications, and forgeries, Defendant Black had a very
meaningful connection between the illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of
land, money, and fees for the enterprise under color of, e.g., office and authority.
428. Defendant Black extorted and concealed, and conspired to extort and conceal, that he
procedure on execution did not accord with the procedure of the State of Florida. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 69. Defendant knew that Florida procedure required a recorded and certified
judgment, which here had never existed. The Court never had any authority to award
“$5,048.60”, and the judgment issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 in the amount of $24.30 had
been paid. The prima facie fraudulent “affidavit” by Defendant Racketeer JACK N.
PETERSON fraudulently pretended a “07/29/2009” “judgment”, Doc. # 432-2, Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228, which all Defendants knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal had
never existed. See also Ch. 55, 56, Florida Statutes.
PERVERSION OF LAW & RULES FOR RACKETEERING PURPOSES
429. Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39, costs may be taxed against the appellant, if a judgment is
affirmed. Defendant Black knew and concealed that the “costs allowed” and/or taxed were
“$24.30”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 365, p. 15; 386-3, p. 15. Def. Black concealed
that no costs were ever allowed under purported “Rule 38”.
109
RULE 38 RACKETEERING AND FRAUD SCHEME
430. “FRAP 38, Frivolous Appeal - Damages and Costs” provides that
“if a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.”
431. Defendant Black knew and fraudulently concealed that pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 38-1,
Time for Filing Motions, Motions for damages and costs pursuant to FRAP 38 must be filed
no later than the filing of appellee’s brief. Here, Defendant Black had tendered and/or filed
his prima facie fraudulent brief on 08/08/2008. See Appellate Case No. 2008-13170-BB,
certified Docket sheet. Admittedly, Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson never filed any “Rule 38
motion” before 08/08/2008. Admittedly, Defendant “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson had
never filed any Rule 38 motion. Rule 38 only provided for “damages” and “costs”. Here,
Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any such motion and perpetrated fraud on the Court.
See certified Docket. Defendant Black concealed said “Rule 38 motion”-fraud-scheme and
conspiracy to extort.
DEFENDANT JOEL F. DUBINA
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY
432. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Joel F. Dubina in his private
individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. Circuit and Chief Judge. Defendant
Dubina’s unlawful and criminal acts on record were outside any immunity and official
capacity.
433. Defendant crooked U.S. Circuit Chief Judge Joel F. Dubina knew and fraudulently
concealed that Defendant Wilkinson had never filed and signed any “Rule 38 motion” and
110
that no mandated “judgment” under Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. existed. See certified true and
correct copy of Docket, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
434. Defendant Joel F. Dubina fabricated a “Rule 38 motion” “by Defendant Wilkinson”.
435. Defendant Dubina conspired with other Defendants and Officials to fraudulently pretend
that Defendant Wilkinson had filed a “Rule 38 Motion”.
436. Defendant Dubina knew and concealed that no “11th Circuit Rule 27-4 Motion” by
Defendant Wilkinson had ever been entered on said Circuit Court’s Case Docket.
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
437. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Dubina perpetrated record RICO predicate
acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
438. Defendant Dubina knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,
Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of
extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering:
“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2.
Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded
extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
439. Defendant Crooked Dubina injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by
reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are
holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot
111
15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3).
Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business
interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Dubina’s
extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice.
440. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official Dubina extorted money, fees, and property
under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land
parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had
never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and
property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at
Brigham Moore.
441. Said Defendant knew that
a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1;
b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386;
c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record;
d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”;
e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”;
f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired;
g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed;
h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could
not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger
Wilkinson.
442. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that
112
“(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).”
See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS
443. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant
Dubina’s Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the
publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation,
fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land
parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake
“writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness
requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338,
288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5.
CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY
444. Defendant Dubina acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire control
of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.:
a. Exercising various forms of extortion;
b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such
as, e.g., “$5,048.60”;
c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates;
d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes.
FOR BRIBES DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT
445. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeer Dubina concealed and conspired with
other Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent:
113
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490
(11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959)
DEFENDANT DUBINA’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY
446. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Dubina has been collecting an unlawful
debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie illicit “park”
enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision as platted in
1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Dubina’s and other
Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”, entertainment, and
recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of falsified “land
parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an area of
Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25.
447. Section 1962(B) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.”
DEFENDANT’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION”
448. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Dubina has been collecting an unlawful
debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise. Plaintiffs’
injuries flowed directly from Defendant Dubina’s and other Officials’ participation in said
record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ## “12-44-20-01-
114
00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in Government fraud
and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”.
449. Section 1962(c) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.”
450. The Plaintiffs proved
1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce; 2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation” enterprise; 3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
451. As a Circuit Judge presiding over Defendants’ Appellees’ prima facie fraudulent
defenses, claims, falsifications, and forgeries, Defendant Dubina had a very meaningful
connection between the illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of land,
money, and fees for the enterprise under color of, e.g., office and authority.
452. Defendant Dubina extorted and concealed, and conspired to extort and conceal, that he
procedure on execution did not accord with the procedure of the State of Florida. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 69. Defendant knew that Florida procedure required a recorded and certified
judgment, which here had never existed. The Court never had any authority to award
“$5,048.60”, and the judgment issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 in the amount of $24.30 had
been paid. The prima facie fraudulent “affidavit” by Defendant Racketeer JACK N.
PETERSON fraudulently pretended a “07/29/2009” “judgment”, Doc. # 432-2, Case No.
115
2:2007-cv-00228, which all Defendants knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal had
never existed. See also Ch. 55, 56, Florida Statutes.
DEFENDANT KENNETH M. WILKINSON
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY
453. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson in his
private individual capacity and his official capacity as Crooked Lee County Property
Appraiser. Defendant Wilkinson’s “land parcel” forgeries, unlawful and criminal acts on
record were outside any immunity and official capacity.
FALSIFICATION OF “Rule 38 motion”
454. Defendant Crooked Kenneth M. Wilkinson knew and fraudulently concealed that he had
never filed and signed any “Rule 38 motion”. No mandated “judgment” under Rule 38,
Fed.R.App.P. existed. See certified true and correct copy of Docket, Case No. 2:2007-cv-
00228.
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
455. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson perpetrated record
RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
456. Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson knew that his “motion”, “Rule 27-4”, Fed.R.App.Proc.,
Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of extorting money and
property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering:
“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same
practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion,
racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth
116
M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request
that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for
filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2.
Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded
extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
457. Defendant Crooked Kenneth M. Wilkinson injured the Plaintiff record property and
business owners by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section
1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and
property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See
Section 1961(3). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property
losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant
K. M. Wilkinson’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice.
458. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official K. M. Wilkinson extorted money, fees, and
property under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified
“land parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County,
FL, had never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and
property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at
Brigham Moore.
459. Said Defendant knew that
a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1;
b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386;
117
c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record;
d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”;
e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”;
f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired;
g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed;
h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could
not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger
Wilkinson.
460. Said Defendant K. M. Wilkinson fraudulently concealed that
“(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).”
See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS
461. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant
Wilkinson’s Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the
publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation,
fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land
parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake
“writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness
requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338,
288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5.
CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY
118
462. Defendant Wilkinson acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire
control of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such
as, e.g.:
a. Exercising various forms of extortion;
b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such
as, e.g., “$5,048.60”;
c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates;
d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes.
FOR BRIBES DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT
463. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson concealed and conspired with
other Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent:
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490
(11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959)
DEFENDANT WILKINSON’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY
464. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Wilkinson has been collecting an
unlawful debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie
illicit “park” enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision
as platted in 1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant
Wilkinson’s and other Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”,
entertainment, and recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of
119
falsified “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an
area of Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25.
465. Section 1962(B) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.”
DEFENDANT’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION”
466. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Wilkinson has been collecting an
unlawful debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise.
Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Wilkinson’s and other Officials’
participation in said record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ##
“12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in
Government fraud and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”.
467. Section 1962(c) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise
engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to
conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs
through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.”
468. The Plaintiffs proved
1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting
interstate commerce;
120
2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation”
enterprise;
3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the
affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and
4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which
included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion,
bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
469. As Lee County Property Appraiser, Defendant Wilkinson had a very meaningful
connection between the illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of land,
money, and fees for the enterprise under color of, e.g., office and authority.
470. Defendant Wilkinson extorted and concealed, and conspired to extort and conceal, that
he procedure on execution did not accord with the procedure of the State of Florida. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 69. Defendant knew that Florida procedure required a recorded and certified
judgment, which here had never existed. The Court never had any authority to award
“$5,048.60”, and the judgment issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 in the amount of $24.30 had
been paid. The prima facie fraudulent “affidavit” by Defendant Racketeer JACK N.
PETERSON fraudulently pretended a “07/29/2009” “judgment”, Doc. # 432-2, Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228, which all Defendants knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal had
never existed. See also Ch. 55, 56, Florida Statutes.
COERCION
471. On the record, Defendant Wilkinson expressly stated his intent to coerce the Plaintiffs to
refrain from prosecution and extort fees and Plaintiffs’ property:
121
“5. In order to discourage the Appellant from engaging in the same practices in this
Court, the Appellee would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to
pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” See
Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 386-2, p. 2.
472. Defendant Wilkinson fraudulently pretended and deceived this Court that he filed a
motion for “sanctions for Busse’s pursuit of a frivolous appeal”, “Rule 38”, Fed.R.App.P.
See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 386, p. 3.
473. Defendant Wilkinson knew and concealed that there had neither been any “Rule 38
motion” nor any “frivolous appeal” and mandated “judgment”. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-
00228.
474. Defendant Wilkinson knew and concealed that no “motion pursuant to Eleventh Circuit
Rule 27-4 for an order sanctioning the Appellant for filing a frivolous motion…” had ever
appeared on said U.S. Circuit Court’s Case Docket.
475. Defendant Wilkinson fabricated:
“8. The judgment remains outstanding and unpaid in its entirety.” Id.
No outstanding and unpaid mandated judgment existed. Id.
DEFENDANT SHERRI L. JOHNSON
BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION
476. Defendant Sherri L. Johnson knew and fraudulently concealed that the Defendants had
bribed Defendant Crooked Judge Sheri Polster Chappell and John E. Steele.
477. Defendant Johnson knew and fraudulently concealed that Defendant Kenneth M.
Wilkinson had forged fake “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-
00001.0000”. See PB 3 PG 25 (1912).
122
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL PUBLIC CORRUPTION
478. Defendant S. L. Johnson and Defendant Chappell conspired with other Officials and
Defendants to conceal said forgeries.
CONSPIRACY TO SLANDER PLAINTIFFS’ RECORD TITLE
479. Defendant Johnson conspired with other Officials and Defendants to slander Plaintiffs’
unimpeachable and unencumbered record title to said riparian Lot 15A. In particular,
Defendant Johnson fraudulently concealed that the Plaintiffs perfectly own the platted
adjoining riparian street land on the Gulf of Mexico, PB 3 PG 25 (1912).
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
480. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Sherri L. Johnson perpetrated record RICO
predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
481. Defendant Sherri L. Johnson knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule
27-4”, Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of
extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering:
“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same
practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion,
racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth
M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request
that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for
filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2.
Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded
extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression.
123
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
482. Defendant Crooked Attorney S. L. Johnson injured the Plaintiff record property and
business owners by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section
1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and
property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See
Section 1961(3). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property
losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant
S. L. Johnson’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice.
483. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official S. L. Johnson extorted money, fees, and
property under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified
“land parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County,
FL, had never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and
property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at
Brigham Moore.
484. Said Defendant knew that
a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1;
b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386;
c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record;
d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”;
e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”;
f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired;
g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed;
124
h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could
not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger
Wilkinson.
485. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that
“(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment
shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule
does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).”
See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS
486. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant
Johnson’s Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the
publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation,
fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land
parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake
“writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness
requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338,
288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5.
CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY
487. Defendant Johnson acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire
control of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such
as, e.g.:
a. Exercising various forms of extortion;
125
b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such
as, e.g., “$5,048.60”;
c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates;
d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes.
FOR BRIBES DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT
488. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Johnson concealed and conspired with other Officials
and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent:
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490
(11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959)
DEFENDANT JOHNSON’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY
489. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Johnson has been collecting an
unlawful debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie
illicit “park” enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision
as platted in 1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Johnson’s
and other Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”, entertainment, and
recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of falsified “land
parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an area of
Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25.
490. Section 1962(B) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.”
126
DEFENDANT’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION”
491. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Johnson has been collecting an
unlawful debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise.
Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Johnson’s and other Officials’
participation in said record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ##
“12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in
Government fraud and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”.
492. Section 1962(c) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.”
493. The Plaintiffs proved
1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce; 2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation” enterprise; 3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
494. As a Judicial Officer and Attorney asserting Defendant Wilkinson’s prima facie
fraudulent defenses, claims, falsifications, and forgeries, Defendant Johnson had a very
meaningful connection between the illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of
land, money, and fees for the enterprise under color of, e.g., office and authority.
127
495. Defendant Johnson extorted and concealed, and conspired to extort and conceal, that he
procedure on execution did not accord with the procedure of the State of Florida. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 69. Defendant knew that Florida procedure required a recorded and certified
judgment, which here had never existed. The Court never had any authority to award
“$5,048.60”, and the judgment issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 in the amount of $24.30 had
been paid. The prima facie fraudulent “affidavit” by Defendant Racketeer JACK N.
PETERSON fraudulently pretended a “07/29/2009” “judgment”, Doc. # 432-2, Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228, which all Defendants knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal had
never existed. See also Ch. 55, 56, Florida Statutes.
RULE 38 EXTORTION AND FRAUD SCHEME OF RECORD
496. Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39, costs may be taxed against the appellant, if a judgment is
affirmed. Defendant Johnson knew and concealed that the “costs allowed” and/or taxed were
“$24.30”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 365, p. 15; 386-3, p. 15. Def. Johnson
concealed that no costs were ever allowed under purported “Rule 38”.
497. “FRAP 38, Frivolous Appeal - Damages and Costs” provides that
“if a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately
filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award
just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.”
498. Defendant Johnson knew and fraudulently concealed that pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 38-1,
Time for Filing Motions, Motions for damages and costs pursuant to FRAP 38 must be filed
no later than the filing of appellee’s brief. Here, Defendant Johnson had tendered and/or filed
his prima facie fraudulent brief on 08/08/2008. See Appellate Case No. 2008-13170-BB,
128
certified Docket sheet. Admittedly, Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson never filed any “Rule 38
motion” before 08/08/2008.
499. Admittedly, Defendant “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson had never filed any Rule 38
motion. Rule 38 only provided for “damages” and “costs”. Here, Defendant Wilkinson had
never filed any such motion and perpetrated fraud on the Court. See certified Docket.
Defendant Johnson concealed said “Rule 38 motion”-fraud-scheme and conspiracy to extort.
129
DEFENDANT EUGENE C. TURNER
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS
500. Dr. Jorg Busse is suing Defendant Eugene C. Turner in his private individual capacity
and official capacity as Circuit Court Judge, 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County,
Florida. Defendant Turner’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity
and official capacity.
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
501. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Turner perpetrated record RICO predicate
acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
502. Defendant Turner knew and fraudulently concealed that Granada Condominium Homes
Association, Inc. and its Agents extorted money and property, because Def. E. C. Turner
held interests in bankrupt bank Orion.
503. Defendant Turner failed to disclose his interests in Granada Condo Association Inc.’s
Agent, bankrupt Orion bank.
504. Defendant Turner obstructed justice, lawful accounting, and audits.
505. Defendant Turner knew and fraudulently concealed that bankrupt Orion Bank had
failed.
506. Defendant Turner knew that said Association’s legal action was for prima facie illegal
and criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating,
and racketeering.
507. Dr. Jorg Busse was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion,
racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression.
130
INJURY TO DR. BUSSE’S PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
508. Defendant Turner injured Dr. Jorg Busse, record Naples property and business owner,
by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Dr. Busse
is holding legal and beneficial interests in his Naples business and property. See Case No.
2009 02617CC.
509. Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business
interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Turner’s
extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice.
510. Plaintiffs demand full disclosure of Def. Eugene C. Turner’s interests in any and all
agents of Granada Condominium Homes, and in particular in bankrupt Orion Bank.
DEFENDANT LEE COUNTY, FL, COMMISSIONERS AND COMMISSION
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS
511. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Corrupt Lee County,
Florida, Commissioners in their private individual capacities and official capacity as
Commissioners, Lee County, FL, Commission. Said Defendant Commissioners’ criminal and
unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity.
RECORD FALSIFICATIONS, FRAUD, EXTORTION, AND BRIBERY
512. Defendant County Commissioners knew and fraudulently concealed publicly recorded
retaliation, racketeering, and extortion of Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa property under
fraudulent pretenses of prima facie falsified “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”
and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”.
131
CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT, DEFRAUD, AND DEPRIVE
513. Said Defendant County Commissioners conspired with other Government Officials and
Defendants such as, e.g., JACK N. PETERSON and KENNETH M. WILKINSON, to extort
money, fees, and property under facially false pretenses of a falsified and/or forged
“regulation”, “O.R. 569/875”, and/or “law”, which all Def. Commissioners knew had never
legally existed and had never been legally recorded.
CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDED CAYO COSTA “CLOUD REMOVAL”
514. Further record evidence of said Defendants’ fraudulent concealment and the publicly
recorded racketeering and extortion of private land and money were the “removal of any
cloud”, as conclusively evidenced by, e.g.:
a. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 03-24-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998;
b. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090; c. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488; d. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of
County Lands.
PROSECUTION OF DEF. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS UNDER CIVIL RICO
515. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Commissioners perpetrated record RICO
predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
516. Defendant Commissioners knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-
4”, Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of
extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering:
“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request
132
that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2.
Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded
extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
517. Defendant Crooked Commissioners injured the Plaintiff record property and business
owners by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C).
Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property,
riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section
1961(3); PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th
Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible
property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of
Defendant Commissioners’ extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice.
518. In particular, Defendant Crooked Commissioners extorted money, fees, and property
under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land
parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had
never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and
property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at
Brigham Moore.
519. Said Defendant knew that
a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1;
b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386;
c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record;
133
d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”;
e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”;
f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired;
g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed;
h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could
not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger
Wilkinson.
520. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that
“(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).”
See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS
521. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant
Commissioners’ Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the
publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation,
fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land
parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake
“writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness
requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338,
288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5.
CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY
522. Defendant Commissioners acquired control and conspired with other Officials to
acquire control of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized
crime such as, e.g.:
134
a. Exercising various forms of extortion;
b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such
as, e.g., “$5,048.60”;
c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates;
d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes.
FOR BRIBES DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT
523. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Commissioners concealed and conspired with other
Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent:
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490
(11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959)
DEFENDANT COMMISSION’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY
524. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Commissioners has been collecting an
unlawful debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie
illicit “park” enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision
as platted in 1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant
Commission’s and other Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”,
entertainment, and recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of
falsified “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an
area of Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25.
525. Section 1962(B) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly,
135
any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.”
DEFENDANT’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION”
526. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Commission has been collecting an
unlawful debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise.
Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Commissioners’ and other Officials’
participation in said record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ##
“12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in
Government fraud and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”.
527. Section 1962(c) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.”
528. The Plaintiffs proved
1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce; 2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation” enterprise; 3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
529. As County Commissioners, Defendants had a most meaningful connection between the
illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of land, money, and fees for the
enterprise under color of, e.g., office and authority.
136
530. Defendant Commissioners extorted and concealed, and conspired to extort and conceal,
that he procedure on execution did not accord with the procedure of the State of Florida. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 69. Defendant knew that Florida procedure required a recorded and certified
judgment, which here had never existed. The Court never had any authority to award
“$5,048.60”, and the judgment issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 in the amount of $24.30 had
been paid. The prima facie fraudulent “affidavit” by Defendant Racketeer JACK N.
PETERSON fraudulently pretended a “07/29/2009” “judgment”, Doc. # 432-2, Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228, which all Defendants knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal had
never existed. See also Ch. 55, 56, Florida Statutes.
PERVERSION OF LAW & RULES FOR RACKETEERING PURPOSES
531. Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39, costs may be taxed against the appellant, if a judgment is
affirmed. Defendant Commissioners knew and concealed that the “costs allowed” and/or
taxed were “$24.30”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 365, p. 15; 386-3, p. 15. Def.
Commissioners concealed that no costs were ever allowed under purported “Rule 38”.
RULE 38 RACKETEERING AND FRAUD SCHEME
532. “FRAP 38, Frivolous Appeal - Damages and Costs” provides that
“if a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately
filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award
just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.”
533. Defendant Commissioners knew and fraudulently concealed that pursuant to 11th Cir. R.
38-1, Time for Filing Motions, Motions for damages and costs pursuant to FRAP 38 must be
filed no later than the filing of appellee’s brief. Here, Defendant had tendered and/or filed his
prima facie fraudulent brief on or before 08/08/2008. See Appellate Case No. 2008-13170-
137
BB, certified Docket sheet. Admittedly, Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson never filed any
“Rule 38 motion” before 08/08/2008.
534. Admittedly, Defendant “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson had never filed any Rule 38
motion. Rule 38 only provided for “damages” and “costs”. Here, Defendant Wilkinson had
never filed any such motion and perpetrated fraud on the Court. See certified Docket.
Defendant Commissioners concealed said “Rule 38 motion”-fraud-scheme and conspiracy to
extort.
DEFENDANT ED CARNES
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS
535. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Crooked Ed Carnes in his
private individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. Circuit Judge, 11th Circuit.
Defendant Ed Carnes’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and
official capacity.
CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDED CAYO COSTA “CLOUD REMOVAL”
536. Further record evidence of the publicly recorded racketeering and extortion of private
land and money were the “removal of any cloud”, as conclusively evidenced by, e.g.:
a. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 3-
24-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998.
b. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090;
c. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488;
d. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of
County Lands.
138
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
537. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Ed Carnes perpetrated record RICO
predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
538. Defendant Ed Carnes knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,
Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of
extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering:
“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2.
Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded
extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
539. Defendant Crooked Ed Carnes injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners
by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs
are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian
Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3);
PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr.
21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses,
business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Carnes’
extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice.
540. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official Ed Carnes extorted money, fees, and property
under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land
139
parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had
never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and
property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at
Brigham Moore.
541. Said Defendant knew that
a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1;
b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386;
c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record;
d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”;
e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”;
f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired;
g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed;
h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could
not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger
Wilkinson.
542. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that
“(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment
shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule
does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).”
See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
140
18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS
543. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant Carnes’
Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly
recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud
on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels”
“12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of
execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness
requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338,
288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5.
CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY
544. Defendant Ed Carnes acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire
control of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such
as, e.g.:
a. Exercising various forms of extortion;
b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such
as, e.g., “$5,048.60”;
c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates;
d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes.
FOR BRIBES DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT
545. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeer Ed Carnes concealed and conspired with
other Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent:
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490
(11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959)
141
DEFENDANT CARNES’ SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY
546. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Ed Carnes has been collecting an
unlawful debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie
illicit “park” enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision
as platted in 1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Carnes’
and other Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”, entertainment, and
recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of falsified “land
parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an area of
Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25.
547. Section 1962(B) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.”
DEFENDANT’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION”
548. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake
“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,
“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Ed Carnes has been collecting an
unlawful debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise.
See Chapters 56 Final Process, and 51 Summary Procedure, Florida Statutes, and Florida’s
express Constitutional Guarantees of the Rights to own property and exclude Government.
549. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Carnes’ and other Officials’
participation in said record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ##
142
“12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in
Government fraud and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”.
550. Section 1962(c) provides that:
“It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.”
551. The Plaintiffs proved
1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce; 2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation” enterprise; 3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
552. As a Circuit Judge presiding over Defendants’ Appellees’ prima facie fraudulent
defenses, claims, falsifications, and forgeries, Defendant Ed Carnes had a most meaningful
connection between the illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of land,
money, and fees for the enterprise under color of, e.g., office and authority.
553. Defendant Ed Carnes extorted and concealed, and conspired to extort and conceal, that
he procedure on execution did not accord with the procedure of the State of Florida. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 69. Defendant knew that Florida procedure required a recorded and certified
judgment, which here had never existed. The Court never had any authority to award
“$5,048.60”, and the judgment issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 in the amount of $24.30 had
been paid. The prima facie fraudulent “affidavit” by Defendant Racketeer JACK N.
PETERSON fraudulently pretended a “07/29/2009” “judgment”, Doc. # 432-2, Case No.
143
2:2007-cv-00228, which all Defendants knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal had
never existed. See also Ch. 55, 56, Florida Statutes.
PERVERSION OF LAW & RULES FOR RACKETEERING PURPOSES
554. Def. Carnes knew that pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39, costs may be taxed against the
appellant, if a judgment is affirmed. Defendant Ed Carnes knew and concealed that the “costs
allowed” and/or taxed were “$24.30”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 365, p. 15; 386-3,
p. 15. Def. Carnes concealed that no costs were ever allowed under purported “Rule 38”.
RULE 38 RACKETEERING AND FRAUD SCHEME
555. “FRAP 38, Frivolous Appeal - Damages and Costs” provides that
“if a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately
filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award
just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.”
556. Defendant Carnes knew and fraudulently concealed that pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 38-1,
Time for Filing Motions, Motions for damages and costs pursuant to FRAP 38 must be filed
no later than the filing of appellee’s brief. Here, Defendant Carnes had tendered and/or filed
his prima facie fraudulent brief on 08/08/2008. See Appellate Case No. 2008-13170-BB,
certified Docket sheet. Admittedly, Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson never filed any “Rule 38
motion” before 08/08/2008.
557. Admittedly, Defendant “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson had never filed any Rule 38
motion. Rule 38 only provided for “damages” and “costs”. Here, Defendant Wilkinson had
never filed any such motion and perpetrated fraud on the Court. See certified Docket.
Defendant Ed Carnes concealed said “Rule 38 motion”-fraud-scheme and conspiracy to
extort.
144
DEFENDANT JOHN MANNING
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS
558. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Corrupt John E. Manning in
his private individual capacity and official capacity as Lee County Commissioner, Florida.
Defendant Manning’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and
official capacity. Defendant had a criminal record.
CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDED CAYO COSTA “CLOUD REMOVAL”
559. Def. John Manning concealed record evidence of the publicly recorded racketeering
and extortion of private land and money and the “removal of any cloud”, as conclusively
evidenced by, e.g.:
a. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 3-
24-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998.
b. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090;
c. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488;
d. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of
County Lands.
DEF. MANNING’S PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
560. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer John E. Manning perpetrated record RICO
predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
561. Defendant John Manning knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-
4”, Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of
extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering:
145
“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2.
Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded
extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
562. Defendant Crooked John Manning injured the Plaintiff record property and business
owners by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C).
Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property,
riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section
1961(3); PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th
Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible
property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of
Defendant John Manning’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice.
563. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official John Manning extorted money, fees, and
property under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified
“land parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County,
FL, had never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and
property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at
Brigham Moore.
564. Said Defendant knew that
a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1;
146
b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386;
c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record;
d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”;
e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”;
f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired;
g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed;
h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could
not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger
Wilkinson.
DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. AGENTS
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS
565. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Corrupt United States of
America Agents in their private individual capacities and official capacity as U.S. Officials.
The deliberate deprivations were criminal and unlawful acts on record and outside any
immunity and official capacity.
CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDED CAYO COSTA “CLOUD REMOVAL”
566. U.S. Agents fraudulently concealed record evidence of the publicly recorded
racketeering and extortion of private land as legally described in reference to the 1912
Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat of Survey in PB 3, PG 25, and of money, and the recorded
“removal of any cloud” as conclusively evidenced by, e.g.:
a. Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912);
b. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 3-
24-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998.
147
c. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090;
d. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488;
e. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of
County Lands.
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
567. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant U.S. Agents perpetrated record RICO predicate acts
such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
RETALIATION OF RECORD
568. In retaliation, Defendant U.S. Agents recklessly and disparately denied Plaintiff Dr.
Busse his immigration privileges and benefits.
569. Dr. Busse was entitled to
a. Complain about the Government corruption, bribery, racketeering, and extortion, and
b. Be free of retaliation, and
c. Redress his published and recorded Government grievances by jury trial under, e.g., the
7th, 1st, and 14th U.S. Constitutional Amendments.
570. Dr. Busse was entitled to receive equal immigration benefits and privileges and
redress the illegal retaliatory denial.
CONCEALMENT AND CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL
571. The U.S. Agents knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal that Defendant K. M.
Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”, Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie
illegal and criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice,
retaliating, and racketeering:
148
“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2.
Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded
extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
572. U.S. Officials injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by reasons of
publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding
legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on
the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3); PRESCOTT
v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009).
Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business
interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of U.S. Agents’ extortion,
racketeering, and obstruction of justice.
573. In particular, U.S. Officials extorted money, fees, and property under prima facie false
pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. #
425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had never owned and could not
have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and property as a matter of law. See
business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at Brigham Moore.
574. U.S. Agents knew that
a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1;
b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386;
149
c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record;
d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”;
e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”;
f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired;
g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed;
h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could
not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger
Wilkinson.
DEFENDANT HUGH D. HAYES
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS
575. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Corrupt Hugh D. Hayes in
his private individual capacity and official capacity as Circuit Court Judge for the 20th
Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. Defendant Hayes’ criminal and unlawful
acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity.
HAYES’ FRIVOLITY FRAUD SCHEME – FRAUD ON THE COURT
FRAUDULENT PRETENSES OF FRIVOLITY
576. Before Plaintiff had even filed his Court ordered Complaint, Hayes deliberately
deprived the Plaintiff of his right to jury trial and obstructed justice under fraudulent
pretenses of “frivolity”.
CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDED CAYO COSTA “CLOUD REMOVAL”
577. Hayes fabricated frivolity and fraudulently concealed the record evidence of the publicly
recorded racketeering and extortion of private land and money were the “removal of any
cloud”, as conclusively evidenced by, e.g.:
150
a. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 3-
24-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998.
b. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090;
c. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488;
d. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of
County Lands.
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
578. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Hugh D. Hayes perpetrated record RICO predicate
acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
579. Defendant previously recused Judge Hayes knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s
“motion”, “Rule 27-4”, Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and
criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and
racketeering:
“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2.
Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded
extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
580. Defendant Hugh D. Hayes injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by
reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are
151
holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot
15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3).
INJURY TO PLAINTIFF’S NAPLES PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
581. Defendant Hugh D. Hayes injured the Plaintiff record property and business owner by
reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiff is
holding legal and beneficial interests in her Naples business and property. See Section
1961(3).
582. Def. Hayes knew that Plaintiff failed bank had been bankrupt and that Plaintiff
bankrupt bank’s founder, Alfred Camner, was not any authorized Counsel for Plaintiff
bankrupt bank.
583. Def. Hayes knew that admittedly Plaintiff bankrupt bank had lost and/or destroyed
any and all alleged debt evidence and that Plaintiff bankrupt bank’s action by its troubled
founder was on its face non-meritorious, fraudulent, and/or frivolous. Because admittedly
the bankrupt bank did not know the time and manner of destruction and/or loss, Plaintiff
failed bank could not have possibly “reestablished” that which had never existed.
DEFENDANT JOHN LEY
DESTRUCTION AND ALTERATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
584. With corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits, Defendant John Ley unlawfully destroyed
and altered official Government records.
CONSPIRACY TO DESTROY AND ALTER OFFICIAL COURT DOCUMENTS
585. With corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits, Defendant John Ley conspired to
unlawfully destroyed and alter official records.
152
FALSIFICATIONS OF OFFICIAL COURT RECORDS
586. Def. Ley falsified and/or caused others to falsify official court records.
587. Def. Ley concealed the lack of any “judgment” and “bill of costs” in the amount of
“$5,048.60” by Defendant Appellee Wilkinson. See Plaintiffs’ 07/20/2010 Certified Letter to
John Ley.
DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS, CASE NO. 2010-10963
588. Def. Ley destroyed and/or caused others to destroy the official records in Case ## 2010-
10963 and 2010-10967. See Exhibits.
FALSIFICATION OF “APPEAL” AND “CASE”
589. Def. Ley falsified an appeal as conclusively evidenced by the public records of appeal
fees paid by the Plaintiffs.
CONCEALMENT
590. Def. Ley knew and concealed that on or around 08/14/2008, Plaintiff Appellant Dr. Jorg
Busse had filed “Appellant’s motion to strike appellee property appraiser’s motion for
damages and costs as frivolous”, because Appellee “land parcel” Forger and Racketeer
Wilkinson was extorting money and land under color of prima facie falsified “land parcels”
“12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”.
591. Def. Ley knew and concealed that on or around 08/18/2008, Plaintiff Appellant Dr. Jorg
Busse had filed “Motion for Sanctions Against Appellees Lee County”, because Appellees
Lee County extorted property and money under color of authority and had never owned the
falsified and forged land parcels.
153
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS
592. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant John Ley in his private
individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. Circuit Clerk, 11th Circuit. Defendant Ley’s
criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity.
CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDED CAYO COSTA “CLOUD REMOVAL”
593. Further record evidence of the publicly recorded racketeering and extortion of private
land and money were the “removal of any cloud”, as conclusively evidenced by, e.g.:
a. Lee County PB 3, PG 25 (1912);
b. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 3-
24-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998.
c. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090;
d. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488;
e. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of
County Lands.
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
594. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Ley perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as,
e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
595. Defendant Ley knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,
Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of
extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering:
“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request
154
that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2.
Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded
extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
596. Defendant Ley injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by reasons of
publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding
legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on
the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3); PRESCOTT
v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009).
Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business
interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Ley’s extortion,
racketeering, and obstruction of justice.
597. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official Ley extorted money, fees, and property under
prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land parcels”, and
a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had never owned
and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and property as a matter
of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at Brigham Moore.
598. Said Defendant knew that
a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1;
b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386;
c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record;
d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”;
155
e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”;
f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired;
g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed;
h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could
not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger
Wilkinson.
599. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that
“(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment
shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule
does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).”
See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS
600. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant Ley’s
Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly
recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud
on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels”
“12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of
execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness
requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338,
288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5.
CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY
601. Defendant Ley acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire control of
Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.:
156
a. Exercising various forms of extortion;
b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such
as, e.g., “$5,048.60”;
c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates;
d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes.
DEFENDANT RICHARD JESSUP
LACK OF IMMUNITY, PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS & EXTORTION
602. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Richard Jessup in his private
individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. Deputy Marshal (Fort Myers, FL).
Defendant Jessup’s criminal and unlawful acts, and in particular, the racketeering and
extortion of record under color of a prima facie illegal “writ of execution” on record were
outside any immunity and official capacity. See Doc. ## 425, 429, Case No. 2:2007-cv-
00228.
CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDED CAYO COSTA “CLOUD REMOVAL”
603. From direct communications with Plaintiffs, Def. Jessup knew the record evidence of
the publicly recorded racketeering and extortion of private land and money and the
“removal of any cloud”, as conclusively evidenced by, e.g.:
a. Lee County PB 3, Pg 25 (1912);
b. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 3-
24-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998.
c. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090;
d. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488;
157
e. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of
County Lands.
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
604. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Jessup perpetrated record RICO predicate
acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
605. Defendant Jessup knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,
Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of
extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering:
“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2.
Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded
extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
606. Defendant Jessup injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by reasons of
publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding
legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on
the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3); PRESCOTT
v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009).
Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business
interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Jessup’s
extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice.
158
607. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official Jessup extorted money, fees, and property
under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land
parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had
never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and
property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at
Brigham Moore.
608. Pursuant to the Affidavit served upon Def. Jessup, said Defendant Jessup knew that
a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1;
b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386;
c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record;
d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”;
e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”;
f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired;
g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed;
h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could
not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger
Wilkinson.
609. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that
“(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment
shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule
does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).”
See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
159
18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS
610. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant
Jessup’s Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly
recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud
on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels”
“12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of
execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness
requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338,
288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5.
CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY
611. Defendant Jessup illegally acquired control, and conspired with other Officials to
acquire control of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized
crime such as, e.g., Doc. # 429, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228:
a. Exercising various forms of extortion;
b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “writ”
[Doc. ## 425, 429], “debt” such as, e.g., “$5,048.60”;
c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates;
d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes.
DEFENDAN DIANE NIPPER
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS
612. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Diane Nipper in her private
individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. District Court Clerk. Defendant Nipper’s
criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity.
160
FALSIFICATION OF “writ of execution” and COVER-UP, DOC. # 425
613. Def. Nipper falsified a “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
614. On 07/16/2010, Def. Diane Nipper certified and authenticated a copy of the Docket, Case
No. 2:2007-cv-00228, which conclusively evidenced the lack of any record of falsified and
fabricated “appeal” “No. 09-13196”. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 44.
615. Def. Nipper knew and concealed that Def. Beverly B. Martin had falsified said “appeal”
for criminal purposes of extorting, racketeering, and retaliating against the Plaintiff
corruption victims.
CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDED CAYO COSTA “CLOUD REMOVAL”
616. Def. Nipper concealed record evidence of the publicly recorded racketeering and
extortion of private land and money under color of fake “land parcels” [see PB 3, PG 25
(1912)] and the fake “writ” Nipper had purportedly “issued”, Doc. # 425. Nipper concealed
to cover-up for other Government Agents:
a. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 3-
24-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998.
b. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090;
c. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488;
d. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of
County Lands.
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
617. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Nipper perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such
as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
161
618. Defendant Nipper knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,
Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of
extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering:
“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2.
Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded
extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
619. Defendant Crooked Clerk D. Nipper injured the Plaintiff record property and business
owners by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C).
Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property,
riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section
1961(3); PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th
Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible
property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of
Defendant Nipper’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice.
620. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official Nipper extorted money, fees, and property
under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land
parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had
never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and
property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at
Brigham Moore.
162
621. Said Defendant knew that
a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1;
b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386;
c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record;
d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”;
e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”;
f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired;
g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed;
h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could
not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger
Wilkinson.
DEFENDANT LYNN GERALD, JR.
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS
622. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Corrupt Lynn Gerald, Jr., in
his private individual capacity and official capacity as Lee County Circuit Court Judge,
Case No. 2006-CA-003185 [LATER ILLEGALLY REMOVED BY DEF. JOHN EDWIN
STEELE AND S. POLSTER CHAPPELL, WHO DESTROYED THE OFFICIAL
RECORDS; see 2:2008-cv-00899]. Defendant Gerald’s criminal and unlawful acts on record
were outside any immunity and official capacity.
163
CONCEALMENT
623. Defendant Lynn Gerald, Jr., concealed publicly recorded extortion and racketeering
scheme “O.R. 569/875”. Def. Gerald knew that Lee County had never owned the prima facie
forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”.
COVER-UP AND BRIBERY
624. In exchange for bribes, Def. Gerald covered-up for the Lee County Defendants and
concealed the extortion under color of fake “parcels”.
BRIBERY AND RACKETEERING
625. Def. Gerald extended the racketeering and extortion of record in exchange for
Defendant Lee County’s bribes.
626. Def. Gerald fraudulently concealed record evidence of the publicly recorded
racketeering and extortion of private land and money were the “removal of any cloud”, as
conclusively evidenced by, e.g.:
a. Lee County PB 3 PG 25 (1912);
b. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 3-
24-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998.
c. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090;
d. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488;
e. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of
County Lands.
164
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
627. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Gerald perpetrated record RICO predicate
acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
628. Defendant Gerald knew that Plaintiffs and Dr. Jorg Busse were entitled to defend against
and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of
retaliation and oppression.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
629. Defendant Crooked Gerald injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by
reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are
holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot
15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3);
PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr.
21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses,
business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant
Gerald’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice.
DEFENDANT KENNETH L. RYSKAMP
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS
630. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Kenneth L. Ryskamp in his
private individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. District Judge, M.D. of Florida,
Palm Beach Division. Defendant Ryskamp’s criminal and/or unlawful acts on record were
outside any immunity and official capacity. In particular, Def. Ryskamp knew and
fraudulently concealed Defendants’ fraudulent Government ownership claims and forged
165
“land parcels”, which he could not find on the 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat in Lee
County Plat Book 3, Page 25.
EXTENSION OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION
631. Def. Ryskamp extended Florida’s culture of Government corruption and racketeering.
FRAUD ON THE COURT
632. In particular, Def. Ryskamp could not locate the facially falsified “land parcels” on the
referenced Plat, PB 3 PG (1912), but Defendant kept keeping the Plaintiffs out of Court.
CASE FIXING AND DESTRUCTION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
633. Def. Ryskamp destroyed and/or caused others to destroy about half of Plaintiffs’
Complaint in the Palm Beach Division of the Middle District of Florida.
634. After Ryskamp had destroyed the official Court records, he fixed and closed the
Plaintiffs’ Case and concealed the record “land parcel” falsifications and forgeries for
purposes of Government extortion and retaliation.
CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDED CAYO COSTA “CLOUD REMOVAL”
635. Ryskamp fraudulently concealed record evidence of the publicly recorded racketeering
and extortion of private land and money and the “removal of any cloud”, as conclusively
evidenced by, e.g.:
a. Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912);
b. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 3-
24-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998.
c. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090;
d. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488;
166
e. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of
County Lands.
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
636. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Ryskamp perpetrated record RICO
predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
Plaintiffs were entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering,
corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
637. Defendant Crooked Ryskamp fixed Plaintiffs’ Case and injured the Plaintiff record
property and business owners by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See
Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa
business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-
00015.015A. See Section 1961(3); PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx.
395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and
intangible property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate
result of Defendant Ryskamp’s obstruction of justice, extortion, and racketeering.
DEFENDANT CHARLIE CRIST
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS
638. The Plaintiff public corruption and racketeering victims are suing Defendant Charlie
Crist in his private individual capacity and official capacity as Governor of the State of
Florida, who petitioned for the 19th Florida Statewide Grand Jury on Public Corruption.
167
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
639. When directly confronted with well-known Government extortion, fraud, and
racketeering scheme “O.R. 569/875” and facially forged “land parcels” which Def. Crist
could not find on the Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat, PB 3 PG 25 (1912), Crist concealed the
Government crimes and obstructed due process, equal protection, investigation, and
prosecution.
NO IMMUNITY FOR COVER-UP OF GOVERNMENT CRIMES & EXTORTION
640. Defendant Crist’s criminal and/or unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and
official capacity. In particular, Def. Crist knew and fraudulently concealed Defendants’
fraudulent Government ownership claims of private Cayo Costa land and forged “land
parcels”, which Crist could not find on the 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat in Lee County
Plat Book 3, Page 25.
EXTENSION OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION
641. Def. Crist extended Florida’s pandemic culture of Government corruption and
racketeering by obstructing justice, investigation, and installing Defendant John E. Manning
who had a criminal record related to, e.g., concealment and non-disclosure.
FRAUD, DECEPTION, AND TRICKERY
642. In particular, Def. Crist could not locate the facially falsified “land parcels” on the
referenced Plat, PB 3 PG (1912), but Defendant Crist kept obstructing any investigation of
the prima facie extortion of land and money and the racketeering under color of fake “land
parcels”.
168
CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDED CAYO COSTA “CLOUD REMOVAL”
643. Def. Crist fraudulently concealed record evidence of the publicly recorded racketeering
and extortion of private land and money and the “removal of any cloud”, as conclusively
evidenced by, e.g.:
a. Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912);
b. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 3-
24-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998.
c. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090;
d. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488;
e. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of
County Lands.
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
644. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Charlie Crist perpetrated record RICO predicate acts
such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. The Plaintiffs were entitled
to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and
be free of retaliation and oppression.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
645. Defendant Crooked Crist injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by
reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are
holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot
15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3);
PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr.
169
21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses,
business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Crist’s
obstruction of justice, extortion, and racketeering.
646. Def. Crist knew and concealed that the extorted private land is worth Hundreds of
Millions of Dollars and that no “State park” had ever existed in the admittedly undedicated
private residential Cayo Costa Subdivision as patently clearly proven by said 1912 record
Subdivision Plat of Survey in Plat Book 3, Page 25.
DEFENDANT CHARLES “BARRY” STEVENS
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS
647. The Plaintiff public corruption and racketeering victims are suing Defendant Charles
“Barry” Stevens in his private individual capacity and official capacity as “Park Ranger”,
“Cayo Costa State Park”.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
648. Defendant Stevens could not find prima facie forged “land parcels” on the Cayo Costa
Subdivision Plat, but continued fires and caused others to start fires on extorted land within
the private undedicated residential Cayo Costa Subdivision, PB 3 PG 25 (1912).
SLANDER OF TITLE
649. Def. Stevens recklessly slandered Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable record title to Lot 15A,
Cayo Costa, even though Def. Stevens knew that Defendants Lee County, FL, had made
fraudulent “land ownership” claims and conspired to fraudulently conceal the facially
falsified “land parcels” of public record.
170
650. Stevens knew that public corruption is pandemic in Florida and that the Def. Governor
of the State of Florida, Charlie Crist, had successfully petitioned for the 19th Florida
Statewide Grand Jury on Public Corruption.
CRIMINAL & CIVIL TRESPASS, AND ARSON
651. Defendant Stevens trespassed and caused others to trespass onto private undedicated
Cayo Costa and concealed Plaintiffs’ private implied street and alley easements, PB 3, PG
25. See Doc. # 429, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
652. Def. Stevens started and encouraged others to start fires and perpetrate arson in private
Cayo Costa. In 2008, Hundreds of Acres of private Cayo Costa Subdivision land burnt down
injuring the Plaintiffs.
FRAUD, EXTORTION, DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS
653. Def. Stevens obstructed justice extended Government extortion, fraud, and racketeering
scheme “O.R. 569/875” and facially forged “land parcels” which Defendants Stevens and
Crist could not find on the Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat, PB 3 PG 25 (1912). Def. Stevens
concealed the publicly recorded Government crimes, and obstructed due process, equal
protection, investigation, and prosecution.
NO IMMUNITY FOR COVER-UP OF GOVERNMENT CRIMES & EXTORTION
654. Defendant’s criminal and/or unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and
official capacity. In particular, Def. Stevens knew and fraudulently concealed Defendants’
fraudulent Government ownership claims of private Cayo Costa land and forged “land
parcels”, which Stevens could not find on the 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat in Lee
County Plat Book 3, Page 25.
171
EXTENSION OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION
655. Def. Stevens extended Florida’s pandemic culture of Government corruption and
racketeering by obstructing justice, investigation, and installing Defendant John E. Manning
who had a criminal record related to, e.g., concealment and non-disclosure.
FRAUD, DECEPTION, AND TRICKERY
656. In particular, Def. Stevens could not locate the facially falsified “land parcels” on the
referenced Plat, PB 3 PG (1912), but Defendant Stevens kept obstructing any investigation
of the prima facie extortion of land and money and the racketeering under color of known
fake “land parcels”.
CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDED CAYO COSTA “CLOUD REMOVAL”
657. Def. Stevens fraudulently concealed record evidence of the publicly recorded
racketeering and extortion of private land and money and the “removal of any cloud”, as
conclusively evidenced by, e.g.:
a. Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912);
b. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 3-
24-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998.
c. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090;
d. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488;
e. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of
County Lands.
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
658. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant “Barry” Stevens perpetrated record RICO predicate
172
acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. The Plaintiffs were
entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption,
fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression. See Doc. # 429, Case No. 2:07-cv-00228.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
659. Defendant Crooked Stevens injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by
reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are
holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot
15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3);
PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr.
21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses,
business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant
Steven’s obstruction of justice, extortion, racketeering, and cover-up.
660. Def. Stevens knew and concealed that the extorted private land is worth Hundreds of
Millions of Dollars and that no “State park” had ever existed in the admittedly undedicated
private residential Cayo Costa Subdivision as patently clearly proven by said 1912 record
Subdivision Plat of Survey in Plat Book 3, Page 25.
DEFENDANT TONY WEST
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS
661. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Tony West in his private
individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. Attorney, Civil Division. Defendant West’s
criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity.
173
CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDS
662. Def. West concealed fake land parcels and record evidence of the publicly recorded
racketeering and extortion of private land and money and the “removal of any cloud”, as
conclusively evidenced by, e.g.:
a. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 3-
24-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998.
b. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090;
c. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488;
d. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of
County Lands.
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
663. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer West perpetrated record RICO predicate
acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
664. Defendant West knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,
Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of
extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering:
“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same
practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion,
racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth
M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request
that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for
filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2.
174
Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded
extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
665. Defendant Crooked West injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by
reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are
holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot
15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3);
PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr.
21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses,
business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s
extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice.
666. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official West extorted money, fees, and property
under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land
parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had
never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and
property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at
Brigham Moore.
667. Said Defendant knew that
a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1;
b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386;
c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record;
d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”;
175
e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”;
f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired;
g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed;
h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could
not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger
Wilkinson.
668. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that
“(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment
shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule
does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).”
See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS
669. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant Tony
West’s Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly
recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud
on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels”
“12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of
execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness
requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338,
288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5.
CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY
670. Defendant West acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire control
of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.:
176
a. Exercising various forms of extortion;
b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such
as, e.g., “$5,048.60”;
c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates;
671. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes.
DEFENDANT MARK ALLAN PIZZO
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS
672. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Corrupt Mark Allan Pizzo in
his private individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. Magistrate Judge. Defendant
Pizzo’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity.
CONCEALMENT OF PUBLIC RECORDS AS TO CAYO COSTA
673. Def. Pizzo concealed and conspired to conceal record evidence of the publicly recorded
racketeering and extortion of private land and money and the “removal of any cloud”, as
conclusively evidenced by, e.g.:
a. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 3-
24-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998.
b. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090;
c. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488;
d. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of
County Lands.
177
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
674. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Pizzo perpetrated record RICO predicate
acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
675. Defendant Pizzo knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,
Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of
extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering:
“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same
practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion,
racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth
M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request
that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for
filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2.
Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded
extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
676. Defendant Crooked Pizzo injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by
reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are
holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot
15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3);
PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr.
21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses,
178
business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Pizzo’s
extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice.
677. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official Pizzo extorted money, fees, and property
under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land
parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had
never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and
property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at
Brigham Moore.
678. Said Defendant knew that
a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1;
b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386;
c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record;
d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”;
e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”;
f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired;
g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed;
h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could
not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger
Wilkinson.
679. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that
179
“(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment
shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule
does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).”
See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS
680. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant Pizzo’s
Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly
recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud
on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels”
“12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of
execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness
requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338,
288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5.
CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY
681. Defendant Pizzo acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire control
of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.:
a. Exercising various forms of extortion;
b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such
as, e.g., “$5,048.60”;
c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates;
d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes.
180
DEFENDANT JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC. XXX
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS
682. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendants Johnson Engineering, Inc.
and adopt by reference any and all Complaints of Record against said Defendant in this
Complaint.
683. Johnson Engineering fraudulently concealed the prima facie criminality and illegality of
said facially forged “land parcels”.
DEFENDANT ANNE CONWAY
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS
684. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Corrupt Anne Conway in
her private individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. Chief U.S. District Judge.
Defendant Conway’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and
official capacity.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF PUBLIC RECORDS & CORRUPTION
685. Further record evidence of the publicly recorded racketeering and extortion of private
land and money were the “removal of any cloud”, as conclusively evidenced by, e.g.:
a. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 3-
24-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998.
b. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090;
c. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488;
d. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of
County Lands.
181
PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO
686. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly
authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Conway perpetrated record RICO
predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.
687. Defendant Conway knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,
Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of
extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering:
“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same
practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion,
racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth
M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request
that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for
filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2.
Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded
extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
688. Defendant Crooked Conway injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners
by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs
are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian
Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3);
PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr.
21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses,
182
business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s
extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice.
689. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official Conway extorted money, fees, and property
under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land
parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had
never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and
property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at
Brigham Moore.
690. Said Defendant Chief Judge concealed and conspired with the Officials in her Court that
a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1;
b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386;
c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record;
d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”;
e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”;
f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired;
g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed;
h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could
not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger
Wilkinson.
691. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that
183
“(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment
shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule
does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).”
See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS
692. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of said Defendant’s
Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly
recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud
on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels”
“12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of
execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness
requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338,
288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5.
CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY
693. Defendant Conway acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire
control of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such
as, e.g.:
a. Exercising various forms of extortion;
b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such
as, e.g., “$5,048.60”;
c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates;
d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes.
184
DEFENDANT CHARLIE GREEN
RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS 694. The Plaintiff racketeering and public corruption victims are suing Defendant Charlie
Green in his private individual capacity and official capacity as Clerk of Courts, Lee
County, Florida. Defendant Green’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any
immunity and official capacity.
695. Defendant Charlie Green, Lee County, FL, Clerk of Court’s Office, fraudulently
concealed the prima facie criminality, illegality, and nullity of “O.R. 569/875”.
696. Defendant Green fraudulently misrepresented “O.R. 569/875” as an “authentic
instrument”.
697. Defendant Green’s conspiracy to conceal and concealment of the facial illegality and
nullity of “O.R. 569/875” extended, e.g., known and recorded racketeering, extortion of
money and property, obstruction of justice, and retaliation against the Plaintiffs. Def.
Green fraudulently pretended and published that land extortion scheme “O.R. 569/875”
was a purported real property conveyance and/or deed while on its very face, “O.R. 569/875”
was null and void ab initio and without any color, legal description, execution, witnesses,
and legislative signatures.
DEFENDANT RICHARD D. DE BOEST, II
698. Defendant Richard D. DeBoest, II, fraudulently pretended outstanding assessments by
and on behalf of Granada Condominium Homes Association, Inc., Naples, FL, for illegal
purposes of extorting property and money as evidenced by, e.g., INSTRUMENT 4397277
OR 4539 PG 1977; OR 4539 PG 2033; and INSTR 4285498, OR 4445 PG 1665, Collier
County, FL, public records.
185
CONSPIRACY AND FORECLOSURE FRAUD
699. In the absence of any recorded credible evidence of debt or non-payment, Def. De Boest,
II, conspired with other Attorneys to perpetrate foreclosure fraud and extort money and
property despite publicly recorded controverting evidence to the contrary.
DEFENDANT CHENE M. THOMPSON
700. Defendant Chene M. Thompson fraudulently pretended outstanding assessments by
and on behalf of Granada Condominium Homes Association, Inc., Naples, FL, for illegal
purposes of extorting property and money as evidenced by, e.g., INSTRUMENT 4397277
OR 4539 PG 1977; OR 4539 PG 2033; and INSTR 4285498, OR 4445 PG 1665, Collier
County, FL, public records.
FORECLOSURE FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY
701. In the absence of any recorded credible evidence of debt or non-payment, Defendant
Chene M. Thompson conspired with other Attorneys to perpetrate foreclosure fraud and
extort money and property despite publicly recorded controverting evidence to the contrary.
PLAINTIFFS’ DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
702. The Plaintiffs hereby demand jury trial for all claims for which a jury trial is allowed.
DEMAND OF $19,000,000.00 IN THIS ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
703. The Plaintiffs hereby expressly demand $19,000,000.00. See Civil Cover Sheet at VIII.
Requested in Complaint.
CIVIL COVER SHEET IN THIS ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
704. The Plaintiffs attached a Civil Cover Sheet (Form JS 44):
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION
186
2 U.S. Government Defendants.
The first listed Plaintiff is UNITED STATES ex relatione Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
IV. NATURE OF SUIT 470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 240 Torts to Land 220 Foreclosure 370 Other Fraud (Personal Property) 290 All Other Real Property 440 Other Civil Rights
DECLARATORY STATEMENT / AFFIDAVIT
705. The Plaintiffs declare:
a. This Court published at page 25 of its Pro Se Litigant Guide, Jan. 2010:
“The party that ultimately wins a lawsuit may be awarded certain costs of litigation … If the plaintiff loses, however, the defendant(s) may file a Bill of Costs against the plaintiff. These costs, which are explained more fully at 28 U.S.C. 1920, include expenses such as deposition costs … A Bill of Costs form must be filed with the clerk within twenty-one (21) days after the time for appeal has expired. A copy must be served on the opposing attorney or pro se party. The Bill of Costs must be supported by a memorandum of law and must be verified by oath stating that the items are correct, the costs claimed are allowable by law, the services have been actually and necessarily performed … An itemization of all costs shall be attached to the Bill of Costs. …”
b. Here as a matter of public record, there were
(a) NO filing within 21 days after the time for appeal had expired with the Clerk of
the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida or any other Clerk;
(b) NO Bill of Costs for the extorted “$5,000.00”;
(c) NO copy served upon the Plaintiffs;
(d) NO supporting “memorandum of law”;
(e) NO fraudulently pretended “July 29, 2009, judgment” whatsoever;
See INSTRUMENT 4371834, Collier County, FL, Public Records;
(f) NO “verification by oath”;
187
(g) NO “itemization” of costs;
(h) NO services in the amount of “$5,000.00” ever “actually and necessarily
performed”;
(i) NO frivolous appeal;
c. The prima facie extortion of “$5,000.00” was of course not “allowable by law”.
d. $24.30 was the correct item;
e. $24.30 was allowable by law;
f. $24.30 worth of allowed services were “actually and necessarily performed” as stated
under oath by former Attorney for Defendant Appellee Kenneth M. Wilkinson,
Defendant Sherri L. Johnson, on 03/17/2009. See Doc. ## 365, 386.
g. Pursuant to binding 11th Appellate Circuit precedent, the lower or U.S. District Court
must receive a judgment before it could possibly “issue as mandate”. Here, the only
mandate issued was in the amount of $24.30 under FRAP 39, Costs, and not under
FRAP 38, Fed.R.App.P. Here, no frivolous appeal had ever or could have possibly ever
existed. See U.S. District Court and Circuit Court Dockets.
$24.30 JUDGMENT AND ISSUED MANDATE OF RECORD
706. Doc. # 365, Case No 2:2007-cv-00228, evidenced the only recorded judgment issued as
mandate in the amount of “$24.30”. The $24.30 mandate issued on June 11, 2009.
FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVIT, INSTRUMENT 4371834, COLLIER COUNTY, FL
707. Pursuant to INSTRUMENT 4371834, OR 4517 PG 1914, Collier County, Florida,
Public Records, Defendants KENNETH M. WILKINSON and JACK N. PETERSON
fraudulently claimed, pretended, asserted a “July 29, 2009”, “judgment”, which had never
existed and had never been recorded anywhere.
188
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Government corruption and racketeering victims demand
1. An Order restraining and preventing the record violations of section 1962 under the RICO
civil provisions;
2. An Order declaring the lack of any recorded mandate and/or money judgment other than the
$24.30, which was “issued as mandate on June 11, 2009” and recorded on June 15, 2009
pursuant to the certified Docket, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, U.S. District Court, M.D.
Florida, Fort Myers Division;
3. An Order declaring INSTRUMENT 4371834, O.R. 4517 PG 1914, Collier County Public
Records, and the equally fraudulent filing in Lee County part of a racketeering, extortion,
and fraud scheme
4. An Order restraining any further racketeering by Defendant Government Officials and in
particular the illegal forced selling of Plaintiffs’ said riparian Cayo Costa property, Lot 15A,
in the absence of any recorded “$5,048.60” “judgment”;
5. An Order dissolving and/or reorganizing the corrupt Government enterprise under, e.g., civil
RICO, and 18 U.S.C. 1964(a);
6. An Order removing the publicly recorded corrupting influence and make due provision for
said express fundamental rights of innocent persons under the Florida and Federal
Constitutions and, e.g., the 14th, 1st, 7th, 4th, 5th, and 11th U.S. Constitutional Amendments;
7. An EMERGENCY Order recusing Defendant Crooked, Objectively Partial, and Unfit
Government Racketeer John E. Steele;
8. An Order making the Government enterprise of record subject of injunctive relief, because it
is designed to aid the illegal enterprise of, e.g., obstructing justice, retaliating and
punishing, and extorting money, Government fees, and property;
189
9. An Order enjoining said U.S. Courts from retaliating against the Plaintiffs because they
blew the whistle on Government crimes & corruption, rather than punishing the Defendant
Racketeers of record and providing remedies and relief to the Plaintiff racketeering and
corruption victims;
10. An EMERGENCY Order recusing Defendant Crooked and Objectively Partial and Unfit
Judge C. E. Honeywell;
11. An EMERGENCY Order recusing Defendant Corrupt and Objectively Partial and Unfit
Judge S. Polster Chappell;
12. An Order for equitable relief;
13. An Order declaring Plaintiffs’ record title to Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, free & clear and
unencumbered;
14. An Order declaring fake “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-
00001.0000” falsified and prima facie forgeries as conclusively evidenced by the 1912
Cayo Costa Plat in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25;
15. An Order for EMERGENCY relief from the publicly recorded public corruption, extortion,
coercion, fraud, and concealment in said Courts;
16. An Order for compensatory damages;
17. An Order for triple punitive damages;
18. An Order for triple punitive damages under, e.g., Civil RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 1964(c);
19. An Order for expenses, costs, legal expenses, and fees;
20. An Order enjoining any and all Governments and the Defendants and Officials from any
trespass onto the private undedicated “Cayo Costa” “Subdivision” as legally described in
reference to said 1912 Plat in PB 3 PG 25;
190
21. An Order declaring the prima facie forgeries of non-existent “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-
00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” fraudulent and criminal acts of record;
22. An Order permanently enjoining any and all entries and publications of any “resolution
569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, “legislative act 569/875”, and non-existent “land parcels” “12-
44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” from any and all Government
records and publications;
23. An Order permanently enjoining any and all Governments and Defendants from fraudulently
“claiming” “asserting” “publishing” Government ownership of the street lands along the
Gulf of Mexico as legally described and conveyed in reference to the Plat of the prima facie
private “Cayo Costa” Subdivision;
24. An Order enjoining and restraining any extortion of property and money and foreclosure
fraud by Defendants Eugene C. Turner, Richard D. DeBoest, II, Chene M. Thompson, and
Hugh D. Hayes.
___________________________ /s/Jorg Busse, M.D., M.M., M.B.A. Private Attorney General; Relator; Plaintiff public corruption & racketeering victim 10 Benning ST, # 135 West Lebanon, NH 03784-3402, U.S.A. c/o International Court of Justice Peace Palace The Hague, Netherlands _____________________ /s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott Private Attorney General; Relator; Plaintiff Government racketeering & corruption victim 10 Benning Street, # 135 West Lebanon, NH 03784-3402, U.S.A. c/o International Court of Justice Peace Palace The Hague, Netherlands
EXHIBITS
SUPPORTING PUBLIC RECORD EVIDENCE
EXTOU I Jtifel, FRAUD, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, RETALIATION, B R f f i m K S S
A. FACIALLY FRAUDULENT^ AFFIDAVIT [ DI I S\C KTN. PEll-RSON. K. M.
WILKINSON] INSTR 4371834. O.R. 4517 PC 1914, Collier County Public Records
B. PRIMA FACIE NULL & VOID "writ of execution", Case No. 2:07-cv-00228
C. PRIMA FACIE NULL & VOID "O.R. 569/875" AND LAND EXTORTION SCHEME
D. 07/21/2010 letter b\ Dcf. Racketeer JACK N. PETERSON
E. Def. CHARLIE GREEN'S recording instructions
F. RACKETEERING AND EXTORTION record evidence. Doc. # 429, Case 2:07-cv-228
G. Docket as CERTIFIED b\ Dcf. Diane Nipper on 07/16/2010, Case No. 2:07-cv-00228
Conclusively evidencing record absence of fictitious and fabricated appeal "09-13196"
H. FALSIFICATION of "appeal no 09-13196" b\ Def. Beverly B. Martin pursuant to
CERTIFIED docket at B.. which evidenced the lack ol any such "appear and the
yr/vo/Z/y^racketeering-and-evtortion-schcnie of record. "JUl 19 2010" CASE FIXING &
"DISMISSAL AS FRIVOLOUS"
I. DOC. # 434. 07/22/2010. b\ Def. .KM IN I . S fLRI I CASI< NO. 2:2(l07-CV-00228
J. Third Amended Complaint. Case No. 2:2007-cv-()O22,S. Doc. # 288. 282 (I 1 pages),
PRIMA FACIE NULL AND VOID "legislalive act" and/or "law '". Lake "O.R. 569/875",
FACIALLY FALSIFIED "regulalion" and/or "reso/ulion" attached as Page 9 of 11;
ETHICS COMPLAIN 1 against Del. Crooked Lee C oimi\ Official JACK N. PETERSON
Attached as Page 10 of I I
191
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-7 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 6
K. PRIMA FACIE FRAUDULENT and FRIVOLOUS motion by Defendant Racketeer and
"land parceT Forger K. M. Wilkinson: "Appellee Properly Appraiser's Motion for
Sanctions for Filing of a frivolous Motion". "Rule 2~-4". Case No. 2:2()07-cv-00228, Doc. #
386-2, pp 1-3. Doc. # 386-3. p. 15
L. BINDING PRECEDENT and RECORD EVIDENCE of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE,
JUDICIAL RETALIATION, and EXTORTION under color of fake "judgment" & "vwV",
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY. 41 F.3d 1490(11*
Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States. 269 F.2d 458 (5"' Cir.1959)
M. Lee County. FU INSTRUMENT # 2010000171344. WARRANTY DEED Lot 15A, "Cayo
Costa. Lee County Plat Book 3. Page 25 (1912) (2 pages)
N. RECORD RACKETEERING EVIDENCE: "Motion for Issuance of writ of execution ...",
RECORDED EVIDENCE of EXTORTION. FRAUD & FALSIFICATION of un-recorded
judgment. Doc. # 386. Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. by Def. Racketeer Jack N. Peterson;
PERVERSION of recorded "S24.30 judgment" into fake ••$5.()4X.60 debt"
O. Lee County Tax Collector's Office. Statement of Paid Properly faxes. Lot 15A. Cayo Costa
(2 pages)
P. DENIAL of "Appellee Wilkerson 's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment",
FALSIFICATION of-Rule 3<S motion", record evidence. Doc. # 386-5
FALSIFICATION of "Rule 3<S /udgi/ienf". record c\ idence. Doc. H 386-5
FALSIFICATION of "Rule 3<S bill of costs", record evidence. Doc. # 386-5
FALSIFICATION of unsubstantiated "$5,000 in attorneys fees". Doc. # 386-5
By Defendant Racketeers Dubina. Chief Judge. Tjollat. and Birch. Circuit Judges
Facially forged and pasted "certification". Doc. it 386-5. p. 2, right lower corner
192
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-7 Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 6
Q. MEMORANDUM OF NO DEDICATION Of 1 HP C \ Y O COS I A ROADS TO PUBLIC,
From The Office of Lee Count). Florida. Attorney. Dec. 29. 2000. Joan C. Henry. Esq.
R. 1912 Plat of undedieated private "Caxo Costa" Subdivision in Lee County Plat Book 3, P. 25
S. Recorded Survey of riparian I ot I5A. Cayo Costa. PB 3 I'Ci 25 (1912) on the Gulf of Mexico
T. Fraudulent Lee County Inventory C 'antral File. FALSIFIED parcel 12-44-20-01 -00000.00A0
O.R. 1651 / 2488, O.R. 2967 / 1084 - 1090, BLUE SHEET 980206, 03/24/1998(6 pages)
U. Falsified "Parcel 12-44-20-01-0000(1 00A0" by Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson (2 p)
V. Falsified "resolution", "legislalive ael". and/or "law " by Def. Racketeer John Edwin Steele,
Doc. ## 288. 282, Case No. 2:2()07-c\ -00228
W. "Judgment Issued as Mandate June 11 2009". in the amount of $24.30. FRAP 39 (1 p)
RACKETEERING/EXTORTION EVIDENCE: March 5. 2009 "opinion"', 11th Circuit
X. Bill of Costs Issued as Mandate June 11 2009. in the amount of $24.30. FRAP 39 (1 p)
Y. Fraudulent "Conclusion" and Case Fixing by Defendant U.S. Circuit Judges, Doc. # 365,
Case No. 2:2007-c\-00228: Doe. a 386.
Z. STATE Court Docket. Plaintiffs" Case No. 2006-CA-003185. BUSSE v. STATE OF
FLORIDA, Defendant Judge CrHRAI I). LYNN. Jr.. Filed 07/3 1/2006.
REMOVED to U.S. District Court by Def. Judges John I . Steele and S. Polstcr Chappell
AA. EXTORTION & PUBLIC CORRUPTION NO 1 ICE to Def. Drew Heathcoat, U.S.
Clerk (2 pages)
BB. Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge. Steven E. Ibison
CC. DESTRUCTION of official records as evidenced by search of "2007-00228", 11th
Circuit
DD. DESTRUCTION of Docket No. 201010963. U.S. Court of Appeals. 1 l,h Circuit
193
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-7 Filed 07/29/10 Page 3 of 6
EE.CASE FIXING. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. AND RETALIATION by Def. Judges
Black, Carnes. and Martin, dated "JUl 19 2010"" (2 pages)
FF.NOTICE OF CORRUPTION \ M ) LETTER DEMANDING AUTHENTICATION,
Def. JOHN LEY, U.S. Circuit Clerk. 1 l"' U.S. Appellate Circuit (2 pages)
GG. Motion to Stay Prima Facie Illegal Execution as a Matter of Law. Case No. 2:10-cv-
00390 (5 pages)
HH. Section 838.022, Florida Statutes. OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT
Chaptei 838. Fla. Slat.. BRIBERY. MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE
II. Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089. Doc. # 29. pp. 4. 7. Def. U.S. /Mlorney. Tony West, Matthew
L. Fesak, affirming U.S. jurisdiction under "c/V/7 RICO"
JJ. FACIALLY FALSIFIED "writ of execution". Case No 2:2()07-cv-00228. Doc. # 425
KK. Section 55.10. Florida Statutes. Judgments. .
Chapter 55 Judgments. Florida Statutes
LL. Defendant Racketeer K. M. Wilkinson's Answers to Plaintiffs First Set of
Interrogatories,, under oath. 10/22/2007; in particular, asserting under oath the RECORD
ABSENCE of "public Cayo Costa easements". Answer 4 24
MM. Florida 19"' Statewide Grand Jury on Public Corruption (09/30/2009 Petition),
Florida Statewide Prosecution Office. Office of the Attorney General of Florida.
NN. FALSIFIED "Plat" of "Cayo Costa Subdivision" as falsified and filed by Defendant
Racketeer K. M. Wilkinson as "Exhibit A", Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228
OO. Publicly recorded Case Fixing and Obstruction of Justice by Defendant Judges Gerald
B. Tjoflat, Susan Birch, and Joel F. Dubina. Chief Judge. U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit,
Doc. # 365, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228
194
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-7 Filed 07/29/10 Page 4 of 6
PP. Fraudulent Order. Case No. 2:2(K)7-cv-00228. Doc. tf 422. pp. 17-18. by Defendant
Racketeer John E. Steele, evidencing extortion, obstruction of justice, obstruction of court
access, and retaliation under fraudulent pretenses of. e.g.. "writ of execution", "lack of
jurisdiction", "ripeness recpnrements". "frivolity", "sanciions". and under color of authority
and office.
QQ. FBI Complaint against Def. Lee County Commissioner John Manning
RR. Concealment of fake unl. Doc. # 434. Case No. 2:20()7-ev-00228, by Def. J. E.
Steele
SS.FBI Complaint against Dcf. U.S. Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin.
Including "JUL 19 2010" CASE FIXING FOR BRIBES and RACKETEERING
TT.Record Evidence of Destruction of Plaintiffs" Appeal Records. ## "10-10963. 10-10967'
UU. GOVERNMENTAL FORGERIES. "O.R. 569/875". FORENSIC EVIDENCE
VV. Facially Fraudulent Order. Doc. U 338. Case 2:2007-cv-00228. by Def. John E.
Steele
WW. March 08, 2010 Letter by Dcf. John Ley. U.S. Circuit Clerk
XX. DESTRUCTION AND ALTERATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. EVIDENCE
YY. FRAUDULENT 04/06/2(110 ()rder by Def. ( looked Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin
ZZ. Supreme Court Justice Dav id Souler Communications, including binding precedent of
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY
AAA. OTHER; OTHER PUBLIC RECORDS
195
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-7 Filed 07/29/10 Page 5 of 6
CC: Federal Bureau of Investigation
U.S. Department of Justice
Eric Holder, Attorney General
Barack Hussein Obama, The White House
Florida Department of Law Enforcement
The Florida Bar
Real Property Probate and I rust Lawyer Section. The Florida Bar
196
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-7 Filed 07/29/10 Page 6 of 6
*** INSTR 4371834 OR 4517 PG 1914 RECORDED 12/10/2009 9:28 AM PAGES 1 *** DWIGKT E. BROCK, COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT REC S10.00
AFFIDAVIT
INSTR n 2009000303382. Pages 1 Doc Type AFF. Recorded 11 • 18.2009 at 10.11 AM. Charlie Green, Lee County CterV of Circuit Court Rec. Fee $10 00
Deputy Clerk DMERC1ER #1
»
STATE OF FLORIDA ) )
COUNTY OF LEE )
BEFORE ME the undersigned authority, personally appeared JACK N. PETERSON, who being
first duly sworn, says:
1. KENNETH M. WILKINSON, as Property Appraiser of Lee County, Florida, is the
holder of a judgment issued by the United StatesjCourt of Appeals in and for the Eleventh Circuit
on July 29, 2009 in Docket
$5,048.60.
2. The judgment hj
Kenneth M. Wi 2480 Thompson1
Fort Myers, FL
AFFIANT FURTHER
JORG BUSSE in the amount of
'irnty, Florida
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this
N. PETERSON, who is personally known to me.
of November, 2009 by JACK
' 0 - .
^nature ot Notafy ruDUc;
(Printed Name) IJESUEAJ WCOMMSSIONtDD 589573 EXPIRES: 0*c«rtm», 2010 lenrtllnNotorMfcUUiMlM
My Commission Expires:
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 23
DC 11 Rav. 1/00
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 425 Filed 02/02/10 Page 1 of 1
•FH FO
WRIT OF EXECUTION
's1
m^«mSfF&Jt1'^ United States District Court UT. imimtmm
TO THE MARSHAL OF: MiuyLtuibiHiurontiwioA United States District Court, Middle District of Florida F0RT MYERS• F l-0R,0A
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, that of the goods and chattels, lands and tenements in your district belonging to:
NAME Jorg Busse Building 2, Unit 4 1575 Curlew Avenue Naples. FL 34112-5038
you cause to be made and levied as well a certain debt of:
DOLLAR AMOUNT
Five Thousand Forty-Eight AND
DOLLAR AMOUNT
Sixty Cents
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of P'0"*3 , before the Judge of the said Court by the consideration of the same Judge lately recovered against the said,
Jorg Busse
and also the costs that may accrue under this writ. And that you have above listed moneys that the place and date listed below; and that you bring this writ with you.
PLACE 2115 Second Street, 6th Floor
DISTRICT M j d d | e D j s t r j c t o f p ^ ^ g
CITY Fort Myers DATE
Witness the Honorable United States Judge
DATE CLERK 01 StISryl L. Loesch
This writ was received and executed.
U.S. MARSHAL (BY) DEPUTY MARSHAL
2-/2 iS
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 23
.VUTO-l * 559^575
RESOUyTIOK PCRTAIRIiW T O PUBLIC U N M
IN,Sm gglfl̂ WHPIviyig
NHOtCAS, there' appears in the Public Records of Lee
County, Florida, In Plat Book 3 at page 25 the Second Revised
Mat of Cayo Coeta Subdivision: and
WHEREAS, there tppeara upon snid plat certain designated
lot and block areas aitd other undesignated areas t and
WHEREAS, there appears upon said plat certain un-numbered
and unlettered areas lying East of tho Easterly tier of Moeka
in said subdivision and West of tho Westerly tier of blocks
in said subdivision: and
TEREAS, tho County claims st id lands as public lands
together with all accretions thereto.
NO*. THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD Of COWTY
COWUMIONERS OF LEE COUNTY. FLORIDA does by this Resolution
claim a l l of raid lands and accretions thereto for the use
and benefit of the public for public purposes.
DONE AND ADOPTED this /? day of Js . ci. ».U-*-U. 1969.
V •
3 All
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 3 of 23
m LEE COUNTY i swn. j - r j - r j - r -^ ^, ^ a. ^ 533-2236 S O U T H W E S T F L O R I D A V y
Facsimile (239)485-2118 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
July 21, 2010
Vacant
District One
A. Bnan Bigclow
District Two
Rayjudah District Three
S fcH Jorg R. Busse P.O. Box 11124
^ " Z Naples, Florida 34101 -11124
c o Z ' ^ r Re: TELEPHONE/COMMUNICATIONS
David M. Owen County Attorney Sir:
Examiner
Diana M. Parker
county Hearing I understand from my administrative assistant, Wendy Wise, that you telephoned yesterday and spoke with her in my absence. I have asked you before to confine any communication to writing. You have chosen to simply ignore my request. Since this last call was nothing more than an opportunity for you to annoy and harass our staff, I again ask you to limit your communication to writing delivered by regular U.S. Mail.
I have directed staff to henceforth, if I am not available, to note the time of your call and simply hang up.
Sincerely,
JackfN. Peterson Assistant County Attorney
JNP/wlw
P.O. Box 398. Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398 (239) 533-21 I I Internet address http.'V/www.lee-county.com
A N EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
<f
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 4 of 23
IN ORDER TO RECORD A DEED IN LEE COUNTY THE FOLLOWING MUST BE MET:
"Prepared by" statement (name and address of the "natural" person preparing the Deed) Grantor(s) (Sellers-Party Giving Title) names legibly printed in the body of the Deed Grantor(s) mailing address Grantee(s) (Buyer-Party Receiving Title) names legibly printed in the body of the Deed Grantee(s) mailing address Signatures of Grantors Names printed under Grantors' signatures 2 witnesses for each signature, the names printed under witnesses' signatures Complete Notary acknowledgment o Names being acknowledged o Date acknowledgment taken
. o Signature of Notary t/\ \J^y 0 Name printed under signature
o Commission expiration date o Ink Seal
• The consideration, sale price, or outstanding mortgage must be on the document or listed in a cover letter for recording
• Three-inch square white space on the top right-hand comer of the first page of each document and a one-inch by three-inch square white space on the top right-hand corner of each subsequent page of the document.
These are RECORDING REQUIREMENTS for Deeds (F.S. 695.26). There may be other statutory requirements for making a conveyance valid, which are not within the scope of the recording office to dictate. For example, the Lee County Property Appraiser requires that the legal description be included on the deed document.
LEGAL ADVICE CANNOT BE PROVIDED: The Lee County Clerk's Office staff cannot help you complete legal forms or provide legal advice of any type. If you have questions about completing forms or the proper method of transferring property, you should consult an attorney or legal advisor.
FLORIDA DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX: Each document transferring an interest in real property may be subject to Florida's Documentary Stamp Tax (documentary stamps on deeds (rounded up to nearest hundred) $0.70 per $100.00) Please contact the Department of Revenue for guidance at (800) 352-3671. Documentary stamps are paid on the total consideration paid, given, or to be paid, for the transfer; see Department of Revenue reference sheet for details.
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 5 of 23
/ Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC U.S...Department of Justice
HJnited States Marshals Service See Instwctions for "Service of Process by the U.S. Marshal" on the reverse of this form.
MJUNTIFF
Jorg Busse COURT CASE NUMBER
07-00228-CV-Fm-29-SPC TYPE OF PROCESS
Writ of ISxecoti&S DEFENDANT
Lee County, Florida* e t c . , et a l . NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION. ETC.. TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF P R O P E R T Y T ^ E I S D R eOftTCEMft ,
Property to be Seized: Lot 15A,Cayo Casta, Parcel No. 12-44-20-OT-0®15S$J&A. 4 SERVE
^ ~ r
AT
ADDRESS (Street or RFD. Apartment No.. City, State tnd ZIP Code) • u , ^ serve: Jorg Busse» Building 2, Unit 4, 1575 Curlew Avenue, NapSaJ, f t 3'
- r t i l </> - *
5038
sH^Ng!ncE_wa^T^cpPYj221^^1^^Ii^l^^^£^SL5l!^L FJai I An.
ack N. Peterson, Esquire Assistant County Attorney 2115 Second Street , 6th Floor Fort Hyers, FL 33901
Number of process to be served with this Form - 285
«/»"! tf
Number of parties to be served in this case
-o-
Check for service on U.S.A.
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITINO SERVICE (Include Bi Tkkphoae fhmbets. tad Estmutcd Times Available Bar Service):
-no._ t *
rfo; AMenes, All
KU
Subject property i s located as shown on maps contained in t h ^ f s B s i t a of thejS Lee County Property Appraiser, Parcel No. 12-44-20-01-00015.^i^R(w«g.leepa^g).
I heieby ceitify and return that I D have personally served. D have legal evidence of service.Mhave executed as shown in "Remaiks", the pracess described on the mdividial, company, corporation, etc., at the address shown above or on the individual; company, corporation, etc., shownta the address inseited below
D I heieby ceitify and return that I am unable to locale the individual, company, corporation, c i c . named above (See remarks below)
Name and title of individual served (if nor shown above) A person of suitable age and dis-LJ action then residing in the defendant's
usual place of abode.
Address (complett only ifdinerent than shown above; Date of Service
4-5-10 Time am
pm
Stgnaiuie tftU.S. Marshal or Deputy
Service Fee 9 D
11,5 Tbtal Mileage Charges (iochidjm gulcaYors) Jding
Forwarding Fee Total Charges Advance Deposits
#50. H Amount owed to U S . Marsh:
+67,90 REMARKS:
moREDmoNs WSBEVSED
1. CLERK OF THE COURT n»M usRugs OIK mem
£
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 6 of 23
Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida Page 1 of 57
U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Internal Use Only
APPEAL
Busse v. Lee County, Florida ct al Assigned to: Judge John E. Steele Referred to: Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell Case in other court: 08-13170B
09-12372-B 09-13517F 09-13519F 09-13522F 09-1428IF 09-14282F 09-14284F 09-14285F 09-162J1F 09-16212F 09-16213F 09-16214F 09-16335F 10-10963-1 10-10967-1 10-11884-1
Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Plaintiff
Jorg Busse
Date Filed'04/10/2007 Date Terminated: 05/06/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
I CERTIFY THE FORB AND CORRECT COP
SHERYLLL" UNltEQSTAtfe
MIDDLEDlSTr
Plaintiff Kenneth M. Roesch, Jr. TERMINATED: 09/21/2007
represented by Jorg Busse P.O.Box 1126 Naples, Fl 34106-1126 239/595-7074 PROSE
represented by Kelly Lina Rooth Rooth Law Group, PA Suite 322 4399 35th St N St Petersbsurg, FL 33714 727/824-6212 Fax: 727/822-8048 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY
https://ecf.flmd.circl 1 .dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?737110522490912-L_770_0-1 7/16/2010
J
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 7 of 23
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 8 of 23
filing fee, the new appeals were to be reviewed and a frivolity determination as to
each appeal made. Consistent with that Order, on April 6, 2010, Appellant was
ordered to show cause why these appeals should not be dismissed as frivolous.
Appellant filed documents with the Court on April 19, 2010, which we
construe as his responses to the Order to Show Cause. Our review of these
documents establishes that Appellant has failed to show that these appeals are not
frivolous.
Therefore, on the Court's own motion, these appeals are hereby
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
Given the frivolity of these appeals and the nature of Appellant's responses
to the Order to Show Cause, we hereby SUSPEND any rule which would allow
Appellant to seek reconsideration of this Order. The Clerk is directed to accept no
ftirther filings in this closed appeal. The Clerk may discard any future documents
received by Appellant.
•1
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 9 of 23
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 10 of 23
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 434 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JORG BUSSE
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-29SPC
LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; BOARD OF LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER; STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on review of defendant's
Motion for Entry of Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property
(Doc. #432) filed on May 21, 2010. No response has been filed and
the time to respond has expired.
Upon review, the Court desires a response from plaintiff.
Recognizing that a Pre-Filing Injunction (Case No. 2:09-cv-791-FTM-
36SPC, Doc. #245) was issued on July 20, 2010, prohibiting any
further filings without leave of Court, the Court will grant
plaintiff leave to file a single responsive document to defendant's
motion.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
H
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 11 of 23
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 434 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 2
Plaintiff may file one response to defendant's Motion for
Entry of Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property (Doc. #432)
within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this Order. If no response is
received, the Court will rule on the motion without the benefit of
a response and without further notice.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 22nd day of
July, 2010.
Copies: Plaintiff Counsel of record
x L
m E. STEELE JIMa.
J0| United States District Judge
12.
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 12 of 23
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 13 of 23
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 11
VENUE
6. Pursuant to Title 28, Part 4, Ch. 87, S. 1391, Plaintiffs claims arise out of acts undertaken and injuries suffered in
the Middle District of Florida. Pursuant to the sealed Survey before this Court, Plaintiff owns and possesses the
approx. more than 2.5 Acres of lot 15A with an estimated fair market value of more than $2,000,000.
JURISDICTION UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS, 42 U.S.C. 1983,28 U.S.C. 1343, CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLES 3 & 4, AMENDMENTS 5 & 14, DUE PROCESS & EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES, AND BILL OF RIGHTS
7. Pursuant to Civil Rights Acts, 42 U.S.C. 1983,28 U.S.C. 1343,1331, this Court has original jurisdiction to redress
Defendant State Officials' deprivations of Plaintiffs equal rights secured by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore,
Plaintiff seeks invalidation and rescission of unconstitutional 'OR 569/875', 'OR 2967/1084-1090', 'Blue Sheet
980206', injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief, compensatory and possibly punitive damages.
JURISDICTION UNDER 1899 RIVERS AND HARBORS APPROPRIATION ACT, 33 U.S.C. 403, COMMERCE
CLAUSE AND CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLE 3
8. Pursuant to the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act, 33 U.S.C. 403, and Commerce Clause, this Court has
jurisdiction over the Army Corps of Engineers' authority over Plaintiffs naturally created lagoon property. Under
the Commerce Clause, this Court has jurisdiction over dominant federal interests in navigation and the navigability
of Plaintiffs lagoon in interstate and foreign commerce. The Federal Government has power to control navigable
waters, and navigable servitude extends to navigable waters. Therefore, the Constitution conferred jurisdiction to
this Court over the regulation of commerce on the lagoon of Plaintiffs lot 15A pursuant to Article 3, s. 2.
JURISDICTION UNDER THE 1862 HOMESTEAD ACT
9. 14lh Amendment provisions cover all instrumentarities by which Defendant State and Officials act. Defendant
County, positioned under State Government, deprived Plaintiff of protected 14th Amendment rights against
deprivations by the State under color of 'OR 569/875', 'lot A', and 'block 1'. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction
over effect and extent of the 1895 Federal Land Patent grant from the United States to A. C. Roesch and to
Plaintiff and the navigable waters along platted shorelines pursuant to the 1862 Homestead Act.
JURISDICTION UNDER FEDERAL COMMON LAW DOCTRINE OF ACCRETION AND EROSION
10. Federal common law, settled for centuries, vests title to accretions onto Federally patented oceanfront property in
2
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 14 of 23
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 3 of 11
Plaintiff upland owner of lot 15A. Pursuant to determinate U.S. Supreme Court rulings, Federal law governs title to
accretions on Plaintiffs riparian gulf front lot.
JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO FEDERAL APPRAISAL STANDARDS, UNIFORM STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL APPRAISAL PRACTICE, AND 12 U.S.C. 3331-3351
11. This Court has jurisdiction over deprivations of Plaintiffs civil rights caused by Defendant Property Appraiser's
violations of Federal Appraisal Standards in Federally related property transactions under color of State law.
JURISDICTION UNDER THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT, 28 U.S.C. 2201
12. Under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, this Court has jurisdiction to declare Plaintiffs rights, legal relations,
and boundaries in light of equity principles.
In support of his factual allegations, Plaintiff adopts by reference in this Complaint all evidentiary materials before the
Court and alleges:
COUNT 1:42 U.S.C. 1983 DEPRIVATIONS UNDER UNCONSTITUTIONAL 'OR 569/875'
13. Under color of alleged resolution draft 'OR 569/875' (Exhibit 'A'), Defendant State, park staff, County,
Commissioners, Attorneys, and Appraiser subjected Plaintiff citizen to deprivations of his riparian rights, private
easements, disputed accreted property, and privileges secured by the U.S. Constitution. Defendant County and
Commissioners had no home rule powers or jurisdiction over the undedicated Cayo Costa Subdivision and
accordingly, never signed or executed 'OR 569/875'. Therefore, 'OR 569/875' was unenforceable, and said
Defendants violated constitutional Articles 3 & 4(s. 2) and Amendments 5 & 14(s. 1,5) and are liable to Plaintiff.
14. Therefore, under color of unauthorized 'OR 569/875' and 'OR 2967/1084-90', said Defendants confiscated
Plaintiffs valuable private accreted property, i.e. more than approx. 2.5 Acres, without compensation in violation of
the 5th Amendment Takings Clause and 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
15. Pursuant to Ch. 177, F.S., alleged lot A and block 1 cannot be legally described or surveyed, because they were
not on the referenced Subdivision Plat. Therefore, Defendant Officials temporarily took a total of more than
approx. 200 Acres of private accretions onto Cayo Costa under color of 'OR 569/875', 'OR 2967/1084-90', and
'Blue Sheet 980206', without just compensation for which Defendant State and County must make restitution.
3
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 15 of 23
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 4 of 11
16. Defendant State Actors claimed riparian rights for lots 38A and 41A (Property I.D. 12-44-20-01-00042.038A),
which they denied to Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendant Officials discriminated against and harmed Plaintiff. Plaintiff is
entitled to the equal rights of Defendant State owner and invalidation of unconstitutional 'OR 569/875' and lot A.
COUNT 2: UNAUTHORIZED UNCONSTITUTIONAL TEMPORARY TAKINGS UNDER COLOR OF 'OR 569/875'
17. In December 1969, Defendant County and Commissioners allegedly drafted a so-called 'resolution' to claim all
accretions within the undedicated private Cayo Costa Subdivision. Said preliminary draft, 'OR 569/875' was never
signed, executed, or acknowledged and did not meet resolution and recording requirements. Therefore, draft 'OR
569/875' was not entitled to be recorded and must be stricken from the public record.
18. Defendant County Appraiser and Attorney admitted that the Cayo Costa Subdivision was never dedicated to the
public and as a result was outside the scope of Defendant County's home rule powers. Therefore, Defendant
State and County had no powers to govern and adopt resolutions or ordinances. In conclusion, draft '569/875' was
unenforceable and ineffectual, and Defendant County exercised powers not conferred by law with the intent to
capriciously grab the disputed private accreted land and easements.
19. Therefore, Defendant State, County, and Commissioners took Plaintiffs accretions onto riparian gulf front lot ISA
and the Subdivision without authority, justification, due process of law, public notice, hearing, vote count, and
compensation under color of '569/875', which violated Articles 3 & 4 and Amendments 5 & 14. In conclusion,
Defendants' unauthorized unconstitutional takings injured Plaintiff and destroyed his property value.
COUNT 3: TRESPASS
20. Since 1969, Defendant State, County, Commissioners, Attorneys, and Appraiser asserted, disseminated, and
published that Lee County was the owner of all private Cayo Costa accretions. Therefore pursuant to 810.08 and
810.09, F.S., Defendant Officials induced and caused the public to intrude onto private Cayo Costa beaches,
streets, platted designated common use areas, and Plaintiffs property, which injured Plaintiff.
21. Under color of official right and '569/875', Defendant Governmental Officials invited the public to visit the private
accreted Subdivision, which Defendant State's Division of Recreation and Parks manages and operates as State
park. In summary, Defendant offenders defied Plaintiffs orders to leave and committed misdemeanors of the 1 "
4
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 16 of 23
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 5 of 11
degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 and induced public trespass onto the undedicated Subdivision.
22. Pursuant to Florida Cabinet Meeting Transcripts, Defendant State of Florida, Board of Trustees, D.E.P., and
Division of Recreation and Parks, pursued their legislative objective to destroy private Cayo Costa easements and
property and ingress/egress for State park purposes. Therefore, Defendant Officials' objective must be stricken as
unconstitutional. Defendant State Agents must be enjoined from exercising power within the Subdivision east of
the Mean High Water mark [MHW] of the Gulf of Mexico, and west of the MHW of Charlotte Harbor.
COUNT 4: CONSPIRACY TO FABRICATE UNPLATTED LOT A, BLOCK 1 & PARK; FRAUD; MALFEASANCE
23. Defendant Property Appraiser claimed and published that draft '569/875' entitled Lee County to claim ownership of
un-platted lot A, and block 1. Under oath, Defendant Appraiser admitted that Cayo Costa was unencumbered by
public easements and not dedicated. Therefore, Defendant admitted that Lee County was not empowered to adopt
said resolution. On its face, 'OR 569/875' did not meet recording and resolution requirements, and lot A, and block
1 did not exist. Therefore, Defendant Appraiser had a professional duty and burden to verify the validity of sham
'569/875' under the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.
24. Without title evidence in the public Grantor/Grantee Index, Defendant conspired to concoct un-platted lot A
(Property I.D. 12-44-20-01-O000O.00A0), block 1 (Property I.D. 07-44-21-01-00001.0000), and park. With
malicious purpose, Defendant assisted the plan to deceive with materially altered plat, maps, and records to obtain
benefits for State and County. Said acts and omissions were in willful disregard of property. Defendant denied
agricultural classification of Plaintiffs accreted lot, all of which had had been formed by accretions since approx.
1910. Therefore, Defendant destroyed most of Plaintiffs property value, deprived him of private easements
without compensation, and denied equal protection of the laws in a land grab scheme pursuant to Ch. 768.
25. A reasonable appraiser, surveyor or title agent cannot locate lot A or block 1 on the Plat and must presume
invalidity of 'OR 569/875', lot A, and block 1 as a matter of established real property law, standards, and tenets.
Therefore, Defendant's agreement to assist the unconstitutional confiscation of the disputed accretions could
reasonably be inferred, because Defendant contradicted the recorded historic legal precedents since 1910.
26. Defendant asserted that the general public and professional realty communities rely on Defendant Appraiser's
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 17 of 23
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 6 of 11
data. Therefore, Defendant could reasonably expect harm from his incompetent valuation reports. Comparable
sales data controverted Defendant Appraiser's valuations. However, Defendant did not cease and desist his
deceptive publications and slander of Plaintiffs perfect title. As a result, Plaintiff received purchase offers for below
market value. Defendant violated Federal Appraisal Standards and deprived the public of tax revenues from the
accreted lands and easements in controversy. Therefore, Defendant Appraiser is liable and his malfeasance and
abuse of position under State Government harmed Plaintiff, who is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief,
compensatory and punitive damages, and cost.
27. Federal jurisdiction arose e.g. from Appraiser's denial of equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th
Amendment Defendant asserted riparian rights for Defendant State's lots 38A and 41 A, but denied equal rights to
Plaintiff. Under color of 'OR 569/875', lot A, block 1, and 'OR 2967/1084-1090', a 'wild' so-called 'County Deed',
Defendant conspired to fabricate valuation reports and unjustly discriminated against Plaintiff and lot owners to
benefit others and/or himself. Therefore, Defendant Appraiser damaged Plaintiff, who is entitled to compensation.
COUNT 5: CONSPIRACY TO MATERIALLY MISREPRESENT AND DEFRAUD
28. Federal conveyances of lots 4 and 5 in Section 12 and lot 1 in Section 13 to A. 0 Roesch and subsequent
grantees were described in reference to Cayo Costa Plats of Survey. Lot A and block 1 could not be located on
the Subdivision Plats and ground. Therefore, Defendant County was not the legal owner of lot A and block 1, and
Defendant Officials' representations of lot A and block 1 were unwarranted under law and feci
29. All disputed accretions were within boundaries described by original surveys, plats, and Subdivision and lot
descriptions contained in Federal, State, and/or County public records. All grants, grantors, and grantees are
published in the public Grantor/Grantee Index, and Lee County is neither the published record owner of the
disputed accretions nor riparian upland owner. However, quit claim deed 'OR 1651/2488' alleged the grant of
accretions to Lee County. Therefore, Lee County did not hold title to the disputed accretions onto Cayo Costa and
Plaintiffs lot 15A, because there was no voluntary and no involuntary alienation such as eminent domain or
adverse possession. In conclusion, Lee County's alleged controversial ownership claims of private Cayo Costa
accretions were not supported by the unauthorized and improperly recorded resolution draft '569/875' and
6
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 18 of 23
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 7 of 11
therefore unconstitutional under the S* Amendment Takings Clause. Following multiple notifications by the public,
Defendant Officials conspired to continue to deceive, defraud, and deprive the public under color of State law.
Therefore, Defendant Government Officials deprived the public of tax revenues from the disputed private
accretions and easements.
30. Article 7, s. 10, Fla. Const. Prohibits the use of public fends for private purposes, by precluding the State and
County from using its taxing power or credit to aid private individuals or interests, such as legal defense of
unauthorized wrongs in violation of the constitution.
31. Platted meander lines and monuments evidenced ownership of the disputed accretions by the record upland
owners in the Grantor/Grantee Index. Therefore, Defendant State Officials, Lee County, Commissioners, Attorney,
and J. N. Peterson conspired to misrepresent that Plaintiff did not own to the MHW mark of the Gulf of Mexico.
32. Defendant Officials conspired to misrepresent the extent of the Army Corps of Engineers' authority over Plaintiffs
lagoon under the Commerce Clause and 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act, 33 U.S.C. 403.
COUNT 6: OPPRESSION AND SUNDER OF TITLE
33. Defendant Peterson failed to challenge the presumptive validity of the Federal Patent and invalidity of 'OR
569/875', lot A, and block 1. In fact, Peterson himself questioned the resolution's validity. Therefore, Peterson,
who carried the State's badge oppressed and unduly burdened Plaintiff. Defendant Peterson violated the Code of
Ethics for Public Officers and Employees, Part 3, Ch. 112, F.S. Plaintiff complained with the Florida Commission
on Ethics (Exhibit 'B'). Peterson was required to disclose the material facts and the truth, but harassed Plaintiff.
The alleged public records and facts gave rise to Plaintiffs bases for suing Defendant State Actors. Therefore,
public records and factual allegations entitled Plaintiff to obtain invalidation of'OR 569/875', '2967/1084-90', lot A,
block 1, 'Blue Sheet 980206', and compensatory damages, and injunctive relief.
34. During pretrial procedures, Peterson and Lee County did not set forth any grounds on which Defendants' claims or
defenses could possibly rest There has been no reasonable indication that discovery can reveal any relevant
evidence to destroy the presumptive invalidity of 'OR 569/875, lot A, and block 1. Defendant State Actors felled to
prove validity of 'OR 569/875', lot A, or block 1. Plaintiff is entitled to relief and/or a peremptory ruling, because
7
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 19 of 23
C a s e 2 : 0 7 - c v - 0 0 2 2 8 - J E S - S P C D o c u m e n t 2 8 8 Fi led 0 1 / 1 1 / 0 8 P a g e 8 of 11
unauthorized and unconstitutional 'OR 569/875' was never adopted and contained no compensation mechanism.
35. All Defendants received fair notice that 'OR 569/875', lot A, and block 1 were immaterial and insufficient claims
and defenses. Presentations such as e.g. in doc. # 5 shall be deterred pursuant to F.R.C.P. 11 and 12. During the
11/07/2007 Court hearing, Plaintiff asserted the factual impossibility of Defendant's claims and defenses before
the Honorable Magistrate Judge. Therefore, Plaintiffs entitlement to relief is most plausible. The heft of Plaintiffs
factual allegations evidenced why Plaintiff is entitled to relief under Federal law and the Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands judgment granting the following relief
1. Anorder setting aside and striking 'OR 569/875" and'2967/1084-90'from public records (Counts 1-6);
2. An order invalidating/nullifying lot A, block 1, Blue Sheet 980206, and declaring all land between the meander lines
of the Gulf and Charlotte Harbor privately owned Subdivision lands pursuant to PB 3/PG 25 (Counts 1-3);
3. An award of compensatory damages for deprivations, leases, and uncompensated temporary takings of private
accreted property and easements for State park purposes in an amount to be set at trial (Counts 1-6);
4. An award of punitive damages and cost to be set at trial (Counts 1 -6);
5. An order declaring the extent of the Army Corps of Engineers' authority over Plaintiffs lagoon (Counts 1 -2);
6. An order declaring Plaintiff the owner of all accretions onto his riparian lot 15A pursuant to 1862 Homestead Act
and 1895 Certificate # 11887 (Counts 1 -6) and declaring title thereto in Plaintiff (Counts 1 -3); and
7. An order enjoining all Defendant Governmental Officials from claiming ownership of Plaintiffs accretions, lot A and
block 1 and operating a park in the private Cayo Costa Subdivision and on lot ISA (Counts 1-3).
Respectfully submitted,
IslJora&ffimfcMM, M.BA, Plaintiff; Tel: 239-595-7074; e-mail: irbuOaol.com. MailWg Mdress: P.O.B. 1126, Naples, FL 34106-1126.
EXHIBIT 'A': Unconstitutional and unauthorized 'OR 569/875'.
EXHIBIT 'B': Ethics Complaint against Defendant Peterson.
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 20 of 23
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 9 of 11
« • [>^7M
*" W9^ «S
RSfObVTIOK ratTAlBIrtC TO MmUC UMDf IN CMQ COST* *Ummfm
WRBimSi there' appears in the Public Records of Lee
County, Florida, in Plat Book ) at page 25 the Second teviaed
W*t Of Cayo COftU Subdivision: and
WHEREAS, there appears upon snid plat certain designated
lot and Mock areas and other undesignated aroMf and
WHEREAS, there appears upon said plat certain un-nnmbere
and mrtoWorod aron lying East of tho Easterly tier of Mocks
in said tnbdiviftion and West of tho Westerly tier of blocks
in said subdivision: and
"PCftgAff, tho County clfllnt s i id land* aa puhlic Iwtdt
together with e&l accretions thereto.
HOW, THEREFORE, bE IT RESOLVED W THE BOWP Of COUUTT
COMMISflONCftS OF LEE COUNDT, FLORIDA does by this Resolution
claim a l l of raid lands and accretions thereto for the use
and benefit of the public for public purposos.
DONE AMD ADOPTED this / f day of A . <^ *U~<.\^. 1969.
-200-
9
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 21 of 23
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 10 of 11
EXHIBIT 'B': Ethics Complaint against Defendant Peterson
A. Defendant County Attorney Jack N. Peterson contended that more research was necessary to determine if 'OR 569/875' was
valid. However in a 2000 Memo by Joan C. Henry, Peterson's Office asserted before the Law. State of Florida court that
there was no dedication of Cayo Costa to the public. As a result, the Lay court ruled against Defendant State. Said court
determined that Defendant County had no powers, rights-of-way, or interests In the private easements 'as a matter of
established real property law. Therefore, Peterson arbitrarily contradicted his own Office in order to obtain benefits for
Defendant County, State or himself and undermined ongoing judicial proceedings in State and Federal Court.
B. In summary, Peterson's claims and defenses were precluded, because the Lay court's judgment had binding effect and
foreclosed Peterson's frivolous contentions. Therefore, Peterson harassed and oppressed Plaintiff and undermined the
judicial process with foreclosed claims.
C. In February 1999, Peterson's Office wrote to Cayo Costa riparian lot owner T. Pamell that 'Defendant Lee County attorney's
Office researched the history of the Second Revised Plat of the Cayo Costa Subdivision and governing case law on accretion
and reliction' in response to correspondence to Defendant Attorney. Said Plat conclusively evidenced that the record owners
pubfished in the Grantor/Grantee Index, including Plaintiff, own private easements, beaches, and their abutting platted
designated common use areas in the undedicated Subdivision fee simple. Therefore, Peterson concealed the 1999 and 2000
research by his own Office and oppressed Plaintiff, because he unjustly exercised power never conferred upon him. In
conclusion, Peterson abused his public position to improperly transfer property for State park purposes thereby depriving and
injuring Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages, and expenses.
D. Peterson contended that Plaintiff's lot 15A did not touch the water. Plainb'frs Warranty Deed conveyed lot 15A in refierence to
said Plat, all calling for the Gulf of Mexico. Said Plat of Survey described Plaintiff's lot ISA as a riparian lot abutting the natural
monument of the Gulf. Public policy demands that all land shall have an owner, and all owners of the accretions in
controversy were recorded in Defendants' Grantor/Grantee Index. The public Index evidenced that all accretions onto the
Subdivision belonged to A. C. Roesch, who subdivided and conveyed them, and all accretions onto lot 15A belonged to
Plaintiff. In addition, Peterson was notified that unauthorized unconstitutional draft 'OR 569/875' had multiple errors, violated
Defendant's home rule powers law, and was unenforceable. With particularity, Peterson was ordered to cease false claims.
However, Peterson defied the order and continued slandering Plaintiffs paramount title. In summary, Plaintiff Is entitled to
cancellation of 'OR 569/875', 'OR 2967/1084-90', and 'Agenda Item Summary 980206'.
E. Plaintiff ttleholder was entitled to the statutory presumption that the 1895 Federal Patent and mesne conveyances were valid.
Therefore, the burden was on Defendant challenger to prove invalidity, and Defendant Officials' averments and claims of 'OR
569/875', lot A, and block 1 were in bad faith and impeded justice. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to invalidation and nullification
of 'OR 569/875', lot A, and block 1, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive and declaratory relief.
10
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 22 of 23
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 11 of 11
Below signature reflects affirmation that the attorney reviewed the Third Amended Complaint:
Attorney Date: 12/21/2007
11
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 23 of 23
« up
This is Google's cache of http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/41/41.F3d.1490.93-4449.93-4104.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Mar 24, 2009 15:42:24 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
Text-only versionThese search terms are highlighted: united states v 16.33 acres
41 F.3d 1490
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO., Absolute, Inc., Marion H. Cooper,
for Estate of Alfred R. Cooper, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
PALM BEACH COUNTY, Carol A. Roberts, Chair of Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County,
Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 93-4104, 93-4449.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Jan. 10, 1995.
Patti A. Velasquez, Asst. County Atty., West Palm Beach, FL, Robert S. Hackleman, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for appellants in No. 93-4104.
Sharon M. Pitts, Patti A. Velasquez, Asst. County Atty., West Palm Beach, FL, Robert S. Hackleman, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for appellants in No. 93-4449.
Jeffrey A. Aman, Smith, Williams & Bowles, P.A., Tampa, FL, Joan E. O'Dell, Gregory L. Williams, Smith, Williams & Bowles, P.A., Washington, DC, for appellees in both cases.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before HATCHETT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, MELTON* , Senior District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants raise several arguments, hoping mainly to void concessions made in district court in the joint pretrial stipulation. The district court is affirmed.
1
The controversy concerns the ownership of strip parcels (roads and ditches) offered by Palm Beach Farms for dedication to Palm Beach County in 1912. A 1976 instrument entitled "Notice of Withdrawal of Platted Roads, Streets, and Other Unexercised Rights" revoked the offer of dedication. In 1986, pursuant to local Ordinance No. 86-18 (the "Ordinance"), defendant Palm Beach County (the
2
Page 1 of 441 F.3d 1490
4/30/2009http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4...
"County"), began a practice of selling easement and right of way interests in property originally acquired through dedication. In return for a "privilege fee," the County issued an abandonment resolution, which, when recorded, transferred ownership of the parcel to the payor of the fee. This dispute began when the County attempted to collect fees in exchange for abandonment resolutions for parcels that, according to plaintiffs, had never been accepted by the County.
Plaintiffs, claiming that they were successors in interest to Palm Beach Farms (and thus owners of the strip parcels), challenged the County's practice as an unconstitutional taking--under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments--of their property.1 The County conceded that it never expressly accepted the dedication; but, at trial, the County attempted to show that it had impliedly accepted the dedication by using the strip parcels. The jury found for plaintiffs, deciding that the County had not accepted the 1912 offer of dedication within a reasonable time. The district court entered judgment for plaintiffs: plaintiffs were judged the fee simple owners of the pertinent strip parcels; defendants were enjoined from applying the Ordinance to plaintiffs' property; and plaintiffs were awarded attorney's fees. Defendants appeal.
3
The County now contests plaintiffs' standing, arguing that plaintiffs could not possibly own the strip parcels (and thus have no interest at stake). But given plaintiffs' allegations and the County's stipulations in the district court, the record supports both standing and jurisdiction. A "case or controversy" exists in this case because the parties genuinely disputed ownership of the strip parcels in the district court. The County stipulated to plaintiffs' chain of title, agreeing that plaintiffs were successors in interest to Palm Beach Farms. The controversy was thus limited to a decision about whether the offer of dedication was accepted.2 Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the application of the Ordinance to what they assert is their property.
4
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. This decision is not about standing: what the County is really arguing is that plaintiffs failed to join indispensable parties. Amicus Boywic Farms agrees, arguing that it was harmed by the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Because the district court could only determine who, as between plaintiffs and the County, had the better claim to the strip parcels, amicus is not bound by the district court's order. It was no abuse of discretion for the district court to refuse to dismiss this case for failure to join indispensable parties. The County, as movant, had the burden "to show the nature of the unprotected interests of the absent parties," 5A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 1359; yet, the County's citation to the record reveals only that it established the existence of adjoining landowners (not the nature of allegedly unprotected interests).
5
And, plaintiffs' "arbitrary and capricious" due process claim is ripe.3 Plaintiffs accused the County of applying an arbitrary and capricious action (asserting ownership to the strip parcels and recording abandonment resolutions which transferred title) to their property. Plaintiffs' claim was ripe as soon as the County applied the ordinance and the petition process (including a $400 nonrefundable application fee) to the undedicated strip parcels. See Eide v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 724 n. 13 (11th Cir.1990).
6
The County argues that no subject matter jurisdiction exists because plaintiffs' claims are so frivolous. But the course of litigation and stance of the County in
7
Page 2 of 441 F.3d 1490
4/30/2009http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4...
district court undercuts its claim of frivolousness. We also note that the pretrial stipulation plainly reads that "[n]either party contests subject matter ... jurisdiction."4 If the County actually thought plaintiffs' claims were frivolous, it should not have so willingly conceded facts giving rise to jurisdiction in the stipulation. Because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' federal claims, the court did not err by including plaintiffs' state claims for declaratory relief--pendent jurisdiction was proper.
The County also argues that the district court erred by interpreting the stipulation as a "winner-take-all" proposition. That is, the County says it reserved a right to make several arguments, after the jury's fact finding, by referring to "undisposed of motions" in the stipulation. We disagree. The parties agreed that the jury's conclusion would "be outcome determinative of all of the federal and state claims." The County does not argue that it was unfairly duped into signing the stipulation. And, we owe great deference to the trial judge's interpretation and enforcement of pretrial stipulations. See Morrison v. Genuine Parts Co., 828 F.2d 708 (11th Cir.1987); Hill v. Nelson, 676 F.2d 1371, 1373 n. 8 (11th Cir.1982). In the light of the stipulations, the district court did not err when it refused to entertain the County's post-verdict motions.
8
Defendants raise other arguments, none of which present grounds for reversal. The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
9
Honorable Howell W. Melton, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation
*
Application of the Ordinance, according to plaintiffs, put a "cloud" on plaintiffs' title because title to the strip parcels was transferred to the payor of the privilege fee. Plaintiffs' property was, in other words, not transferable so long as the County continued to demand fees for the "abandonment" of property it never owned
1
"[S]tanding cannot be waived and may be asserted at any stage of litigation." Harris v. Evans, 20 F.3d 1118, 1121 n. 4 (11th Cir.1994) (en banc). We disagree with the County's argument that plaintiffs' ownership claim is so obviously frivolous that standing could not possibly exist, regardless of stipulated facts pointing to standing. In support of this claim, the County cites the allegedly "remarkably similar" case of United States v. 16.33 Acres of Land, 342 So.2d 476 (Fla.1977), as binding precedent denying plaintiffs' ownership claim. But 16.33 Acres is distinguishable because in that case the government expressly accepted the offer of dedication. Id. at 479
2
Because we conclude that plaintiffs' arbitrary and capricious due process claim was ripe, we say nothing about whether plaintiffs' additional constitutional claims were ripe. We do note, however, that plaintiffs were not granted relief pursuant to a specific claim. Instead, the County stipulated that plaintiffs would be entitled to the remedies requested if plaintiffs prevailed on any of the disputed fact issues
3
Parties may not stipulate jurisdiction. Bush v. United States, 703 F.2d 491, 494 (11th Cir.1983). And we do not say that jurisdiction was proper because jurisdiction was stipulated. Instead, we look to the record; we affirm the district court's conclusion that
4
Page 3 of 441 F.3d 1490
4/30/2009http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4...
the stipulated facts give rise to jurisdiction. For example, the County argues frivolousness by pointing to purported transfers--by plaintiffs' predecessors in interest--that the County says are null and void. But the County stipulated to plaintiffs' chain of title; and, the County agreed that it was undisputed that "plaintiffs are the successors in interest to the Palm Beach Farms Company." The record was set in district court
CC∅ | TRANSFORMED BY PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG
Page 4 of 441 F.3d 1490
4/30/2009http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4...
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
PS USE CODE
ADDRESS WETLANDS
SITE INSPECTION
REMARKS ACQUISITION DATE
AGENDA DATE
GRANTOR
BLUE SHEET
ITEM
CCMBINSTRUMENT
TOTAL PURCHASE PRICESEARCHLEGAL DESC
PURCHASE PRICE 1 AGENDA DATE 2 AGENDA DATE 3
BLUE SHEET 2 BLUE SHEET 3PRICE/ACRE
PRIOR STRAPITEM 2 ITEM 3
PCL
PURCHASE PRICE 2 PURCHASE PRICE 3ASSESSEDVALUE
VALUE DATE CCMB 2 CCMB 3
LEE COUNTY DIVISION OF COUNTY LANDS
i 's~ornmrBo~~~Cu~C~~SAGENDAITEMSUMMARY BLUESHEETNO:~~O~M
. REoUESTEDMOTIOl'JACTIONREOUESTED~ Apon Cayo Costa Island, ancf
rove conveyance of any interest in land, \?rhich has accreted tonow bein
County Deed; authorrze County Lan%purchased by the State of Florida for preservation. KutRorize CRairnxm to execute
ro erty of rivate landowners Division to handle and complete conveyance.
WHY ACTION IS NECESSARY: To clear title on land which has accreted to property owned by private landowner, which isbeing conveyed to the State of Florida.
WHAT ACTION AcCOMPLISHE!$ ,Clears potential cloud on title to property.
LDE A TMENTALCATEGORY:COp~ISSIONDISTRIcT#:
171 /7in/ 3. MEETJNGD-3c;ll+ya a
bAGENDA?.
Y_CONSENT,ADMlNlsmTlvE .
_ APPEALS-PUBLIC
-=REQuIRED:-
5.REOUIREMENT/PURPOSE
_ ADMIN. CODE
7. BACKGROUND:I
The State of Florida, Board of Trustees of the Internal Im rovement Trust Fund,8
is in theCay0 Costa Island from a private landowner through the tate CARL Pro
recess of purchasing land on
attached. From the title search and title commitment issued, it has beenrA list of%e properties being purchased is
eter&ned that Lee County maland which has accreted to the lots being conveyed to the State of Florida by Alice MS. Robinson. A 1J
have an interest in ’69 Resolutron b
the Board of County Commissioners pertaining toP
ublic lands in Cayo Costa Subdivision, recorded m Official Record Jook569 Paresdlt o
e 875 created a claim to all accretions to ots lyinf Resolution, the State of Florida is requesting ,&
within the area of the Subdivision now bemg conveyed. As athis ee County to convey any interest it may have m these accreted
R~~a~ore private property owner, Ahce l$.S. Robmson, m order to clear trtle for its purchase of the propertres from Ms..
Due to the ongoin of acMatching Funds
uisition on Cayo Costa Island by the State of Florida and Lee+Countythrpugh the CARLtI!YTF 8. .P. elect, an the ongoing cooperation of the State and County to accomphsh acquisrtron of land on the
Island, staff recommends approval of the requested motion.
County funds are not needed to complete this transaction.
8, MANAGEMENTRECOMMENDATIONS:
. COUNTY LANDS9 RECOMMENDEDAPPROVAL. i .
'. - e.*
i@\OFFICEELS\CAYCOSTA.LWC’~sf
' *
'&is ?nstruntent Prepared by:PUBLIC WORKS/COUNTY LAND8 DIVISIONPost Office Box 398Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398
iSO&iFobos 4400351
30Docuentrrr Tax P6. $t -Q- Intcmqtbtc far Pd.
fcovmb PutY Clwk
TXIS DEED, executed this 21th day of Warch , A.D., 1998, by-2; "
Ltt COtlNTY, PLORZDA, A POLITNAL SWBDIVISIOU OF THE STATB OF FLORIDA, z:._whose address is Post Office Box 398, Fort Myers, Florida 3300.?-0398first party, zLO -Alice M.S. Robinson, whose address is 4&l North pSeminole Avenue, No. 2516, Tampa, Florida 33601, second party.
,' NITNESSETII : That the said first party, for and in considerationI : of the sum of Ten~(510.00) Dollars to it in hand paid by the said second
party, receipt.whereof is hereby acknowledged, ha@ granted, bargainedand sold to the said second party, its heirs and assigns forever, thefollowing fsbac~~lbed land, lying and being in Lee County, Florida:
SEE ATTACRED BXBZBIT "A*
This grant conveys only the interest of the Count; and its Board:,s df County Commissioners in the property herein described, and shali not '$;
g be deemed to warrant the title or to represent any state of factsI; concerning the same."\
EN WITNESS NBERBOI the said first party has caused these presentsto be executed in its name by its Board of County Commissioners actingby the Chairman or Vi.ce Chairman of said Board, the day and year
aforesaid.
(OFFICIAL SEAL)
ATTEST:'. CHARLIE GREEN,'GLERK
LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY ITS
: -'By:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
&,[$' ;.',I $;&,y,,:
Office/of' County Attorneys
‘~., -.
E x h i b i t HAp’Eage 1 of 2
A l l af t h e f i r s t p a r t y ’ s i n t e r e s t , i f any, i n thOS@ c e r t a i n l a n d s w h i c h‘ h a v e accreted t o t h e followinq d e s c r i b e d lots6 said l o t s being locatedwifthi~n that Certain Suk$iv.ision knowi as .%cond Rev-is& play of Cay0Cwta, accordinq t o t h e - - m a p o r p l a t t h e r e o f f i l e d apd r e c o r d e d i n t h eOffice of the Clerk Of the Circuit Court of Lee County, Florida, in platBook 3, Page 25, Public Records ,of Lee County , F lor ida , to wit:
Tax ID# 12-44-20-01-00013.0020Lot 2, Block 131 CAY0 COSTA SUBDIVISION, according to ths! map or plat thereof asrecorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee County, Florida.
Tax ID# 12-44-20-O I-000 13.0030Lot 3, Block 13, CAY0 COSTA SUl3DIVISION, according to the map or plat thereof asrecorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee County, Florida
%Tax IDH 12-44~20-01-00014.0010Lot I, Block 14, CAY0 COSTA SUBDlVlSION, according to the map or plat thereof as s:
cmrecorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee County, Florida. 4
Tax ID# 12-44-20-01-00014.0070 2Lot 7, Block 14, CAY0 COSTA SUBDIVISION, according to the map or plat thereof as
- -
recorded in Plat Book 3, Pa;ge 25, Public Records of Lee County, Florida. zCJl
Tax ID# 12.44-20-Ol-Q0014.014~Lot 14, Block 14, CAYU COSTA SUBDlVISION, accordiny lo the map or plal thereofas recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee County, Florida.
Tax IDD# 12-44-20-o l-000 15.0060Lots 6,7,&p, IO, 1 I, 12, & 14, CAY0 COSTA SUBDIVISION, according to the mapor plat thereof as recorded in Plaf Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee County.Florida.
Tax ID# 12.44-20-OI-0OOl5.0lOkLot iOA, CAYO,COSTA SUBDIVISION, according to the map or plat thereof asrecorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee County, Florida.
Tax ID# 12-44-20-01-00015.0160Lots 16 and 17, Block 15, CAY0 COSTA SUBDIVISION, according lo the map or platthereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee County, Florida.
Tax ID# 12-44-20-01-00015.0180Lot 18, Block IS. CAY0 COSTA SUBDIVISION, according lo the map or plat thereofas recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee County, Florida.
Tax IDIt 12.44.20-Oi-00015,OlSALot 184 CAYU COSTA SIJBDI~ISION, according to the map or plat thereof asrecorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee County, Ftor*da.
Tax IDS 12-44-20-01-00015.0220Lot 22, Block 15, CAY0 COSTA SUBDIVISION, according Io the map or plrt thereofas recorded in Plal Book 3, Pege 2$, Public Records of Lee Cow&y, PlorIda,
Tax ID# 12-44.20.Ol-00015.034ALots 34A and 354 Block IS, CAY0 COSTA WBDIVISION, according to the map or _ -
.
plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee Count); Florida.
Tax iD# 12-44~20-OJ-OOO16.0030LOO 3 and 6, Block 16, CAY0 COSTA SUBDIVISION, according to the map or platthereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee County, Florida,
Tax ?D# J Z-44-20-0 I-000 16.0070Lots 7,8 sod Jo, Block 16, CAY0 COSTA SUJ3DIVISlON, according to the map or pJatthereof at recorded in PJat Book 3, Page 25, P&Iii Records of Lee County, Florida.
Tax I‘D# 12-M-20-01~oroO16.0120I Lots 12,13,15 and 16, Block 16, CAY0 CUSTA SUBDJVISION, according to the map
‘.‘.:>2, I“-Z‘. or pfat thereof as worded is PJat Book 3, Page 2S, Public Records of Lee Cwnty,;.
‘_F. Florida. .‘>’$‘,,~ ” ‘!j;,y : i” .’ Tax IDI 12-44-20-01~OOQ16.0140
B.,.1:;;
Lot 14, Block 16, CAY0 COSTA SUBDIVISION, according to the map or piat thereof5”
i ‘. 0W *j;
as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lea County, Florida. sitTut IDar t2-44.20-01.06016.0178Lots 17 and 20, Hock 16, CAY0 COSTA WElDIVISIDN, according to the map or pfatthcweof as recorded in Plat Book 3, P%gs 25, PubJlc Records of Lee County, FIorJda,
Tax ID# f2-44-20-01-00016.02~0Lots 2 1 and 24, Block 16, CASO COSTA SUBDIViSION, according to the map or plat mthereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records oFLee County, Florida.
Tax ID# 1%44*20-01=00016.022Q .:i!j,Lot 22, Bfock It?, CAYU COSTA SUBDIVISION, according to the map or pJat thereof I!as recorded ia Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee County, Florida. 3-si
Tax ID# 12-44-2f!-O1-00042.03$ALots 38A and 4 J A, CAY0 COSTA SUBDIVISJON, according to the map or plat thereofas recorded in Plat Book 3. Paac 211. Pubtic Records of Lee Countv. Flnridr
66
67
68
69
70
71
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JORG BUSSE
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-29SPC
LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; BOARD OF LEECOUNTY COMMISSIONERS; KENNETH M.WILKINSON; LEE COUNTY PROPERTYAPPRAISER’S OFFICE; STATE OFFLORIDA, BOARD OF [PAST & PRESENT]TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTTRUST FUND, STATE OF FLORIDADEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION, AND DIVISION OFRECREATION AND PARKS; LEE COUNTYATTORNEY; JACK N. PETERSON,
Defendants.___________________________________
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the following motions:
(1) defendant Property Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss and Close File
(Doc. #285), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #302); (2)
defendants State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees) and Florida Department of
Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Cause of Action (Doc.
#291), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #316); (3)
defendant The Lee County Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
-2-
Jurisdiction (Doc. #303), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc.
#317); and (4) defendant Board of Lee County Commissioners’ Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. #304), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc.
#318). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his pleadings are
held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by an
attorney and will be liberally construed. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d
1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003).
I.
On December 10, 1969, the Board of County Commissioners of Lee
County, Florida adopted the “Resolution Pertaining to Public Lands
in Cayo Costa Subdivision”, Book 569, page 875 (the Resolution).
The Resolution stated that the Second Revised Plat of the Cayo
Costa Subdivision contained certain designated lot and block areas
and other undesignated areas. The Resolution further noted that
the plat contained certain un-numbered and unlettered areas lying
East of the Easterly tier of blocks in the subdivision and lying
West of the Westerly tier of blocks in the subdivision. The
Resolution stated that Lee County claimed the lands to the east and
west of the tier of blocks as “public lands together with all
accretions thereto” and “does by this Resolution claim all of said
lands and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of the public
for public purposes.” (Doc. #288, p. 9.)
Plaintiff Jorg Busse (plaintiff or Dr. Busse) asserts he is
the current owner of Lot 15A of the Cayo Costa Subdivision and
-3-
accretions thereto. (Doc. #288, ¶¶ 1, 2.) Plaintiff describes Lot
15A as being more than approximately 2.5 acres fronting the Gulf of
Mexico with an estimated fair market value of more than $2 million.
(Id. at ¶6.) Plaintiff asserts that the Resolution violates his
property rights in Lot 15A, which includes accretions, under both
federal and state law.
Count 1 sets forth a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
alleges that the Resolution deprived him of his riparian rights,
private easements, accreted property and privileges secured by the
United States Constitution. Specifically, plaintiff asserts that
Lee County had no home rule powers or jurisdiction over the
undedicated Cayo Costa Subdivision, and therefore the Resolution
was unenforceable and in violation of the United States
Constitution. (Doc. #288, ¶13.) Plaintiff asserts that defendants
confiscated more than 2.5 acres of his accreted property without
compensation in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Id. at
¶14.) Plaintiff asserts that defendants also illegally took more
than 200 acres of private accretions onto Cayo Costa pursuant to
the Resolution, all without compensation. (Id. at ¶15.) Further,
plaintiff asserts that “Defendant State Actors” claimed riparian
rights to Lots 38A and 41A which they denied to plaintiff, thereby
unlawfully discriminating against plaintiff because he is entitled
to equal rights as the State property owner. (Id. at ¶¶ 16, 27.)
-4-
Count 2 alleges an unconstitutional temporary taking under
color of the Resolution. Plaintiff asserts that the Resolution was
never signed, executed or acknowledged and did not meet resolution
and recording requirements, and was therefore not entitled to be
recorded and must be stricken from the public record. (Id. at
¶17.) Plaintiff further alleges that the Cayo Costa Subdivision
was outside of Lee County’s home rule powers, and therefore the
State and County had no powers to adopt resolutions or ordinances,
and therefore the Resolution is unenforceable and ineffectual and
the County capriciously grabbed private accreted land and
easements. (Id. at ¶18.) Plaintiff asserts that defendants took
his accretions onto the riparian gulf front Lot 15A without
authority, justification, due process of law, public notice,
hearing, vote count, or compensation, and that this unauthorized
unconstitutional taking injured plaintiff and destroyed his
property value. (Id. at ¶19.)
Count 3 sets forth a state law claim for trespass. Plaintiff
alleges that since the 1969 Resolution the defendants have asserted
that Lee County is the owner of the Cayo Costa accretions and have
induced and caused the public to intrude onto the private beaches
and other areas on Cayo Costa, injuring plaintiff’s property. (Id.
at ¶¶ 20-21.) Plaintiff asserts that the State cannot exercise
power within the Subdivision east of the mean high water mark of
the Gulf of Mexico and west of the mean high water mark of
Charlotte Harbor. (Id. at ¶22.)
-5-
Count 4 alleges a conspiracy to fabricate, fraud and
malfeasance. Plaintiff asserts that the Lee County Property
Appraiser claimed that the Resolution entitled Lee County to
ownership of the accreted property, but the County Appraiser has
admitted that Lee County was not empowered to adopt the Resolution.
(Id. at ¶23.) Plaintiff asserts that the Resolution on its face
did not meet recording or resolution requirements, and that the
County Appraiser had a professional duty to verify the validity of
the sham Resolution under the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that without evidence
of title, defendants conspired to concoct an un-plated lot, block
and park for the benefit of the State and County. (Id. at ¶24.)
Plaintiff also asserts that defendant denied agricultural
classification to his accreted lot. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that
defendants destroyed most of his property value, deprived him of
private easements without compensation, and denied equal protection
in a land grab scheme. (Id.) Plaintiff describes the agreement as
being to assist the unconstitutional confiscation of the
accretions. (Id. at ¶25.) Plaintiff also asserts that the County
Appraiser made incompetent valuation reports which were
controverted by other comparable sales data and done in violation
of Federal Appraisal Standards, but defendant continued to slander
plaintiff’s perfect title. (Id. at ¶26.) As a result, plaintiff
received purchase offers far below market value and the County
Appraiser has committed malfeasance and abuse of position. (Id.)
-6-
Count 5 alleges a conspiracy to materially misrepresent and
defraud. Plaintiff asserts that Lee County does not hold title to
the accreted property pursuant to the Resolution, and there has
been no proceedings such as eminent domain or adverse possession.
(Id. at ¶29.) Plaintiff asserts that Lee County’s claims of
ownership of the accretions therefore violated the Fifth Amendment
Takings Clause, and therefore defendants deprived the public of tax
revenues which could have been received from the private accretions
and easements. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that defendants conspired
to misrepresent the extent of the Army Corps of Engineers’
authority over his lagoon. (Id. at ¶32.)
Count 6 alleges oppression and slander of title by defendant
Peterson for failing to challenge the invalidity of the Resolution
despite his questions about its validity. (Id. at ¶¶ 33-35.)
The Third Amended Complaint asserts the Court has jurisdiction
based on the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983), 28 U.S.C. § 1343,
Articles 3 and 4 of the United States Constitution, and Amendments
4 and 5 of the United States Constitution (Doc. #288, ¶7), the 1899
Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act (33 U.S.C. § 403)(id. at ¶8),
the 1862 Homestead Act (id. at ¶9), the federal common law Doctrine
of Accretion and Erosion (id. at ¶10), the Federal Appraisal
Standards, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (12
U.S.C. §§ 3331-3351), and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act (28
U.S.C. § 2201)(id. at ¶12).
See Lee County v. Morales, 557 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)1
for a description of Cayo Costa island and the Lee County zoninghistory of the island since 1978.
-7-
III.
The Court will first address the federal claims, since these
claims are necessary to provide subject matter jurisdiction. Given
plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court reviews the Third Amended
Complaint liberally.
A. Takings Clause Claims:
A consistent theme which runs through several of plaintiff’s
counts is that the Resolution constitutes an unconstitutional
taking of his property rights in his subdivision Lot 15A on Cayo
Costa island. The legal principles are well-settled, and preclude1
plaintiff’s takings claim.
Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Takings Clause of the
Fifth Amendment, which states in pertinent part “nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U.S.
CONST. amend. V. The Fifth Amendment is applied to the States
through the Fourteenth Amendment. Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New
York City, 438 U.S. 104, 121-23 (1978). The Third Amended
Complaint may also be read to allege a conspiracy to violate the
Takings Clause.
State law defines the parameters of a plaintiff’s property
interest, and whether state law has created a property interest is
a legal question for the court to decide. Morley’s Auto Body, Inc.
-8-
v. Hunter, 70 F.3d 1209, 1212 (11th Cir. 1996). Under Florida law
a riparian or littoral owner owns to the line of the ordinary high
water mark on navigable waters, and the riparian or littoral
property rights include the vested right to receive accretions to
the property. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust
Fund v. Sand Key Assocs., Ltd., 512 So. 2d 934, 936-37 (Fla. 1987);
Brannon v. Boldt, 958 So. 2d 367, 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). These
rights constitute property, and cannot be taken or destroyed by the
government without just compensation to the owners. Sand Key
Assoc., 512 So. 2d at 936; Lee County v. Kiesel, 705 So. 2d 1013,
1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). “By now it is beyond question that a
permanent physical occupation of private property by the state
constitutes a taking for which a landowner must be compensated.”
New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe County, 95 F.3d 1084, 1088 (11th
Cir. 1996)(citing Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S.
1003, 1015 (1992) and Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.,
458 U.S. 419, 434 (1982)).
Thus while plaintiff has adequately alleged a taking of his
property, “a property owner has not suffered a violation of the
Just Compensation Clause until the owner has unsuccessfully
attempted to obtain just compensation through the procedures
provided by the State for obtaining such compensation . . .”
Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473
U.S. 172, 195 (1972). “Williamson County boils down to the rule
that state courts always have a first shot at adjudicating a
-9-
takings dispute because a federal constitutional claim is not ripe
until the state has denied the would-be plaintiff’s compensation
for a putative taking, including by unfavorable judgment in a state
court proceeding.” Agripost, LLC v. Miami-Dade County, Fla.,
F.3d , 2008 WL 1790434 (11th Cir. 2008). Without having
pursued such available state court remedies, a plaintiff’s Takings
Clause claim is not ripe and therefore a federal district court
lacks jurisdiction to consider it. Williamson County, 473 U.S. at
195; Watson Constr. Co. v. City of Gainsville, 244 Fed. Appx. 274,
277 (11th Cir. 2007); Garbo, Inc. v. City of Key West, Fla., 162
Fed. Appx. 905 (11th Cir. 2006). It has been clear since at least
1990 that Florida law provides a remedy of an inverse or reverse
condemnation suit. Joint Ventures, Inc. v. Department of Transp.,
563 So. 2d 622, 624 (Fla. 1990); Tari v. Collier County, 56 F.3d
1533, 1537 n.12 (11th Cir. 1995); Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d
1412, 1417 (11th Cir. 1994). Additionally, plaintiff could have
pursued an state action for declaratory judgment under FLA. STAT. §
86.011, a suit to quiet title, Trustees of Internal Imp. Fund of
State of Florida v. Toffel, 145 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962), or
a suit in ejectment if the matter is viewed as a boundary dispute.
Petryni v. Denton, 807 So. 2d 697, 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
The Third Amended Complaint does not allege that plaintiff
pursued any state relief. Indeed, plaintiff has never suggested
that he has taken any action in state court to quiet title or
receive damages under an inverse or reverse condemnation claim.
-10-
Since there is no showing of federal jurisdiction as to the Takings
Clause claim, the Taking Clause claims and any conspiracy to
violate the Takings Clause in any count will be dismissed without
prejudice.
B. Substantive Due Process Claim:
A liberal reading of the Third Amended Complaint might suggest
that plaintiff also frames the alleged taking of his property
rights as a substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth
Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit has held, however, that there is
no independent substantive due process taking cause of action.
Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610, 612-14
(11th Cir. 1997). Additionally, substantive due process protects
only fundamental rights, that is, those rights which are implicit
in the concept of ordered liberty. Such rights are created by the
Constitution, and do not include property rights. Greenbriar
Village, LLC v. Mountain Brook City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir.
2003). Merely asserting that the government’s actions were
arbitrary and irrational does not bring the matter within the
protection of the substantive due process provision. Greenbriar
Village, 345 F.3d at 1263-64. Therefore, those portions of counts
in the Third Amended Complaint which attempt to assert a
substantive due process takings claim or conspiracy will be
dismissed.
-11-
C. Procedural Due Process Claim:
Plaintiff’s counts may also attempt to state a procedural due
process claim. For example, plaintiff asserts that Lee County had
no home rule powers or jurisdiction over the undedicated Cayo Costa
subdivision (Doc. #288, ¶¶ 13, 18, 23), that the Resolution was
never signed, executed or acknowledged and did not meet resolution
and recording requirements (id. at ¶¶ 17, 23), and that the taking
was without authority, justification, due process, public notice,
hearing, vote count, or compensation (id. at ¶19).
“Procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to
be heard before any government deprivation of a property interest.”
Zipperer v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995).
Not all government actions, however, are subject to a procedural
due process claim. The County’s action in passing the Resolution
constituted a legislative act, and therefore plaintiff cannot state
a procedural due process claim. 75 Acres, LLC v. Miami-Dade
County, Fla., 338 F.3d 1288, 1294 (11th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff
asserted that the Resolution effecting the taking of more than 200
acres other than his 2.5 acres. This is sufficient to constitute
a legislative act. See, e.g., Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of
Equalization, 239 U.S. 441, 445 (1915)(noting that it is
impractical to give every one a voice when a legislative act
applies to more than a few people). Additionally, even if not a
legislative act, a procedural due process claims does not exist
-12-
merely because state mandated procedures were not followed. First
Assembly of God of Naples, Florida, Inc. v. Collier County, Fla.,
20 F.3d 419, 422 (11th Cir. 1994). In this regard, some of the
allegations in the Third Amended Complaint are contradicted by the
Resolution which is attached to it. The copy of the Resolution
attached to the Third Amended Complaint establishes that it was
signed, executed, and duly recorded in the public records, and
plaintiff will not be allowed to assert otherwise. The remaining
claimed defects are arguments concerning state law which do not
arise to a constitutional level. Finally, plaintiff fails to state
a procedural due process claim because he has failed to allege that
Florida law provided him with an inadequate post-deprivation
remedy, Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378, 382 (11th Cir. 1996), and as
discussed above it is clear that Florida does provide adequate
post-deprivation remedies. Therefore, any claim founded on
procedural due process will be dismissed.
D. Equal Protection Claim:
Plaintiff also alleges that the Resolution violated his equal
protection rights. “To properly plead an equal protection claim,
a plaintiff need only allege that through state action, similarly
situated persons have been treated disparately.” Boyd v. Peet, 249
Fed. Appx. 155, 158 (11th Cir. 2007)(citation omitted). See also
Executive 100, Inc. v. Martin County, 922 F.2d 1536, 1552 (11th
Cir. 1991). The Third Amended Complaint does not identify any
similarly situated person with whom plaintiff can be compared. The
-13-
Third Amended Complaint states that defendants have taken over 200
acres pursuant to the Resolution, far in excess of his 2.5 acres.
The only assertion of disparate treatment is for those lots owned
by government, which plaintiff alleges did not have their rights
taken. However, a private owner such as plaintiff can not be
compared to a public owner such as a government unit. Therefore,
no equal protection claim is stated, and such claims will be
dismissed without prejudice.
E. Other Bases of Federal Jurisdiction:
Having found no federal claim set forth in the Third Amended
Complaint, the Court now examines the other purported bases of
federal jurisdiction.
Article III of the Constitution sets the outer boundaries of
the federal court jurisdiction, but vests Congress with the
discretion to determine whether and to what extent that power may
be exercised by lower federal courts. Therefore, lower federal
courts are empowered to hear only cases for which there has been a
congressional grant of jurisdiction. Morrison v. Allstate
Indemnity Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2000). Therefore
Article III does not provide any additional basis of federal
jurisdiction. Additionally, plaintiff’s reliance on Article IV of
the Constitution is misplaced because Article IV does not address
the jurisdiction of a federal court.
Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. § 1343 as a basis for federal
jurisdiction. Section 1343 sets forth the jurisdiction of district
-14-
courts for certain civil rights actions, but does not itself create
a private right of action. Albra v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 232
Fed. Appx. 885, 892 (11th Cir. 2007). Since none of plaintiff’s
federal civil rights claims are properly before the court, § 1343
is not a basis for jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims.
Plaintiff’s reliance on the 1899 Rivers and Harbors
Appropriation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 403 is misplaced. Section 403
relates to the creation of an obstruction not authorized by
Congress, and simply not relevant to any of the claims in this
case. The 1862 Homestead Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 161-64, cannot form
basis for jurisdiction because it was repealed in 1976. Assuming
there is a federal common law Doctrine of Accretion and Erosion, it
cannot provide a jurisdictional basis in federal court. The
Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice, 12 U.S.C. § 3331-3351, also do not create
federal jurisdiction. These standards relate to real estate
appraisals utilized in connection with federally related
transactions, 12 U.S.C. § 1331, and no such transaction was
involved in this case. Additionally, in Florida the county
property appraiser is a constitutionally created office whose
appraisals are carried out pursuant to state statute, FLA. STAT. §
193.011 as well as professional appraisal standards established by
the International Association of Assessing Officers and the
-15-
Appraisal Institute. Parrish v. Nikolits, 86 F.3d 1088, 1091 n.2
(11th Cir. 1996).
Therefore, the Court finds no other basis of federal
jurisdiction has been plead in the Third Amended Complaint.
F. Remaining State Law Claims:
The remaining possible claims in the Third Amended Complaint
are all state law claims. Read liberally, the Third Amended
Complaint may be read to allege a claim to invalidate the
Resolution for alleged state-law procedural defects, a state law
claim of trespass, a state law claim of conspiracy to misrepresent,
a state law claim of fraud, state law claims of malfeasance, a
state law claim of oppression, and a state law claim of slander of
title. Even assuming these are properly pled, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) the Court would exercise its discretion and
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state
claims. Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (11th
Cir. 2004)(encouraging district courts to dismiss state claims
where all claims which provided original jurisdiction have been
dismissed.) The dismissal of the state claims will be without
prejudice. Crosby v. Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339, 1352 (11th Cir. 1999).
Having found that this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, and will not retain supplemental jurisdiction, the
Court need not address the issues raised in the remaining
defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Accordingly, it is now
-16-
ORDERED:
1. Defendant Property Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (Doc. #303) is GRANTED to the
extent set forth in paragraph 5 below.
2. Defendant Property Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss and
Close File (Doc. #285) is DENIED as moot.
3. State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection
and Division of Recreation and Parks, State of Florida, and Board
of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund’s Joint Motion
to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a
Cause of Action (Doc. #291) is GRANTED to the extent set forth in
paragraph 5 below.
4. Defendants Lee County, Florida, Board of Lee County
Commissioners, Lee County Attorney, Jack N. Peterson’s Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. #304) is GRANTED to the extent set forth in paragraph
5 below.
5. The Third Amended Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice as to all defendants and all claims. The Clerk shall
enter judgment accordingly, terminate all pending motions as moot,
and close the case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 5th day of
May, 2008.
Copies: Parties of record
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE, Plaintiffs, versus Case # 2:10-cv-00390-JES-AEP CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL; SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL; JOHN EDWIN STEELE; JENNIFER WAUGH CORINIS; A. BRIAN ALBRITTON,
Defendants.
INDEPENDENT ACTION FOR RELIEF FROM GOVERNMENT CRIMES, CORRUPTION,
AND FACIALLY FRAUDULENT WRIT OF EXECUTION ____________________________________________________________________________/
MOTION TO STAY PRIMA FACIE ILLEGAL ‘EXECUTION’ AS A MATTER OF LAW
PUBLISHED NOTICE OF ILLEGAL EXECUTION UNDER FLORIDA LAW
1. The purported “execution” issued illegally. See § 56.15, Fla. Stat.; Case No. 2:2007-cv-
00228.
NO $5,048.60 JUDGMENT WAS EVER RECORDED
2. “No execution or other final process shall issue until the judgment on which it is based has
been recorded nor within the time for serving a motion for new trial or rehearing.…
Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.550. Here, no “judgment in the amount of $5,048.60” was ever “recorded”,
Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. Here, no evidence of any such judgment ever existed or could
have possibly existed as a matter of law.
DEFENDANT CLERKS’ FALSIFICATIONS OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
3. On 07/16/2010, Defendant U.S. District Clerks Drew Heathcoat and Diane Nipper again
falsified and altered official documents and records for criminal and unlawful purposes of
obstructing justice and Plaintiffs’ court access.
4. In particular, the Clerk obstructed, and conspired with other Defendants to obstruct,
electronic court access, court access, and the filing of Plaintiffs’ pleadings, Case No. 2:2007-
cv-00791; 2:2009-cv-00791. In particular, Defendants Nipper and Heathcoat deliberately
deprived the Plaintiffs of their express fundamental rights to redress Government grievances,
and file their Motions for new trial and rehearing, and Notices of Appeal.
DIRECT INDEPENDENT ATTACKS OF CRIMINAL & ILLEGAL “EXECUTION”
5. Here on the record, the Plaintiffs have been directly attacking the prima facie criminality,
illegality, and nullity of the fraudulently procured “execution”, which issued illegally. See §
56.15, Fla. Stat.; Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228; 2:2010-cv-00089; 2:2010-cv-00791.
PRIMA FACIE LACK OF RECORD, FED.R.CIV.P. 44
6. On 07/16/2010, Defendant Corrupt U.S. District Clerk Drew Heathcoat obstructed to issue
“a written statement that a diligent search of the designated records in Case No. 2:2007-cv-
00228 revealed no “writ of execution” and no “judgment” awarding “$5,048.60” to
Defendant K. M. Wilkinson.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 44.
PRIMA FACIE ORGANIZED PUBLIC CORRUPTION
7. The fake “writ of execution”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, is another publicly recorded
element of organized Government and judicial corruption with corrupt intent to extort fess
and property from the Plaintiff corruption whistleblowers.
PRIMA FACIE GROUNDS TO STAY ILLEGAL “EXECUTION” OF RECORD
8. Repeatedly, the Plaintiff public corruption victims stated several grounds as good cause to
stay the illegal execution. Grounds for the motion appeared on the face. Here, e.g., no
judgment had existed. See Docket Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. The purported basis for the
non-existent judgment had never existed, because Def. Forger Wilkinson had never filed any
“Rule 38 motion”. See Docket for Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
RECORD EXTORTION AND FORGERIES BY DEF. APPRAISER WILKINSON
9. Because, e.g., Def. Forger Wilkinson had criminally and illegally forged “land parcels”
“12-44-20-01-0000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, Plaintiffs’ Appellants’ Appeal
had been highly meritorious, and no “frivolous appeal” could have possibly existed.
RECORD FABRICATION OF “FRIVOLITY” AND “JUDGMENT”
10. No “frivolity” was ever determined in the “judgment”, Doc. # 365, Case ## 2:2007-cv-00228;
2008-13170-BB. Here, no monetary penalty had ever been awarded to Defendant
Government Crook Wilkinson.
PUBLICLY RECORDED FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS
11. For criminal and unlawful purposes of obstructing justice and court access and perpetrating
fraud on the Courts, Defendants John E. Steele, Sheri Polster Chappell, Charlene E.
Honeywell, Mark A. Pizzo, and Richard A. Lazzara falsified and altered, and conspired to
falsify and alter, public records.
12. Said judicial Crooks knew and fraudulently concealed that no “regulation”, “resolution”,
“resolution 569/875”, “law”, “legislative act” had ever existed, and that as a matter of
supreme Florida and Federal law, no “law” could have possibly divested the Plaintiffs’ of
their unimpeachable record title to Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A, PB 3, PG 25 (1912).
13. Doc. # 386-2, Case No. # 2:2007-cv-00228, evidenced an illegal “motion” filed on
08/20/2008 under fraudulent pretenses. Here, the deadline for any hypothetical “Rule 38
motion” had terminated on or around 08/08/2008, and Def. Wilkinson had never filed
anything prior to said deadline to justify any judgment or monetary punishment. Therefore
here, no lawful basis could have possibly existed, and the illegal “execution” has been
fraudulent on its face.
PRIMA FACIE ILLEGAL “writ of execution” - AFFIDAVIT
14. Here, no lawful writ of execution had ever been issued. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs made an
Affidavit that the “execution” is illegal and stated as grounds, e.g., the lack of any
supporting judgment, the lack of any falsely alleged “Rule 38 motion” by Defendant K. M.
Wilkinson.
PLAINTIFFS’ COMMUNICATIONS OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION AND FELONIES
15. Plaintiffs again contacted Defendant Crooked Attorney Jack N. Peterson for Def. Forger
Kenneth M. Wilkinson and reported said publicly recorded public corruption, extortion,
coercion, and fraud, Tel. 239-533-2236.
07/19/10 COMMUNICATIONS TO FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
16. On 07/19/2010, Plaintiff public corruption victim Jennifer Franklin Prescott updated the
Federal Bureau of Investigation about the public corruption, extortion, fraud, and fraudulent
“writ”.
PRIMA FACIE FRAUD ON THE COURT AND EXTORTION
17. Furthermore, the Plaintiff corruption victims move this Court to “set aside“ the non-existent
judgment and “writ” in accordance with, e.g., Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b), 1.500, and/or 1.540(a).
18. In the prima facie record absence of any recorded judgment, any writ of execution, and any
“Rule 38 motion”, Defendants illegally and fraudulently procured an illegal “writ”.
19. Furthermore here, there were other pending actions affecting the subject matter and
conclusively evidencing the prima facie illegality of the fake “writ”, direct attacks upon its
criminality, as well as fraud, extortion, and corruption. See also Daytona Enterprises, Inc. v.
Wagner, 91 So.2d 171 (Fla. 1956); Childs v. Boats, 112 Fla. 282, 152 So. 214 (1933);
McGee v. Ancrum, 33 Fla. 499, 15 So. 231 (1894); Fair v. Tampa Electric Company, 158
Fla. 15, 27 So.2d 514 (1946); Viggio v. Wood, 101 So.2d 922 (3 D.C.A. 1958).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand
1. An Order enjoining the publicly recorded illegal “execution”-scheme under Florida law;
2. An Order granting the Plaintiffs summary remedies against the record public corruption
and non-existent “writ of execution”, and non-existent “Rule 38 motion”;
3. An Order staying the illegal and null & void “writ of execution” and any “execution”;
4. An Order enjoining any further public corruption and the record falsification of “land
parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”;
5. An Order enjoining Defendant Forger K. M. Wilkinson from forging and falsifying official
records and documents for criminal and unlawful purposes of, e.g., extorting unrecorded
fees and property under facially false pretenses of a non-existent “5,048.60 judgment” and
fictitious “writ of execution”.
__________________________________ /S/JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT Governmental Corruption & Fraud Victim, Plaintiff, pro se P.O. BOX 845, Palm Beach, FL 33480; T: 561-400-3295 ____________________________________ /S/JORG BUSSE, M.D., M.M., M.B.A., C.P.M. Judicial Corruption & Crime Victim; Plaintiff, pro se State Cert. Res. Appraiser, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Mortgage Broker, Appraisal Instructor
Select Year: 2009 Go
The 2009 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 838
BRIBERY; MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE
View Entire Chapter
838.022 Official misconduct.--
(1) It is unlawful for a public servant, with corrupt intent to obtain a benefit for any person or to cause harm
to another, to:
(a) Falsify, or cause another person to falsify, any official record or official document;
(b) Conceal, cover up, destroy, mutilate, or alter any official record or official document or cause another
person to perform such an act; or
(c) Obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to the commission of a felony that
directly involves or affects the public agency or public entity served by the public servant.
(2) For the purposes of this section:
(a) The term "public servant" does not include a candidate who does not otherwise qualify as a public servant.
(b) An official record or official document includes only public records.
(3) Any person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.--s. 5, ch. 2003-158.
Copyright © 1995-2010 The Florida Legislature • Privacy Statement • Contact Us
7/17/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm… 1/1
B. Plaintiffs yet again fail to articulate a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted.
As this Court noted in the sound and cogent analysis of the
Busse litigation contained in its June 23, 2010, Order [Busse
VII, DE-213, at pp. 20-21], Plaintiffs’ allegations, to the
extent any sense can be made of them, are essentially criminal in
nature. In that same Order, the Court has already analyzed and
explained why Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief under the
various constitutional provisions upon which they rely. The only
other vehicle for charging essentially criminal conduct in a
civil forum is a suit under the civil provisions of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“civil RICO”), 18
U.S.C. § 1964(c).1
Complaints asserting civil RICO claims “must comply not only
with the plausibility criteria articulated in Twombly and Iqbal
but also with Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)’s heightened pleading
standard.” American Dental Ass’n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283,
--- (11th Cir. 2010). As the Court previously noted, Plaintiffs’
repetitious and voluminous pleadings are “convoluted and
incomprehensible,” “contain[] incoherent and rambling claims of
alleged wrongdoing,” and consist of “conclusory” statements
The case of Davis v. Kvalheim, 261 Fed. Appx. 231 (11th1
Cir. 2008), a matter to which the Busse cases have frequentlybeen analogized [see, e.g., Busse V, DE-17], was a civil RICOcase filed against every judge and other governmental official(totaling 129 defendants) that plaintiff “imagine[d to] have donehim wrong.” Id. at 235.
4
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 29 Filed 06/30/10 Page 4 of 8
to the performance of his duty to serve Busse with the writ of
execution. [Busse I, DE-429.] Accordingly, Deputy Jessup would
be entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, and the claim arising out
of his acts should likewise be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that the
Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint.
Date: June 30, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
TONY WESTASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
By: /s/ Matthew L. Fesak MATTHEW L. FESAK
Special Attorney andAssistant United States AttorneyCivil Division310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 800Raleigh, NC 27601-1461Telephone: (919) 856-4530Facsimile: (919) 856-4821E-Mail: [email protected]. Bar No. 35276
7
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 29 Filed 06/30/10 Page 7 of 8
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 425 Filed 02/02/10 Page 1 of 1
Select Year: 2009 Go
The 2009 Florida Statutes
Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Chapter 55
JUDGMENTS
View Entire Chapter
55.10 Judgments, orders, and decrees; lien of all, generally; extension of liens; transfer of liens toother security.--
(1) A judgment, order, or decree becomes a lien on real property in any county when a certified copy of it is
recorded in the official records or judgment lien record of the county, whichever is maintained at the time of
recordation, provided that the judgment, order, or decree contains the address of the person who has a lien
as a result of such judgment, order, or decree or a separate affidavit is recorded simultaneously with the
judgment, order, or decree stating the address of the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment,
order, or decree. A judgment, order, or decree does not become a lien on real property unless the address of
the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree is contained in the judgment, order,
or decree or an affidavit with such address is simultaneously recorded with the judgment, order, or decree. If
the certified copy was first recorded in a county in accordance with this subsection between July 1, 1987, and
June 30, 1994, then the judgment, order, or decree shall be a lien in that county for an initial period of 7
years from the date of the recording. If the certified copy is first recorded in accordance with this subsection
on or after July 1, 1994, then the judgment, order, or decree shall be a lien in that county for an initial period
of 10 years from the date of the recording.
(2) The lien provided for in subsection (1) or an extension of that lien as provided by this subsection may be
extended for an additional period of 10 years, subject to the limitation in subsection (3), by rerecording a
certified copy of the judgment, order, or decree prior to the expiration of the lien or the expiration of the
extended lien and by simultaneously recording an affidavit with the current address of the person who has a
lien as a result of the judgment, order, or decree. The extension shall be effective from the date the certified
copy of the judgment, order, or decree is rerecorded. The lien or extended lien will not be extended unless the
affidavit with the current address is simultaneously recorded.
(3) In no event shall the lien upon real property created by this section be extended beyond the period
provided for in s. 55.081 or beyond the point at which the lien is satisfied, whichever occurs first.
(4) This act shall apply to all judgments, orders, and decrees of record which constitute a lien on real
property; except that any judgment, order, or decree recorded prior to July 1, 1987, shall remain a lien on real
property until the period provided for in s. 55.081 expires or until the lien is satisfied, whichever occurs first.
(5) Any lien claimed under this section may be transferred, by any person having an interest in the real
property upon which the lien is imposed or the contract under which the lien is claimed, from such real
property to other security by either depositing in the clerk's office a sum of money or filing in the clerk's office
a bond executed as surety by a surety insurer licensed to do business in this state. Such deposit or bond shall
7/14/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 1/2
be in an amount equal to the amount demanded in such claim of lien plus interest thereon at the legal rate for
3 years plus $500 to apply on any court costs which may be taxed in any proceeding to enforce said lien. Such
deposit or bond shall be conditioned to pay any judgment, order, or decree which may be rendered for the
satisfaction of the lien for which such claim of lien was recorded and costs plus $500 for court costs. Upon
such deposit being made or such bond being filed, the clerk shall make and record a certificate showing the
transfer of the lien from the real property to the security and mail a copy thereof by registered or certified
mail to the lienor named in the claim of lien so transferred, at the address stated therein. Upon the filing of
the certificate of transfer, the real property shall thereupon be released from the lien claimed, and such lien
shall be transferred to said security. The clerk shall be entitled to a service charge of up to $15 for making
and serving the certificate. If the transaction involves the transfer of multiple liens, an additional service
charge of up to $7.50 for each additional lien shall be charged. Any number of liens may be transferred to one
such security.
(6) Any excess of the security over the aggregate amount of any judgments, orders, or decrees rendered,
plus costs actually taxed, shall be repaid to the party filing the security or his or her successor in interest. Any
deposit of money shall be considered as paid into court and shall be subject to the provisions of law relative to
payments of money into court and the disposition of these payments.
(7) Any party having an interest in such security or the property from which the lien was transferred may at
any time, and any number of times, file a complaint in chancery in the circuit court of the county where such
security is deposited for an order:
(a) To require additional security;
(b) To require reduction of security;
(c) To require change or substitution of sureties;
(d) To require payment or discharge thereof; or
(e) Relating to any other matter affecting said security.
History.--s. 1, ch. 10166, 1925; s. 1, ch. 14749, 1931; ss. 1-3, ch. 17998, 1937; s. 2, ch. 19270, 1939; CGL
1940 Supp. 4865(3); s. 9, ch. 67-254; s. 1, ch. 71-56; s. 1, ch. 77-462; s. 2, ch. 87-67; s. 7, ch. 87-145; s. 12,
ch. 91-45; s. 10, ch. 93-250; s. 15, ch. 94-348; s. 1357, ch. 95-147; s. 7, ch. 2000-258; s. 1, ch. 2001-130; s.
68, ch. 2003-402; s. 47, ch. 2004-265.
Copyright © 1995-2010 The Florida Legislature • Privacy Statement • Contact Us
7/14/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 2/2
Home FAQs The Law Press Releases Additional Resources Annual Reports
The links below provide informationregarding the Grand Jury.Supreme Court OrderPrevious Grand Jury ReportsGrand Jury Handbook
address: Statewide Prosecution OfficeThe Capitol, PL-01Tallahassee, FL 32399
phone: 1-800-646-0444
website: www.myfloridalegal.com
news: Weekly Newsletter
Report Corruption
Please report information to helpin the fight against public
coruption.
File a Complaint On-line
Press ReleasesFebruary 1, 2010Attorney General: StatewideGrand Jury will Help RestoreTrust in Government
December 2, 2009Statement from Attorney Generalon Supreme Court's Order toConvene a Statewide Grand Jury
October 14, 2009Attorney General’s Statement onCall for Statewide Grand Jury
Search: This Site Web Enter search criteria
On November 30, 2009, Governor Charlie Crist filed a petitionrequesting that a Statewide Grand Jury be convened in order to“examine and evaluate public policy issues regarding publiccorruption and develop specific recommendations regardingimproving current laws.” On December 2, 2009, the FloridaSupreme Court issued an Order to convene the NineteenthStatewide Grand Jury for the purpose of investigating crimes,returning indictments, and making presentments.
In Florida, the responsibility to conduct statewide grand juries is given to theStatewide Prosecutor. The Statewide Prosecutor designates Assistant StatewideProsecutors to ensure a statewide grand jury is selected and that a grand jury ispresented with testimony and evidence. Starting in February of 2010, the NineteenthGrand Jury will be convened in Ft. Lauderdale and shall initially run for twelvemonths. The Grand Jury’s investigation of public corruption is not limited to anyparticular region of the State, however, any criminal offenses investigated shall bemulti-circuit in nature.
The Office of Statewide Prosecution has established a public corruption hotline foranyone who believes they have information concerning a criminal offense involvingpublic corruption or wishes to suggest issues the Statewide Grand Jury shouldinvestigate regarding public corruption. A link to the Petition for a Statewide GrandJury and the Florida Supreme Court Order Directing Impanelment of a StatewideGrand Jury has also been provided under the section titled The Grand Jury.
© 2009 Office of the Attorney General of Florida Privacy Policy
7/23/2010 Statewide Grand Jury on Public Corrup…
myfloridalegal.com/19thstatewidegran… 1/1
-17-
(Doc. #418) on January 11, 2010. The one page document is
essentially a Notice of Filing and will be construed as such and
denied. The attached Motion has the case number 2:09-cv-791-FTM-
36SPC, which case is currently pending in the Fort Myers Division.
Any motions seeking relief in that case should be filed in that
case only.
(31) Plaintiff filed a virtually identical one page document
as Document #418 which attaches a filing for case number 2:09-cv-
791-FTM-36SPC. (Doc. #419.) Any motions seeking relief in that
case should be filed in that case only. This document is construed
as a Notice of Filing and denied.
(32) Plaintiff filed a virtually identical one page document
as Documents #418 and #419 which attaches a filing for case number
2:09-cv-791-FTM-36SPC. (Doc. #420.) Any motions seeking relief in
that case should be filed in that case only. This document is
construed as a Notice of Filing and denied.
It is accordingly
FURTHER ORDERED:
1. Until further Order, the Clerk shall no longer accept any
further filings, related or unrelated to this specific case, by Ms.
Prescott or Mr. Busse, for filing in this closed case, except for
a single Notice of Appeal from this Order.
2. The Emergency Motions for Relief From Extrinsic Fraud,
Fraud on Courts, and Fraudulent Judgment & Execution Emergency
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 422 Filed 01/26/10 Page 17 of 18
-18-
Motion to Enjoin Fraudulent Judgments and Execution of Fraudulent
Judgments Pursuant to Independent Action(s) for Relief Such as Case
9:09-cv-82359-KLR, FLSD Notice of No Authority to Enforce
Fraudulent Judgment” (Doc. #389) is construed as response to the
pending Motion for Writ of Execution.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 26th day of
January, 2010.
Copies: Parties of record
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 422 Filed 01/26/10 Page 18 of 18
Home FAQs The Law Press Releases Additional Resources Annual Reports
The links below provide informationregarding the Grand Jury.Supreme Court OrderPrevious Grand Jury ReportsGrand Jury Handbook
address: Statewide Prosecution OfficeThe Capitol, PL-01Tallahassee, FL 32399
phone: 1-800-646-0444
website: www.myfloridalegal.com
news: Weekly Newsletter
Report Corruption
Please report information to helpin the fight against public
coruption.
File a Complaint On-line
Press ReleasesFebruary 1, 2010Attorney General: StatewideGrand Jury will Help RestoreTrust in Government
December 2, 2009Statement from Attorney Generalon Supreme Court's Order toConvene a Statewide Grand Jury
October 14, 2009Attorney General’s Statement onCall for Statewide Grand Jury
Search: This Site Web Enter search criteria
On November 30, 2009, Governor Charlie Crist filed a petitionrequesting that a Statewide Grand Jury be convened in order to“examine and evaluate public policy issues regarding publiccorruption and develop specific recommendations regardingimproving current laws.” On December 2, 2009, the FloridaSupreme Court issued an Order to convene the NineteenthStatewide Grand Jury for the purpose of investigating crimes,returning indictments, and making presentments.
In Florida, the responsibility to conduct statewide grand juries is given to theStatewide Prosecutor. The Statewide Prosecutor designates Assistant StatewideProsecutors to ensure a statewide grand jury is selected and that a grand jury ispresented with testimony and evidence. Starting in February of 2010, the NineteenthGrand Jury will be convened in Ft. Lauderdale and shall initially run for twelvemonths. The Grand Jury’s investigation of public corruption is not limited to anyparticular region of the State, however, any criminal offenses investigated shall bemulti-circuit in nature.
The Office of Statewide Prosecution has established a public corruption hotline foranyone who believes they have information concerning a criminal offense involvingpublic corruption or wishes to suggest issues the Statewide Grand Jury shouldinvestigate regarding public corruption. A link to the Petition for a Statewide GrandJury and the Florida Supreme Court Order Directing Impanelment of a StatewideGrand Jury has also been provided under the section titled The Grand Jury.
© 2009 Office of the Attorney General of Florida Privacy Policy
7/23/2010 Statewide Grand Jury on Public Corrup…
myfloridalegal.com/19thstatewidegran… 1/1
LEE COUNTY COMMISSION – PUBLIC CORRUPTION
DEFENDANT JOHN E. MANNING
DEF. LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONER JOHN E. MANNING
LEE COUNTY PUBLIC CORRUPTION
“SIX COMMISSIONERS FACED CRIMINAL CHARGES”
NEWS-PRESS, July 9, 2010, www.news-press.com
By Gabriella Souza, [email protected] “Manning comes with …” “At the time, the board [of Lee County Commissioners] was in turmoil. Commissioners and county staff came under fire for illegal dealings and between 1983 and 2000; six commissioners faced criminal charges. "It was a revolving door of county commissioners and county managers," Manning said. Manning, who had decided not to run for re-election, was prosecuted in 2000. He said he wanted to end his time as a commissioner so he could go back to the private sector.”
LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONER JOHN E. MANNING
CHARGED IN RECORDS CASE
NEWS-PRESS, May 11, 2000, www.news-press.com Failure to disclose meetings alleged …
By Lee Melsek
“Prosecutors filed criminal charges against Lee County Commissioner John Manning on Wednesday for failing to disclose years of private meetings with lobbyists seeking such things as land-use changes, roads and multimillion-dollar county contracts. Manning, who voted to approve the county law he's accused of violating, claims he misinterpreted the law. He is charged with a second-degree misdemeanor …” LEE COUNTY COMMISSION – PUBLIC CORRUPTION
NEWS-PRESS, LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
July 10, 2010, www.news-press.com
“The News-Press exposed his failure to obey that law, local prosecutors then charged him with violating the disclosure law and the courts fined him after he pleaded no contest.”
LEE MELSEK Fort Myers Beach
LEE COUNTY PUBLIC CORRUPTION
LEE COUNTY PUBLIC CORRUPTION
LEE COUNTY COMMISSION – PUBLIC CORRUPTION
14
15
DEFENDANT CORRUPT LEE COUNTY COMMISSION
NEWS-PRESS, LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
July 10, 2010, www.news-press.com
Recall Past Actions
“Don’t you just love the integrity of politics? John Manning back as commissioner because he has experience? John Manning is the commissioner who wrote an ordinance, then broke his own ordinance, and his attorney then called Manning’s ordinance a stinky little law or something to that effect. I wonder if Charlie Crist was aware of this when he appointed Manning back to the Lee County Commission?”
RON SMILEY Fort Myers
LEE COUNTY COMMISSION – PUBLIC CORRUPTION
NEWS-PRESS, July 13, 2010, www.news-press.com
TRANSPARENCY ABOVE ALL ELSE: EDITORIAL
“We expect our elected officials to be law-abiding citizens who seek to uphold the rules they create. When they don’t, we question their integrity and ability to serve. Recently, criticism has surfaced about newly appointed interim Lee County Commissioner John Manning’s decade-old no contest plea and $1,000 fine for violating the county’s lobbyist disclosure ordinance. He had a been a three-term county commissioner at that point and helped craft the ordinance. That no contest plea has come back to haunt him in letters to the editor, for example, as he was appointed to the post and is seeking election to it. At least one of his opponents, former Cape Coral Economic Development Director Mike Jackson, sees it as old news, and after 10 years, it likely is. Manning’s also facing former Cape Coral Councilman Chris Berardi and former Lee County School Board Member Bob Chilmonik. This issue should still matter, however. Voters have a right to take into consideration the whole record of a candidate. In a questionnaire for The News-Press Editorial Board, Manning affirmed his support for the Sunshine Law — open records and open meetings laws — opposing exemptions to it and looking to expand it further. That’s a good sign, and redemption certainly is an American value. Manning has a chance to correct his past
error by striving to be the most transparent public official in our community. Anything less than that should be grounds to vote for one of his opponents in the Aug. 24 primary election.”
Sunshine Dimmed “Re: “Manning comes with polished reputation,” July 9. Only a single sentence in an otherwise fawning profile of Manning hinted that something was not quite right during his earlier time on the commission. Alas, there was no attempt whatsoever to detail to readers and voters the betrayal of the public trust Mr. Manning committed while a commissioner in the late ‘90s. Only this vague reference to the fact “he pleaded no contest for not following the county’s lobbyist disclosure law and paid $1,000 in fines and court costs.” The law, which Manning voted to adopt in the early ‘90s, is an important Lee County addendum to the state’s open government requirements. The Lee County law requires commissioners to keep logs of their private meetings with lobbyists. They must disclose the names of the lobbyists, the dates of the meetings, the issues they discussed and the people and companies those lobbyists represent. It’s a noble attempt to prevent government in the shadows much like other counties have adopted. It lets the public know who is influencing, or attempting to influence, our elected commission behind closed doors. While the other four commissioners were dutifully obeying that law and filing their disclosure logs every three months with the Clerk’s Office Minutes Department, John Manning chose to ignore it for the entire four years of his last term
in office. He chose government in the shadows as he met with companies and their high-priced lawyers and lobbyists seeking votes and favors in the privacy of his office or theirs.”
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JORG BUSSE
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-29SPC
LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; BOARD OF LEECOUNTY COMMISSIONERS; THE LEE COUNTYPROPERTY APPRAISER; STATE OF FLORIDABOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNALIMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, STATE OFFLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION,
Defendants.___________________________________
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on review of defendant’s
Motion for Entry of Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property
(Doc. #432) filed on May 21, 2010. No response has been filed and
the time to respond has expired.
Upon review, the Court desires a response from plaintiff.
Recognizing that a Pre-Filing Injunction (Case No. 2:09-cv-791-FTM-
36SPC, Doc. #245) was issued on July 20, 2010, prohibiting any
further filings without leave of Court, the Court will grant
plaintiff leave to file a single responsive document to defendant’s
motion.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 434 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 2
Plaintiff may file one response to defendant’s Motion for
Entry of Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property (Doc. #432)
within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this Order. If no response is
received, the Court will rule on the motion without the benefit of
a response and without further notice.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 22nd day of
July, 2010.
Copies: PlaintiffCounsel of record
-2-
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 434 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 2
PUBLIC CORRUPTION COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT BEVERLY B. MARTIN CORRUPT U.S. CIRCUIT JUDGE CERTIFIED DELIVERY Federal Bureau of Investigation 5525 West Gray Street Tampa, FL 33609 Phone: (813) 253-1000
DEFENDANT BEVERLY B. MARTIN RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS
1. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Beverly B. Martin (“Martin”) in her private individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. Circuit Judge. Defendant Martin’s unlawful and criminal acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity.
FELONIES OUTSIDE ANY “official” CAPACITY 2. Under color of undocketed and/or falsified Cases ## 2010-10963 and 2010-10967, Def.
Martin falsified official records and documents and caused others to falsify for criminal and illegal purposes of extorting money and property under fraudulent pretenses of “frivolity”.
3. Def. Martin knew and concealed that the only paid judgment of record had been in the amount of $24.30. When the Plaintiffs conclusively proved the prima facie criminality, illegality, and nullity of a falsified “$5,048.60 judgment”, which could nowhere be found, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Def. Martin retaliated with further case fixing on “Jul 19 2010”.
COERCION, EXTORTION UNDER FALSE PRETENSES, AND COVER-UP 4. Def. Martin coerced the Plaintiff corruption victims to refrain from redressing their
grievances of a facially falsified and un-recorded “$5,048.60 judgment”, fake “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, and forged “land parcels”. No court had ever reviewed the record forgeries of said fake “land parcels”, and Def. Martin conspired with other Offenders to keep it that way and keep Plaintiffs out of Court. Just like a Government whore, Def. Martin procured her order through brazen fraud on the Court, Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540; see also 1.550.
CONTEMPT OF FLORIDA LAW, CHAPTERS 55, 56, 71, 73, 74, 95, 712, FLA. STAT. 5. Def. Martin concealed that here nothing could have possibly become a lien on Plaintiffs’
property under Ch. 55, 56, 71, Fla. Stat. MARTIN’S KNOWLEDGE OF CRIMES AND UNLAWFUL ACTS
6. Defendant Corrupt Martin had knowledge of the actual commission of felonies such as, e.g., the falsifications of a. a “$5,048.60 judgment”; b. an appeal [see Case ## 2010-10967, and/or 2010-10963]; c. a “writ of execution” [Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 425]; d. “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”; e. a “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “legislative act”, and/or “O.R. 569/875”. However, Def. Martin concealed and conspired to conceal said record falsifications. Here even though Def. Martin had knowledge of, e.g., judicial Co-Defendant Polster Chappell’s,
2
Steele’s, Pizzo’s, and Lazzara’s obstruction of justice and fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels”, a falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “$5,048.60 judgment”, Corrupt Martin did not make the same known to some judge or person in authority, but covered up for said Offenders in exchange for bribes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4.
ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT 7. Defendant Crook Martin knew that Defendant principal Offenders Steele, Chappell, Pizzo,
and Lazzara had committed record offenses and assisted said Offenders, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4. In particular, Martin assisted said Offenders with a facially fraudulent “writ of execution” and the falsification and/or destruction of official records.
DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS UNDER COLOR OF FAKE “writ” AND “resolution” 8. Defendant Martin deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs, e.g., under color of a fake “writ of
execution”, “resolution 569/875”, and “frivolous appeal”, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242. RECORD RETALIATION UNDER COLOR OF WRIT OF EXECUTION & SANCTIONS
9. With the intent to retaliate, Corrupt Martin knowingly took actions harmful to the Plaintiff public corruption victims, which included interference with Plaintiffs’ livelihood and record land ownership, because the Plaintiff landowners had provided truthful information relating to the commission of Federal offenses to law enforcement, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1513.
EXTORTION ASSISTANCE UNDER COLOR OF “FRIVOLOUS APPEAL” 10. Knowingly, Def. Martin assisted the extortion of Plaintiffs’ property and/or threatened to do
so, with corrupt intent to retaliate against the Plaintiffs because the Plaintiffs had blown the whistle on public corruption; in particular, because the Plaintiffs had produced records and testimony conclusively evidencing Government corruption and fraud, and information about the commission of Federal offenses by Government Officials. Here, Plaintiff Government crime and corruption victims had the right to be reasonably protected from the Government Offenders and Judges of record, 18 U.S.C. § 3771.
CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AND COURT ACCESS 11. Def. Martin conspired with other Defendants and Officials to “restrict Appellant’s ability to
pursue future appeals” for, e.g., criminal and unlawful purposes of concealing: a. Facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-
00001.0000”; b. Falsification of [a recorded “$24.30 judgment” into] an un-recorded“$5,048.60”-
extortion-and-execution scheme; c. Falsification of a “writ of execution” in the absence of a recorded “$5,048.60”
“judgment”; d. Destruction and falsification of official Court records.
EXACTION OF MONEY BY THREAT OF, E.G., ARREST AND CIVIL CONTEMPT 12. Def. Martin conspired to exact money from Plaintiffs under color of, e.g., “frivolous appeal”
even though Martin knew that no legal basis for and justification of “frivolity” had ever or could have possibly ever existed.
CONSPIRACY TO ASSIST EXTORTION AND BLACKMAIL 13. In particular, Def. Martin conspired and assisted to extort $5,048.60 and property in the
absence of any recorded authentic judgment and justification. Martin caused other Government Officials to falsify, alter, and destroy official records for criminal and illegal purposes of concealing other Defendant Officials’ extortion, coercion, obstruction of justice and other crimes of record.
3
14. Def. Martin made unlawful communications and threatened Plaintiff public corruption whistleblowers with obstruction of court access and deliberate deprivations of Plaintiffs’ express fundamental rights to redress Government grievances, own property, and exclude Governments.
MISCONDUCT AND EXTENSION OF RECORD CRIMES AND FALSIFIED “WRIT” 15. Under prima facie fraudulent pretenses of “frivolous appeal”, Def. Martin recklessly
extended the record Government crimes, and FIXED and “DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS”. Def. Martin assisted and conspired the reckless perversion and falsification of a recorded “Judgment” and “Bill of Costs” in the amount of $24.30 “issued as mandate on 06/11/2009” for criminal and illegal purposes of extortion, coercion, and retaliation against the Plaintiff corruption whistle blowers. In order for the record fraud under said fake “land parcels” to continue and for illegal purposes of silencing the Plaintiff landowners, Def. Martin “SUSPENDED” and perverted the Rules and caused the Clerk to “discard” more documents.
FALSIFICATION OF APPEAL NUMBERS 16. The payment records regarding Plaintiffs’ multiple appeals conclusively proved the
falsifications and fabrications of “Appeal Number 10-10963 and/or 10-10967”. See U.S. District Court payment records and receipts. The U.S. Clerk refused to certify and authenticate the payment record. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 44.
17. Def. Martin pulled “frivolity” out of her ass without any explanation and/or justification whatsoever. Review of the recorded judgment patently clearly evidenced that the District and Circuit had fabricated “lack of jurisdiction” for illegal purposes of concealment and cover-up. Plaintiffs were entitled to defend their unimpeachable, unencumbered, and marketable record title against Government extortion and fraud, which of course had invoked Federal jurisdiction directly under the express guarantees of the Federal and Florida Constitutions.
18. Here with wanton disregard for the law, and including Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540, 1.550, Ch. 55, 56, 71, 73, 74, 95, 712, Fla. Stat., Def. Martin conspired to oppress Plaintiffs with prima facie non-existent and/or illegal orders, judgments, and/or mandates…
/s/Jorg Busse, M.D., M.M., M.B.A. c/o International Court of Justice Peace Palace The Hague, Netherlands /s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott c/o International Court of Justice Peace Palace The Hague, Netherlands CC
Florida Department of Law Enforcement U.S. Department of Justice The Florida Bar Real Property Probate and Trust Lawyer Section, The Florida Bar Barack Hussein Obama Eric Holder
17
Cases for Jorg Busse, Dr.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit 56 Forsyth Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30303 (404) 335-6100
Docket Number Short Style Party Type Date Withdrawn
From Case09-16202 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Appellant 09-16201 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Appellant 09-14715 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of Florida Appellant 09-14714 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of Florida Appellant 09-14713 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of Florida Appellant 09-14712 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of Florida Appellant 09-14326 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Appellant 09-14325 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Appellant 09-14324 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Appellant 09-14323 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Appellant 09-14321 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Appellant 09-14320 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Appellant 09-14319 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Appellant 09-14318 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Appellant 09-14317 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Appellant 09-14316 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Appellant 09-14315 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Appellant 09-14314 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Appellant 09-14313 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Appellant 09-14312 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Appellant 09-14310 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Appellant 09-14309 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Appellant 09-14308 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Appellant 09-14307 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Appellant 09-14306 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Appellant
Page 1 of 4
7/14/2010http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/srchPtyCase.fwx?ID=610101050
Cases for Jorg Busse, Dr.
09-14305 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Appellant 09-14304 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Appellant
United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit 56 Forsyth Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30303 (404) 335-6100
Docket Number Short Style Party Type Date Withdrawn
From Case09-14303 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Appellant 09-14302 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Appellant 09-14301 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Appellant 09-14300 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Appellant 09-14299 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Appellant 09-14298 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Appellant 09-14297 Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Appellant 09-14296 Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Appellant 09-14295 Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Appellant 09-14294 Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Appellant 09-14293 Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Appellant 09-14292 Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Appellant 09-14291 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of FL Appellant 09-14290 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of FL Appellant 09-14289 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of FL Appellant 09-14288 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of FL Appellant 09-14285 Jorg Busse v. Lee County, Florida Appellant 09-14284 Jorg Busse v. Lee County, Florida Appellant 09-14282 Jorg Busse v. Lee County, Florida Appellant 09-14281 Jorg Busse v. Lee County, Florida Appellant 09-13525 Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Appellant 09-13523 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of Florida Appellant
Page 2 of 4
7/14/2010http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/srchPtyCase.fwx?ID=610101050
Cases for Jorg Busse, Dr.
09-13522 Jorg Busse v. Lee County, Florida Appellant 09-13519 Jorg Busse v. Lee County, Florida Appellant 09-13517 Jorg Busse v. Lee County, Florida Appellant 09-13378 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of Florida Appellant 09-13376 Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Appellant
United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit 56 Forsyth Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30303 (404) 335-6100
Docket Number Short Style Party Type Date Withdrawn
From Case09-13308 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Appellant 09-13189 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Appellant 09-13188 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Appellant 09-13187 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Appellant 09-13186 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Appellant 09-12372 Jorg Busse v. Lee County, Florida Appellant 09-12329 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazarra Appellant 09-12224 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Appellant 09-11305 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Appellant 09-10752 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Appellant 09-10747 Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Appellant 09-10746 Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Appellant 09-10745 Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Appellant 09-10464 Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Appellant 08-15140 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of Florida Appellee 08-14846 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of Florida Appellant 08-13170 Jorg Busse v. Lee County Florida Appellant
PACER Service Center
Page 3 of 4
7/14/2010http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/srchPtyCase.fwx?ID=610101050
Transaction Receipt
07/14/2010 22:12:10PACER Login: we0083 Client Code:
Description: List cases for party
Search Criteria:
Party=Jorg Busse, Dr.
Billable Pages: 3 Cost: 0.24
Send Comment Change Client Code View Billing History Search
Page 4 of 4
7/14/2010http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/srchPtyCase.fwx?ID=610101050
Cases for Jorg Busse
United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit 56 Forsyth Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30303 (404) 335-6100
Docket Number Short Style Party Type Date Withdrawn
From Case09-16215 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Susan H. Black Appellant 09-16209 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of Florida Appellant 09-16208 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Roger Alejo Appellant 09-16207 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Roger Alejo Appellant 09-16206 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Roger Alejo Appellant 09-16205 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Roger Alejo Appellant 09-16204 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Roger Alejo Appellant 09-16203 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Roger Alejo Appellant
PACER Service CenterTransaction Receipt
07/14/2010 22:11:55PACER Login: we0083 Client Code:
Description: List cases for party
Search Criteria:
Party=Jorg Busse
Billable Pages: 1 Cost: 0.08
Send Comment Change Client Code View Billing History Search
Page 1 of 1
7/14/2010http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/srchPtyCase.fwx?ID=610101052
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE CORRUPT ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
____________________________
No. 10-10963-I ____________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:07-00228-CV-FtM-JES-SPC
DR. JORG BUSSE,
Plaintiff-Appellant, KENNETH M. ROESCH, J.R., et al.,
Plaintiffs, versus
LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, BOARD OF LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, KIENNETH M. WILKINSON, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees. ___________________________________
Not Docketed in Violation of Law
Nazi-style Mock U.S. Proceedings Without any Due Process
___________________________________
APPELLANT(S)’ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM VEXATIOUS NAZI STYLE 04/06/10 “ORDER”
(April 14, 2009)
2
PETITION FOR AND JURISDICTION ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI 1. Hereby, Plaintiff(s)-Appellant(s) petition for a Writ of Certiorari and supervisory
review of the fraud on the Court by U.S. Judges since 2007 on the record(s). 2. “A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States
court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court. See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e); Rule 11, Certiorari to a United States Court of Appeals before Judgment.
NAZI STYLE JUDICIAL CRIMES ON THE RECORD 3. Here, the Nazi-style crimes by U.S. District and Circuit Judges and their
fraudulent concealment of Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were shown and conclusively proven to be “of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination” in the U.S. Supreme Court. In particular, the (extra)judicial crimes in these Case(s) & Appeal(s) destabilized real property ownership in America and any confidence in the American judicial system, where on the record, Federal Judges corruptly fabricated that Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were purportedly “law” and/or “authorized” Government to criminally seize and confiscate private property without any due process and equal protection of the law. Here just like Nazi Officials, U.S. Judges extended record facial forgeries “O.R. 569/875” and facially forged “land” “parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, which never legally existed, Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912).
COMPELLING REASONS SUCH AS MASSIVE JUDICIAL CORRUPTION 4. Here, said U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, entered facially idiotic decisions in
conflict with its own decisions, other U.S. Appellate Court, and Supreme Court decisions on the same important matters. Here, judicially fabricated condemnation, eminent domain, and/or involuntary alienation by forged “resolution”, “legislative act”, “legislative” “claim” and/or Governmental forgeries such as, e.g., “O.R. 569/875” were criminal acts prohibited by law and violative of Constitutional checks and balances. Here, U.S. Judges criminally retaliated and conspired to criminally “deter”, “sanction”, and “punish” pro se Plaintiff(s) with an illegal “writ of execution” and criminal seizure of Plaintiff(s) riparian Gulf-front property, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A”, Accreted Gulf-front Lot 15A, as legally described in reference to the 1912 “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat of Survey in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25. CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION OF MEANINGFUL “JUDICIAL REVIEW”
5. Just like Nazi Government Officials, the corrupt Judges in the Eleventh Circuit obstructed justice and court access by fabricating a “resolution”:
3
“On 10 December 1969, the Board of Commissioners of Lee County, Florida (“the Board”) adopted a resolution claiming certain lands in the Cayo Costa subdivision as public lands (“the Resolution”). R10-288 at 9.”
See corrupt March 5, 2009 Appellate “Opinion”, No. 08-13170, District Court Docket No. 07-00228-CV-FTM-29-SPC, p. 2.
RECORD JUDICIAL CRIMES & FRAUD ON THE COURT(S) 6. Here, U.S. Judges perpetrated fraud on the Court(s), procured another unlawful
“order” through trickery & malice, and fabricated a “resolution”. Here, no evidentiary support of a “resolution” had ever existed, and the Governmental concoctions of condemnation by Governmental facial forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were record crimes.
RECORD PSYCHOPATHOLOGICAL LIES OF “RESOLUTION” & “CLAIM” 7. Here, no “resolution” had ever legally existed, and Defendant “Board” never
“adopted” Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”. Here, no name of any “Board” member appeared on Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”. Here, no “resolution” had ever been legally recorded. Here, no original of any “resolution” ever existed. Here, there was rampant judicial corruption and fraud on the Court. Therefore, any and all Federal “opinions” and “orders” since 2006 were null and void from the outset. PERVERSIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS OF “CLAIM”
8. Florida and Federal Constitutions expressly prohibited confiscating and/or “claiming” “land” by “adoption” of a “resolution” and/or any “law”. Here, the Nazi-style Judges in the 11th Court lied and criminally perverted said Constitutions’ checks and balances. Here, the law did not recognize criminal confiscation and seizure by any “resolution”, “law”, and/or Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”.
9. Here, said outlaw Judges were out of control when they brazenly concocted a “resolution” and/or “legislative act” and then punished the pro se Plaintiff(s) merely for “redressing their Governmental grievances” and opposing the psychopathological judicial lies and Governmental crimes on the record.
10. Just like Nazi Judges fabricated that Nazi Government could “claim” the property of Jews and Nazi opponents, here criminal Judges idiotically concocted that Defendant Governments could “claim” Plaintiff(s) “raid lands” Nazi style and by criminal means of forged “O.R. 569/875”. THE JUDICIAL CROOKS COULD NOT ANSWER PLAIN QUESTIONS:
11. When asked plain and short: Who adopted what, where, when, and how, the criminal Judges in this corrupt Court imposed” “sanctions” just like Nazi Judges did when asked why Jews and Nazi opponents were murdered in Nazi concentration camps.
THE NAZI STYLE CRIMES OF “SICK” FEDERAL JUDGES
4
12. When the pro se Plaintiffs demanded to see the original of the forged “resolution” and/or authenticated copies, the crooked Judges “deterred”, “sanctioned”, and “punished” the Plaintiff(s) just like Nazi Judges “deterred” Nazi opponents in death camps and pedophile priests “punished” raped children when they reported the priests’ rape.
PREMEDITATED JUDICIAL FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD 13. Here, U.S. Judges fraudulently concealed that Governmental forgeries “O.R.
569/875” were “paste-ups”. Here, the illegible fake “recording” stamp(s) on said Governmental forgeries were pasted by Governmental con men. Here for years, U.S. Judges conspired with the Defendants to fraudulently conceal the criminality of Nazi style forged “claims” of “raid lands”, Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”.
FRAUDULENT JUDICIAL PRETENSES OF “REVIEW” & “FRIVOLITY” 14. Here in the absence of a docket, criminal Judges “faked” “judicial review” and
“frivolity”: “these appeals have been reviewed and determined to be frivolous.”
See fraudulent “04/06/2010” 11th Circuit “order”. Here, the Case Docket(s) disappeared just like Nazi court records disappeared at the hands of Nazi judges. Here, sick Judges criminally concocted a “resolution” and “frivolity”.
NAZI-STYLE “RESTRICTIONS” ON JUSTICE & FRAUD ON THE COURT 15. In their criminal “order”, post stamped “04/06/2010”, the objectively corrupt and
partial Judge(s) in this Court again “imposed” Nazi-style “restrictions”: “As part of its Order, the Court imposed restrictions on Appellant’s ability…”
POLICY & CUSTOM OF NAZI-STYLE “RESTRICTIONS” & TERROR 16. Just like Nazi Government Officials maliciously “restricted” the “abilities” of
Jews and Nazi opponents, the crooked Judge(s) in this Court premeditated obstruction of justice, “deterrence”, “punishment”, and “judicial concentration camp” for the pro se Plaintiff(s), because the pro se Plaintiff(s) opposed, e.g., Governmental forgeries and scam “O.R. 569/875” and forged “Lee County” “land” “parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”, and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & FRAUD ON THE COURTS, DOC. # 338
17. Here for years, the vexatious U.S. judicial policy and custom on the record was obstruction of justice of the adjudication of the pro se Plaintiff(s)’ “claims”:
“The copy of the Resolution [Governmental Forgeries “O.R. 569/875”] attached to the Third Amended Complaint establishes that it was signed, executed, and duly recorded in the public records, and plaintiff will not be allowed to assert otherwise.”
See vexatious and facially fraudulent “Opinion and Order”, Doc. # 338, p. 12, Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-JES-SPC, by crooked District Judge John Edwin Steele.
5
NAZI-STYLE ANARCHY INSTEAD OF ADJUDICATION 18. Even though the Defendants had ADMITTED that Lee County, Florida, and/or its
Commissioners had never “signed” and/or “executed” Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” as conclusively evidenced by the true and correct copies of said fake “claims” on record, the Federal Judges conspired to uphold lawlessness and judicial corruption.
JUDICIAL FAILURE TO “SHOW CAUSE” – FRIVOLITY FRAUD SCHEME 19. Here, the conspiring U.S. Judges in this Court never “showed any cause” for the
“punishment” and “sanctions” of the pro se Plaintiff(s) under fraudulent pretenses of “frivolity” just like Nazi Official never “showed any cause” why they murdered Jews and Nazi opponents.
20. Just like Nazi Officials made the crime records of Nazi killings disappear, here the criminal Judges in this Court made dockets and records of oppression disappear. See Case Dockets. Here, crooked U.S. Judges covered up for other outlaw Judges in said U.S. Judicial Gang just like Nazis covered up for Nazis, and Catholic bishops for priests.
NO AUTHENTICATION OF JUDICIALLY FABRICATED “RESOLUTION” 21. Even though the vexatious Judges in this Nazi-style Appellate Court had been
“unable” to authenticate any “resolution”, “legislative act”, “land use regulation”, and/or “law”, they criminally continued to fraudulently pretend a “resolution” and torture, terrorize, punish, and oppress the pro se Plaintiffs just like Nazi Officials terrorized and oppressed Jews and Nazi opponents.
22. Just like Nazi Officials used forged papers to confiscate property of Jews in concentration camps, here U.S. Judges used prima facie forgeries “O.R. 569/875” to criminally confiscate pro se Plaintiff(s)’ riparian property.
FACIALLY IDIOTIC JUDICIAL “ARGUMENTS” ON THE RECORD 23. Here, prima facie Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were not any
“resolution”, because no “lawmaker” had ever “signed” and/or “executed” said scam. Just like Nazi Government Officials seized the property of Jews and Nazi opponents by criminal means of forged Nazi “claims”, here U.S. Judges fabricated a “resolution” and/or “legislative act”. Here, District and Circuit Judges agreed and conspired to “cover up” for crooked Judge Steele and conceal the idiotic criminal fabrication that Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were purportedly “law”. The law did not recognize said Nazi-style “claim”.
SCIENCE & FORENSICS CONTROVERTED OUTLAW JUDGES: FORENSICS vs. NAZI-STYLE “FRIVOLITY” “CLAIM”
24. Here on the record, the Defendants themselves had CONTROVERTED the outlaw Judges’ fabrications of a “legislative act” and/or “resolution”. Furthermore, forensic examinations had conclusively proven that Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were not any “legislative act” and/or “resolution”. Here, U.S. Judges
6
kept lying, concealing, and covering up for crooked Judge Steele, his oppressive Nazi style, Doc. # 338, and judicial crimes.
VEXATIOUS JUDICIAL FARCE & MOCKERY OF “ORDER” (“04/06/2010”) 25. Here, said 04/06/2010 “order to show cause” was a facial farce and mockery. On
their faces, Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” patently clearly portrayed the facts and evidence of Governmental fraud, extortion, and crimes. Here, the law expressly prohibited Governmental scam “claim all of raid lands”.
26. Here, only Nazi-style Judges needed “cause shown”. Just like Nazi Judges did not comprehend the criminality of murdering Nazi opponents in concentration camps, here these Nazi-type Judges did not “get” the patently clear criminality of Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”, but needed “cause shown”. Just like the Pope needed “cause shown” for the prosecution of rapist priests, the Nazi-type Judges in the Eleventh Circuit needed “cause shown” why “disallowing” the pro se Plaintiffs to “assert” Governmental fraud & corruption and concealing the criminality of said Governmental forgeries was not criminal.
27. Just like Nazi Judges staged fake “proceedings” for Jews and Nazi opponents, and were utterly unable to “show” any Nazi wrongdoing and/or “cause” for prosecution for murder of innocent Nazi opponents in concentration camps, this “order” is a criminal charade.
TIME FOR “NUREMBERG TRIALS” OF “JUDICIAL TERRORISTS” 28. Here, the time for “Nuremberg Trials” has come. Here under public policy, said
“judicial terrorists” in Atlanta are on trial for fraudulently concealing Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”, fraud, and eminent domain extortion…
CROOKED U.S. JUDGES CONTROVERTED BY SCIENCE
WORLDWIDE PUBLICATIONS OF U.S. JUDICIAL CORRUPTION
U.S. GOVERNMENTAL FORGERIES “O.R. 569/875”:
IDIOTIC GOVERNMENTAL FABRICATIONS OF “LAW”
http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud
531 Documents 11 Subscribers 43,962 Reads 183 Downloads
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
• Fraudulent alterations of words and letters in more than one forgery
• Writing in more than one font type
• Writing in more than one font size
• Writing in more than one writing style
• Misspelled words
• Misaligned typing
• Uneven spacing in the writing
• Missing portions of writing and/or printing
• Fraudulent paste-ups
• Incorrect vertical, horizontal and/or margin spacing
• Unclear and illegible fake stamp
• Smudged and illegible time stamp
• No signatures by any “lawmaker”
• No name(s) of any “lawmaker”
• Illegible and unclear fake handwriting
• Smeared and smudged imaging
• Inconsistent “trash marks”
• Different ink densities ….
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JORG BUSSE
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-29SPC
LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; BOARD OF LEECOUNTY COMMISSIONERS; KENNETH M.WILKINSON; LEE COUNTY PROPERTYAPPRAISER’S OFFICE; STATE OFFLORIDA, BOARD OF [PAST & PRESENT]TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTTRUST FUND, STATE OF FLORIDADEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION, AND DIVISION OFRECREATION AND PARKS; LEE COUNTYATTORNEY; JACK N. PETERSON,
Defendants.___________________________________
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the following motions:
(1) defendant Property Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss and Close File
(Doc. #285), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #302); (2)
defendants State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees) and Florida Department of
Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Cause of Action (Doc.
#291), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #316); (3)
defendant The Lee County Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
-2-
Jurisdiction (Doc. #303), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc.
#317); and (4) defendant Board of Lee County Commissioners’ Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. #304), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc.
#318). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his pleadings are
held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by an
attorney and will be liberally construed. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d
1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003).
I.
On December 10, 1969, the Board of County Commissioners of Lee
County, Florida adopted the “Resolution Pertaining to Public Lands
in Cayo Costa Subdivision”, Book 569, page 875 (the Resolution).
The Resolution stated that the Second Revised Plat of the Cayo
Costa Subdivision contained certain designated lot and block areas
and other undesignated areas. The Resolution further noted that
the plat contained certain un-numbered and unlettered areas lying
East of the Easterly tier of blocks in the subdivision and lying
West of the Westerly tier of blocks in the subdivision. The
Resolution stated that Lee County claimed the lands to the east and
west of the tier of blocks as “public lands together with all
accretions thereto” and “does by this Resolution claim all of said
lands and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of the public
for public purposes.” (Doc. #288, p. 9.)
Plaintiff Jorg Busse (plaintiff or Dr. Busse) asserts he is
the current owner of Lot 15A of the Cayo Costa Subdivision and
-3-
accretions thereto. (Doc. #288, ¶¶ 1, 2.) Plaintiff describes Lot
15A as being more than approximately 2.5 acres fronting the Gulf of
Mexico with an estimated fair market value of more than $2 million.
(Id. at ¶6.) Plaintiff asserts that the Resolution violates his
property rights in Lot 15A, which includes accretions, under both
federal and state law.
Count 1 sets forth a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
alleges that the Resolution deprived him of his riparian rights,
private easements, accreted property and privileges secured by the
United States Constitution. Specifically, plaintiff asserts that
Lee County had no home rule powers or jurisdiction over the
undedicated Cayo Costa Subdivision, and therefore the Resolution
was unenforceable and in violation of the United States
Constitution. (Doc. #288, ¶13.) Plaintiff asserts that defendants
confiscated more than 2.5 acres of his accreted property without
compensation in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Id. at
¶14.) Plaintiff asserts that defendants also illegally took more
than 200 acres of private accretions onto Cayo Costa pursuant to
the Resolution, all without compensation. (Id. at ¶15.) Further,
plaintiff asserts that “Defendant State Actors” claimed riparian
rights to Lots 38A and 41A which they denied to plaintiff, thereby
unlawfully discriminating against plaintiff because he is entitled
to equal rights as the State property owner. (Id. at ¶¶ 16, 27.)
-4-
Count 2 alleges an unconstitutional temporary taking under
color of the Resolution. Plaintiff asserts that the Resolution was
never signed, executed or acknowledged and did not meet resolution
and recording requirements, and was therefore not entitled to be
recorded and must be stricken from the public record. (Id. at
¶17.) Plaintiff further alleges that the Cayo Costa Subdivision
was outside of Lee County’s home rule powers, and therefore the
State and County had no powers to adopt resolutions or ordinances,
and therefore the Resolution is unenforceable and ineffectual and
the County capriciously grabbed private accreted land and
easements. (Id. at ¶18.) Plaintiff asserts that defendants took
his accretions onto the riparian gulf front Lot 15A without
authority, justification, due process of law, public notice,
hearing, vote count, or compensation, and that this unauthorized
unconstitutional taking injured plaintiff and destroyed his
property value. (Id. at ¶19.)
Count 3 sets forth a state law claim for trespass. Plaintiff
alleges that since the 1969 Resolution the defendants have asserted
that Lee County is the owner of the Cayo Costa accretions and have
induced and caused the public to intrude onto the private beaches
and other areas on Cayo Costa, injuring plaintiff’s property. (Id.
at ¶¶ 20-21.) Plaintiff asserts that the State cannot exercise
power within the Subdivision east of the mean high water mark of
the Gulf of Mexico and west of the mean high water mark of
Charlotte Harbor. (Id. at ¶22.)
-5-
Count 4 alleges a conspiracy to fabricate, fraud and
malfeasance. Plaintiff asserts that the Lee County Property
Appraiser claimed that the Resolution entitled Lee County to
ownership of the accreted property, but the County Appraiser has
admitted that Lee County was not empowered to adopt the Resolution.
(Id. at ¶23.) Plaintiff asserts that the Resolution on its face
did not meet recording or resolution requirements, and that the
County Appraiser had a professional duty to verify the validity of
the sham Resolution under the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that without evidence
of title, defendants conspired to concoct an un-plated lot, block
and park for the benefit of the State and County. (Id. at ¶24.)
Plaintiff also asserts that defendant denied agricultural
classification to his accreted lot. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that
defendants destroyed most of his property value, deprived him of
private easements without compensation, and denied equal protection
in a land grab scheme. (Id.) Plaintiff describes the agreement as
being to assist the unconstitutional confiscation of the
accretions. (Id. at ¶25.) Plaintiff also asserts that the County
Appraiser made incompetent valuation reports which were
controverted by other comparable sales data and done in violation
of Federal Appraisal Standards, but defendant continued to slander
plaintiff’s perfect title. (Id. at ¶26.) As a result, plaintiff
received purchase offers far below market value and the County
Appraiser has committed malfeasance and abuse of position. (Id.)
-6-
Count 5 alleges a conspiracy to materially misrepresent and
defraud. Plaintiff asserts that Lee County does not hold title to
the accreted property pursuant to the Resolution, and there has
been no proceedings such as eminent domain or adverse possession.
(Id. at ¶29.) Plaintiff asserts that Lee County’s claims of
ownership of the accretions therefore violated the Fifth Amendment
Takings Clause, and therefore defendants deprived the public of tax
revenues which could have been received from the private accretions
and easements. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that defendants conspired
to misrepresent the extent of the Army Corps of Engineers’
authority over his lagoon. (Id. at ¶32.)
Count 6 alleges oppression and slander of title by defendant
Peterson for failing to challenge the invalidity of the Resolution
despite his questions about its validity. (Id. at ¶¶ 33-35.)
The Third Amended Complaint asserts the Court has jurisdiction
based on the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983), 28 U.S.C. § 1343,
Articles 3 and 4 of the United States Constitution, and Amendments
4 and 5 of the United States Constitution (Doc. #288, ¶7), the 1899
Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act (33 U.S.C. § 403)(id. at ¶8),
the 1862 Homestead Act (id. at ¶9), the federal common law Doctrine
of Accretion and Erosion (id. at ¶10), the Federal Appraisal
Standards, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (12
U.S.C. §§ 3331-3351), and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act (28
U.S.C. § 2201)(id. at ¶12).
See Lee County v. Morales, 557 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)1
for a description of Cayo Costa island and the Lee County zoninghistory of the island since 1978.
-7-
III.
The Court will first address the federal claims, since these
claims are necessary to provide subject matter jurisdiction. Given
plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court reviews the Third Amended
Complaint liberally.
A. Takings Clause Claims:
A consistent theme which runs through several of plaintiff’s
counts is that the Resolution constitutes an unconstitutional
taking of his property rights in his subdivision Lot 15A on Cayo
Costa island. The legal principles are well-settled, and preclude1
plaintiff’s takings claim.
Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Takings Clause of the
Fifth Amendment, which states in pertinent part “nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U.S.
CONST. amend. V. The Fifth Amendment is applied to the States
through the Fourteenth Amendment. Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New
York City, 438 U.S. 104, 121-23 (1978). The Third Amended
Complaint may also be read to allege a conspiracy to violate the
Takings Clause.
State law defines the parameters of a plaintiff’s property
interest, and whether state law has created a property interest is
a legal question for the court to decide. Morley’s Auto Body, Inc.
-8-
v. Hunter, 70 F.3d 1209, 1212 (11th Cir. 1996). Under Florida law
a riparian or littoral owner owns to the line of the ordinary high
water mark on navigable waters, and the riparian or littoral
property rights include the vested right to receive accretions to
the property. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust
Fund v. Sand Key Assocs., Ltd., 512 So. 2d 934, 936-37 (Fla. 1987);
Brannon v. Boldt, 958 So. 2d 367, 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). These
rights constitute property, and cannot be taken or destroyed by the
government without just compensation to the owners. Sand Key
Assoc., 512 So. 2d at 936; Lee County v. Kiesel, 705 So. 2d 1013,
1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). “By now it is beyond question that a
permanent physical occupation of private property by the state
constitutes a taking for which a landowner must be compensated.”
New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe County, 95 F.3d 1084, 1088 (11th
Cir. 1996)(citing Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S.
1003, 1015 (1992) and Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.,
458 U.S. 419, 434 (1982)).
Thus while plaintiff has adequately alleged a taking of his
property, “a property owner has not suffered a violation of the
Just Compensation Clause until the owner has unsuccessfully
attempted to obtain just compensation through the procedures
provided by the State for obtaining such compensation . . .”
Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473
U.S. 172, 195 (1972). “Williamson County boils down to the rule
that state courts always have a first shot at adjudicating a
-9-
takings dispute because a federal constitutional claim is not ripe
until the state has denied the would-be plaintiff’s compensation
for a putative taking, including by unfavorable judgment in a state
court proceeding.” Agripost, LLC v. Miami-Dade County, Fla.,
F.3d , 2008 WL 1790434 (11th Cir. 2008). Without having
pursued such available state court remedies, a plaintiff’s Takings
Clause claim is not ripe and therefore a federal district court
lacks jurisdiction to consider it. Williamson County, 473 U.S. at
195; Watson Constr. Co. v. City of Gainsville, 244 Fed. Appx. 274,
277 (11th Cir. 2007); Garbo, Inc. v. City of Key West, Fla., 162
Fed. Appx. 905 (11th Cir. 2006). It has been clear since at least
1990 that Florida law provides a remedy of an inverse or reverse
condemnation suit. Joint Ventures, Inc. v. Department of Transp.,
563 So. 2d 622, 624 (Fla. 1990); Tari v. Collier County, 56 F.3d
1533, 1537 n.12 (11th Cir. 1995); Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d
1412, 1417 (11th Cir. 1994). Additionally, plaintiff could have
pursued an state action for declaratory judgment under FLA. STAT. §
86.011, a suit to quiet title, Trustees of Internal Imp. Fund of
State of Florida v. Toffel, 145 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962), or
a suit in ejectment if the matter is viewed as a boundary dispute.
Petryni v. Denton, 807 So. 2d 697, 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
The Third Amended Complaint does not allege that plaintiff
pursued any state relief. Indeed, plaintiff has never suggested
that he has taken any action in state court to quiet title or
receive damages under an inverse or reverse condemnation claim.
-10-
Since there is no showing of federal jurisdiction as to the Takings
Clause claim, the Taking Clause claims and any conspiracy to
violate the Takings Clause in any count will be dismissed without
prejudice.
B. Substantive Due Process Claim:
A liberal reading of the Third Amended Complaint might suggest
that plaintiff also frames the alleged taking of his property
rights as a substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth
Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit has held, however, that there is
no independent substantive due process taking cause of action.
Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610, 612-14
(11th Cir. 1997). Additionally, substantive due process protects
only fundamental rights, that is, those rights which are implicit
in the concept of ordered liberty. Such rights are created by the
Constitution, and do not include property rights. Greenbriar
Village, LLC v. Mountain Brook City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir.
2003). Merely asserting that the government’s actions were
arbitrary and irrational does not bring the matter within the
protection of the substantive due process provision. Greenbriar
Village, 345 F.3d at 1263-64. Therefore, those portions of counts
in the Third Amended Complaint which attempt to assert a
substantive due process takings claim or conspiracy will be
dismissed.
-11-
C. Procedural Due Process Claim:
Plaintiff’s counts may also attempt to state a procedural due
process claim. For example, plaintiff asserts that Lee County had
no home rule powers or jurisdiction over the undedicated Cayo Costa
subdivision (Doc. #288, ¶¶ 13, 18, 23), that the Resolution was
never signed, executed or acknowledged and did not meet resolution
and recording requirements (id. at ¶¶ 17, 23), and that the taking
was without authority, justification, due process, public notice,
hearing, vote count, or compensation (id. at ¶19).
“Procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to
be heard before any government deprivation of a property interest.”
Zipperer v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995).
Not all government actions, however, are subject to a procedural
due process claim. The County’s action in passing the Resolution
constituted a legislative act, and therefore plaintiff cannot state
a procedural due process claim. 75 Acres, LLC v. Miami-Dade
County, Fla., 338 F.3d 1288, 1294 (11th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff
asserted that the Resolution effecting the taking of more than 200
acres other than his 2.5 acres. This is sufficient to constitute
a legislative act. See, e.g., Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of
Equalization, 239 U.S. 441, 445 (1915)(noting that it is
impractical to give every one a voice when a legislative act
applies to more than a few people). Additionally, even if not a
legislative act, a procedural due process claims does not exist
-12-
merely because state mandated procedures were not followed. First
Assembly of God of Naples, Florida, Inc. v. Collier County, Fla.,
20 F.3d 419, 422 (11th Cir. 1994). In this regard, some of the
allegations in the Third Amended Complaint are contradicted by the
Resolution which is attached to it. The copy of the Resolution
attached to the Third Amended Complaint establishes that it was
signed, executed, and duly recorded in the public records, and
plaintiff will not be allowed to assert otherwise. The remaining
claimed defects are arguments concerning state law which do not
arise to a constitutional level. Finally, plaintiff fails to state
a procedural due process claim because he has failed to allege that
Florida law provided him with an inadequate post-deprivation
remedy, Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378, 382 (11th Cir. 1996), and as
discussed above it is clear that Florida does provide adequate
post-deprivation remedies. Therefore, any claim founded on
procedural due process will be dismissed.
D. Equal Protection Claim:
Plaintiff also alleges that the Resolution violated his equal
protection rights. “To properly plead an equal protection claim,
a plaintiff need only allege that through state action, similarly
situated persons have been treated disparately.” Boyd v. Peet, 249
Fed. Appx. 155, 158 (11th Cir. 2007)(citation omitted). See also
Executive 100, Inc. v. Martin County, 922 F.2d 1536, 1552 (11th
Cir. 1991). The Third Amended Complaint does not identify any
similarly situated person with whom plaintiff can be compared. The
-13-
Third Amended Complaint states that defendants have taken over 200
acres pursuant to the Resolution, far in excess of his 2.5 acres.
The only assertion of disparate treatment is for those lots owned
by government, which plaintiff alleges did not have their rights
taken. However, a private owner such as plaintiff can not be
compared to a public owner such as a government unit. Therefore,
no equal protection claim is stated, and such claims will be
dismissed without prejudice.
E. Other Bases of Federal Jurisdiction:
Having found no federal claim set forth in the Third Amended
Complaint, the Court now examines the other purported bases of
federal jurisdiction.
Article III of the Constitution sets the outer boundaries of
the federal court jurisdiction, but vests Congress with the
discretion to determine whether and to what extent that power may
be exercised by lower federal courts. Therefore, lower federal
courts are empowered to hear only cases for which there has been a
congressional grant of jurisdiction. Morrison v. Allstate
Indemnity Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2000). Therefore
Article III does not provide any additional basis of federal
jurisdiction. Additionally, plaintiff’s reliance on Article IV of
the Constitution is misplaced because Article IV does not address
the jurisdiction of a federal court.
Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. § 1343 as a basis for federal
jurisdiction. Section 1343 sets forth the jurisdiction of district
-14-
courts for certain civil rights actions, but does not itself create
a private right of action. Albra v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 232
Fed. Appx. 885, 892 (11th Cir. 2007). Since none of plaintiff’s
federal civil rights claims are properly before the court, § 1343
is not a basis for jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims.
Plaintiff’s reliance on the 1899 Rivers and Harbors
Appropriation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 403 is misplaced. Section 403
relates to the creation of an obstruction not authorized by
Congress, and simply not relevant to any of the claims in this
case. The 1862 Homestead Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 161-64, cannot form
basis for jurisdiction because it was repealed in 1976. Assuming
there is a federal common law Doctrine of Accretion and Erosion, it
cannot provide a jurisdictional basis in federal court. The
Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice, 12 U.S.C. § 3331-3351, also do not create
federal jurisdiction. These standards relate to real estate
appraisals utilized in connection with federally related
transactions, 12 U.S.C. § 1331, and no such transaction was
involved in this case. Additionally, in Florida the county
property appraiser is a constitutionally created office whose
appraisals are carried out pursuant to state statute, FLA. STAT. §
193.011 as well as professional appraisal standards established by
the International Association of Assessing Officers and the
-15-
Appraisal Institute. Parrish v. Nikolits, 86 F.3d 1088, 1091 n.2
(11th Cir. 1996).
Therefore, the Court finds no other basis of federal
jurisdiction has been plead in the Third Amended Complaint.
F. Remaining State Law Claims:
The remaining possible claims in the Third Amended Complaint
are all state law claims. Read liberally, the Third Amended
Complaint may be read to allege a claim to invalidate the
Resolution for alleged state-law procedural defects, a state law
claim of trespass, a state law claim of conspiracy to misrepresent,
a state law claim of fraud, state law claims of malfeasance, a
state law claim of oppression, and a state law claim of slander of
title. Even assuming these are properly pled, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) the Court would exercise its discretion and
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state
claims. Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (11th
Cir. 2004)(encouraging district courts to dismiss state claims
where all claims which provided original jurisdiction have been
dismissed.) The dismissal of the state claims will be without
prejudice. Crosby v. Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339, 1352 (11th Cir. 1999).
Having found that this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, and will not retain supplemental jurisdiction, the
Court need not address the issues raised in the remaining
defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Accordingly, it is now
-16-
ORDERED:
1. Defendant Property Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (Doc. #303) is GRANTED to the
extent set forth in paragraph 5 below.
2. Defendant Property Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss and
Close File (Doc. #285) is DENIED as moot.
3. State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection
and Division of Recreation and Parks, State of Florida, and Board
of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund’s Joint Motion
to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a
Cause of Action (Doc. #291) is GRANTED to the extent set forth in
paragraph 5 below.
4. Defendants Lee County, Florida, Board of Lee County
Commissioners, Lee County Attorney, Jack N. Peterson’s Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. #304) is GRANTED to the extent set forth in paragraph
5 below.
5. The Third Amended Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice as to all defendants and all claims. The Clerk shall
enter judgment accordingly, terminate all pending motions as moot,
and close the case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 5th day of
May, 2008.
Copies: Parties of record
FILEDU.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUITMAR 5, 2009
THOMAS K. KAHNCLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT________________________
No. 08-13170Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-00228-CV-FTM-29-SPC
JORG BUSSE,
Plaintiff-Appellant, KENNETH M. ROESCH, JR., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
versus LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, BOARD OF LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, KENNETH M. WILKINSON, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Middle District of Florida_________________________
(March 5, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jorg Busse, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
third amended complaint in his civil rights action against various state and local
governmental entities and officials in Florida, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and
1985. The district court dismissed Busse’s federal claims because he had either
failed to adequately plead them or had not established federal subject matter
jurisdiction. In the absence of any viable federal claims, the court declined to
retain jurisdiction over Busse’s state law claims. Based on our review of the
record and the parties’ briefs, we AFFIRM the dismissal.
I. BACKGROUND
On 10 December 1969, the Board of Commissioners of Lee County, Florida
(“the Board”) adopted a resolution claiming certain lands in the Cayo Costa
subdivision as public lands (“the Resolution”). R10-288 at 9. In the Resolution,
the Board identified the relevant lands by reference to a map of the subdivision
which showed that, along with a number of designated land parcels in the
subdivision, there were also a number of unidentified areas on the eastern and
western edges of the subdivision. Id. 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.
Busse asserts that he currently owns Lot 15A of the Cayo Costa subdivision
along with all accretions thereto and that the Resolution violates his property rights
under both federal and state law. Id. at 1. To vindicate his rights, he brought suit
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against an
array of state and local parties, including the Lee County Board of Commissioners,
the county property appraiser, and the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. Id. In his third amended complaint, Busse made six claims:1
unconstitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; unconstitutional temporary
takings; trespass; conspiracy, fraud, and malfeasance regarding the designation of
certain unplatted lots; conspiracy to materially misrepresent and defraud; and
oppression or slander of title. Id. at 3–8. He asserted that an array of statutory and
constitutional provisions supported the exercise of jurisdiction: two civil rights acts
— 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343; Articles Three and Four and the Due
Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States Constitution; the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act (33
U.S.C. § 403); the 1862 Homestead Act, the federal common law doctrine of
The full list of defendants includes: Lee County, Florida; the Board of Lee County1
Commissioners, in their official and private capacities; Kenneth M. Wilkinson, the Lee Countyproperty appraiser, in his official and private capacity; the State of Florida Board of Trustees ofthe Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida, in their official and privatecapacities; the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida Division ofRecreation and Parks, and the Cayo Costa State Park staff, in their individual and privatecapacities; and Jack N. Peterson, Lee County Attorney, in his official and private capacity. Id.
accretion and erosion; the Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice, and 12 U.S.C. §§ 3331–3351; and the Federal
Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201). Id. at 2–3.
The defendants subsequently filed separate motions to dismiss Busse’s third
amended complaint, primarily based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
failure to state a claim. R10-285, 291, 303, 304. The district court granted these
motions and dismissed Busse’s third amended complaint. R11-338. In so doing,
the court first found that Busse had made out a valid takings claim but that it had
no jurisdiction over that claim since he had failed to show that he had pursued all
available state remedies before bringing suit. Id. at 7–10. The court then
concluded that Busse had not made out a valid claim under any of his other alleged
federal bases. Id. at 10–15. Given that the court did not have jurisdiction over any
of Busse’s federal claims, it chose to dismiss his state law claims. Id. at 15. Busse
now appeals the dismissal of all of the claims in his third amended complaint.
II. DISCUSSION
We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions regarding subject
matter jurisdiction, including the determinations that a claim is not ripe or that the
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over it. See Lanfear v. Home Depot, Inc.,
536 F.3d 1217, 1221 (11th Cir. 2008); Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1204
(11th Cir. 2006). We also “review a grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim de novo, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Gandara v. Bennett, 528 F.3d
823, 826 (quotation marks and citation omitted). The decision not to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
See Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., 468 F.3d 733, 738 (11th Cir. 2006).
Since Busse is proceeding pro se, we construe his pleadings liberally. See Miller
v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008).
On appeal, Busse argues that the district court erred in dismissing his federal
claims. He asserts that his Takings Clause claim was ripe for review and that he
had properly stated claims involving violations of his procedural due process,
equal protection, and substantive due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments. Additionally, we read Busse’s brief liberally to argue that the2
district court abused its discretion in refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over his state law claims. We address these arguments in turn.
A. Takings Clause Claims
Busse’s brief on appeal does not discuss the other jurisdictional bases cited in his third2
amended complaint — Articles Three and Four of the United States Constitution; the 1899Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act; the 1862 Homestead Act; the federal common lawdoctrine of accretion and erosion; the Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards ofProfessional Appraisal Practice, and 12 U.S.C. §§ 3331–3351; and the Federal DeclaratoryJudgment Act. Generally arguments not raised in a brief on appeal are deemed abandoned. SeeHorsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1131 n.1 (11th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, we agree with thedistrict court’s analysis of these provisions and find that none of them could serve as a potentialjurisdictional basis for Busse’s claims. See, e.g., Arthur v. Haley, 248 F.3d 1302, 1303 n.1 (11thCir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting that appellate courts can and should sua sponte inquire intosubject matter jurisdiction whenever it appears to be lacking).
Busse contends that the Resolution constituted an unconstitutional taking of
his property rights in Lot 15A. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of
private property “for public use, without just compensation” — a condition made
applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. Const. amend. V;
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617, 121 S. Ct. 2448, 2457 (2001)
(noting that the Fourteenth Amendment made the Takings Clause applicable to the
States). A plaintiff can bring a federal takings claim only if he can show that he
did not receive just compensation in return for the taking of his property. See Eide
v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 720 (11th Cir. 1990). As a result, for a takings
claim to be ripe, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he unsuccessfully “pursued the
available state procedures to obtain just compensation” before bringing his federal
claim. Id. at 721.
In this case, Busse’s claim would not be ripe because he has not shown that
he attempted to obtain or secure relief under established Florida procedures. Since
at least 1990, Florida courts have recognized that an inverse-condemnation remedy
is available for alleged takings violations. See Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d
1412, 1417 (11th Cir. 1994). Busse contends that his claim would still be ripe
since that remedy was unavailable in 1969 when the Board of Commissioners
enacted the Resolution. However, our past circuit precedent dictates “that a
Florida property owner must pursue a reverse condemnation remedy in state court
before his federal takings claim will be ripe, even where that remedy was
recognized after the alleged taking occurred.” Id. Accordingly, regardless of
whether Busse has a valid property interest in Lot 15A, because he has not alleged
that he sought and was denied compensation through available state procedures, his
Takings Clause claim would not be ripe for review. We thus conclude that the
district court did not err in finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over
Busse’s Takings Clause claim.
B. Procedural Due Process Claims
Busse asserts that his procedural due process rights were violated since Lee
County had no authority to take his land nor jurisdiction over it and because the
Resolution was improperly executed. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no
state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. A plaintiff could make a procedural due
process claim by challenging the procedures by which a regulation was adopted,
including the failure to provide pre-deprivation notice and hearing. See Villas of
Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610, 615 (11th Cir. 1997); Zipperer
v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995). For such a claim to be
valid, however, the plaintiff would have to allege that state law failed to provide
him with an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378,
382 (11th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
Based on these standards, we find that Busse has failed to state a valid
procedural due process claim. Florida provides him an adequate post-deprivation
remedy, inverse condemnation, and he makes no argument that this procedure is
inadequate. Even if it was inadequate, though, Busse still would not have a valid
procedural due process claim. The Resolution constituted a legislative act since it
was a general provision that affected a large number of persons and area, 200 acres
in all, rather than being specifically targeted at Busse or his immediate neighbors.
See 75 Acres, LLC v. Miami-Dade County, Fla., 338 F.3d 1288, 1294 (11th Cir.
2003). Since alleged problems with the adoption of such acts cannot serve as the
basis for a procedural due process claim, Busse could not cite them as the basis for
his claim. See id. (noting that “if government action is viewed as legislative in
nature, property owners generally are not entitled to procedural due process”).
Accordingly, we find that the district court did not err in dismissing Busse’s
procedural due process claims.
C. Equal Protection Claims
Busse also argues that his equal protection rights were violated because the
Board, in adopting the Resolution, treated differently privately-owned property and
state-owned property. The Fourteenth Amendment forbids states from “deny[ing]3
In his brief on appeal, Busse argues that he experienced different treatment than other3
landowners in Lee County. However, we need not address this argument since he did notmention this in his third amended complaint and we find that none of the exceptions that wouldallow us to consider an issue not raised before the district court would apply here. See Narey v.
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const.
amend. XIV, § 1. “[T]o properly plead an equal protection claim, a plaintiff need
only allege that through state action, similarly situated persons have been treated
disparately.” Thigpen v. Bibb County, 223 F.3d 1231, 1237 (11th Cir. 2000)
abrogated on other grounds by National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S.
101, 122 S. Ct. 2061 (2002).
Under Florida law, counties can exercise eminent domain over any land that
is not owned by the state or federal government. See Fla. Stat. § 127.01(1)(a)
(2006). Since a state landowner would not be subject to the eminent domain power
but Busse, as a private landowner, would be, Busse could not be similarly situated
to a state landowner. Busse therefore cannot rely on his disparate eminent domain
treatment vis-a-vis state landowners as the basis for an equal protection claim.
Since Busse made no other allegations of disparity in his third amended complaint,
we find that he has failed to plead a valid equal protection claim and that the
district court correctly dismissed this claim.
D. Substantive Due Process Claim
Busse also appears to allege that the Resolution denied him his substantive
due process property rights. Substantive due process protects only those rights that
are “fundamental,” a description that applies only to those rights created by the
Dean, 32 F.3d 1521, 1526-27 (11th Cir. 1994) (discussing the exceptions to this general rule).
United States Constitution. See Greenbriar Village, L.L.C. v. Mountain Brook,
City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Property rights would
not be fundamental rights since they are based on state law. See id. Busse thus
could not bring a viable substantive due process claim based on the alleged denial
of a state-defined property right. See id. Accordingly, we find that the district
court properly dismissed his substantive due process claims.4
E. Supplemental Jurisdiction
Busse also contends that the court abused its discretion in not hearing his
pendent state law claims. “The decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
pendent state claims rests within the discretion of the district court.” Raney v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Since the
district court “had dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it
therefore had the discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Busse’s
state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Furthermore, we expressly encourage
district courts to take such action when all federal claims have been dismissed pre-
trial. See Raney, 370 F.3d at 1089. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse
The district court, in addressing Busse’s substantive due process claim, mentions that4
assertions of irrational and arbitrary government action could not serve as the basis for such aclaim. Even under a liberal reading of Busse’s complaint, though, we do not think he made suchallegations. In the third amended complaint, he discusses takings violations and proceduralproblems with the enactment of the Resolution but never questions the rationale for its passage. Accordingly, we need not address whether he has a valid substantive due process claim based onarbitrary and capricious government action.
its discretion when it chose not to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Busse’s
state law claims.
III. CONCLUSION
Busse contends that the district court incorrectly dismissed his federal claims
regarding alleged takings and deprivations of property rights. Since Busse’s
takings claim was not ripe because he had not pursued available state remedies and
he failed to adequately plead his other federal claims, the district court correctly
dismissed all of these claims. As a result, despite Busse’s objections to the
contrary, the district court also did not commit an abuse of discretion in not
exercising jurisdiction over his state law claims. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the
district court’s dismissal of Busse’s third amended complaint.
AFFIRMED.
David Souter U.S. Supreme Court Justice RE: Lee County [FL] O.R.569/875 – An eminent domain scam of giant proportions Case-fixing in the U.S. Court of Appeals We are writing to you in the matter of the corruption and case-fixing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Common intelligence dictates that residents use designated streets to get to their lots. Unintelligently, the 11th Circuit cannot tell the difference between a designated street and “unidentified areas”. See Plat Book 3, p. 25 at www.leeclerk.org. In West Peninsular Title Co.1, corrupt Chief Circuit 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.”
For Appellees’ bribes, Edmondson now changed his mind and conspired to pervert a platted designated street into an “unidentified area” in order to fix Appellants’ Cases. Here for bribes, ripeness vanished, and justice is for sale in the 11th Circuit.
The Appellant(s) also own property in N.H. and wish you the best for your retirement.
/s/ Jennifer Franklin Prescott /s/Dr. Jorg Busse
1 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]
« up
This is Google's cache of http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/41/41.F3d.1490.93-4449.93-4104.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Mar 24, 2009 15:42:24 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
Text-only versionThese search terms are highlighted: united states v 16.33 acres
41 F.3d 1490
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO., Absolute, Inc., Marion H. Cooper,
for Estate of Alfred R. Cooper, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
PALM BEACH COUNTY, Carol A. Roberts, Chair of Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County,
Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 93-4104, 93-4449.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Jan. 10, 1995.
Patti A. Velasquez, Asst. County Atty., West Palm Beach, FL, Robert S. Hackleman, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for appellants in No. 93-4104.
Sharon M. Pitts, Patti A. Velasquez, Asst. County Atty., West Palm Beach, FL, Robert S. Hackleman, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for appellants in No. 93-4449.
Jeffrey A. Aman, Smith, Williams & Bowles, P.A., Tampa, FL, Joan E. O'Dell, Gregory L. Williams, Smith, Williams & Bowles, P.A., Washington, DC, for appellees in both cases.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before HATCHETT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, MELTON* , Senior District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants raise several arguments, hoping mainly to void concessions made in district court in the joint pretrial stipulation. The district court is affirmed.
1
The controversy concerns the ownership of strip parcels (roads and ditches) offered by Palm Beach Farms for dedication to Palm Beach County in 1912. A 1976 instrument entitled "Notice of Withdrawal of Platted Roads, Streets, and Other Unexercised Rights" revoked the offer of dedication. In 1986, pursuant to local Ordinance No. 86-18 (the "Ordinance"), defendant Palm Beach County (the
2
Page 1 of 441 F.3d 1490
4/30/2009http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4...
"County"), began a practice of selling easement and right of way interests in property originally acquired through dedication. In return for a "privilege fee," the County issued an abandonment resolution, which, when recorded, transferred ownership of the parcel to the payor of the fee. This dispute began when the County attempted to collect fees in exchange for abandonment resolutions for parcels that, according to plaintiffs, had never been accepted by the County.
Plaintiffs, claiming that they were successors in interest to Palm Beach Farms (and thus owners of the strip parcels), challenged the County's practice as an unconstitutional taking--under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments--of their property.1 The County conceded that it never expressly accepted the dedication; but, at trial, the County attempted to show that it had impliedly accepted the dedication by using the strip parcels. The jury found for plaintiffs, deciding that the County had not accepted the 1912 offer of dedication within a reasonable time. The district court entered judgment for plaintiffs: plaintiffs were judged the fee simple owners of the pertinent strip parcels; defendants were enjoined from applying the Ordinance to plaintiffs' property; and plaintiffs were awarded attorney's fees. Defendants appeal.
3
The County now contests plaintiffs' standing, arguing that plaintiffs could not possibly own the strip parcels (and thus have no interest at stake). But given plaintiffs' allegations and the County's stipulations in the district court, the record supports both standing and jurisdiction. A "case or controversy" exists in this case because the parties genuinely disputed ownership of the strip parcels in the district court. The County stipulated to plaintiffs' chain of title, agreeing that plaintiffs were successors in interest to Palm Beach Farms. The controversy was thus limited to a decision about whether the offer of dedication was accepted.2 Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the application of the Ordinance to what they assert is their property.
4
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. This decision is not about standing: what the County is really arguing is that plaintiffs failed to join indispensable parties. Amicus Boywic Farms agrees, arguing that it was harmed by the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Because the district court could only determine who, as between plaintiffs and the County, had the better claim to the strip parcels, amicus is not bound by the district court's order. It was no abuse of discretion for the district court to refuse to dismiss this case for failure to join indispensable parties. The County, as movant, had the burden "to show the nature of the unprotected interests of the absent parties," 5A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 1359; yet, the County's citation to the record reveals only that it established the existence of adjoining landowners (not the nature of allegedly unprotected interests).
5
And, plaintiffs' "arbitrary and capricious" due process claim is ripe.3 Plaintiffs accused the County of applying an arbitrary and capricious action (asserting ownership to the strip parcels and recording abandonment resolutions which transferred title) to their property. Plaintiffs' claim was ripe as soon as the County applied the ordinance and the petition process (including a $400 nonrefundable application fee) to the undedicated strip parcels. See Eide v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 724 n. 13 (11th Cir.1990).
6
The County argues that no subject matter jurisdiction exists because plaintiffs' claims are so frivolous. But the course of litigation and stance of the County in
7
Page 2 of 441 F.3d 1490
4/30/2009http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4...
district court undercuts its claim of frivolousness. We also note that the pretrial stipulation plainly reads that "[n]either party contests subject matter ... jurisdiction."4 If the County actually thought plaintiffs' claims were frivolous, it should not have so willingly conceded facts giving rise to jurisdiction in the stipulation. Because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' federal claims, the court did not err by including plaintiffs' state claims for declaratory relief--pendent jurisdiction was proper.
The County also argues that the district court erred by interpreting the stipulation as a "winner-take-all" proposition. That is, the County says it reserved a right to make several arguments, after the jury's fact finding, by referring to "undisposed of motions" in the stipulation. We disagree. The parties agreed that the jury's conclusion would "be outcome determinative of all of the federal and state claims." The County does not argue that it was unfairly duped into signing the stipulation. And, we owe great deference to the trial judge's interpretation and enforcement of pretrial stipulations. See Morrison v. Genuine Parts Co., 828 F.2d 708 (11th Cir.1987); Hill v. Nelson, 676 F.2d 1371, 1373 n. 8 (11th Cir.1982). In the light of the stipulations, the district court did not err when it refused to entertain the County's post-verdict motions.
8
Defendants raise other arguments, none of which present grounds for reversal. The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
9
Honorable Howell W. Melton, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation
*
Application of the Ordinance, according to plaintiffs, put a "cloud" on plaintiffs' title because title to the strip parcels was transferred to the payor of the privilege fee. Plaintiffs' property was, in other words, not transferable so long as the County continued to demand fees for the "abandonment" of property it never owned
1
"[S]tanding cannot be waived and may be asserted at any stage of litigation." Harris v. Evans, 20 F.3d 1118, 1121 n. 4 (11th Cir.1994) (en banc). We disagree with the County's argument that plaintiffs' ownership claim is so obviously frivolous that standing could not possibly exist, regardless of stipulated facts pointing to standing. In support of this claim, the County cites the allegedly "remarkably similar" case of United States v. 16.33 Acres of Land, 342 So.2d 476 (Fla.1977), as binding precedent denying plaintiffs' ownership claim. But 16.33 Acres is distinguishable because in that case the government expressly accepted the offer of dedication. Id. at 479
2
Because we conclude that plaintiffs' arbitrary and capricious due process claim was ripe, we say nothing about whether plaintiffs' additional constitutional claims were ripe. We do note, however, that plaintiffs were not granted relief pursuant to a specific claim. Instead, the County stipulated that plaintiffs would be entitled to the remedies requested if plaintiffs prevailed on any of the disputed fact issues
3
Parties may not stipulate jurisdiction. Bush v. United States, 703 F.2d 491, 494 (11th Cir.1983). And we do not say that jurisdiction was proper because jurisdiction was stipulated. Instead, we look to the record; we affirm the district court's conclusion that
4
Page 3 of 441 F.3d 1490
4/30/2009http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4...
the stipulated facts give rise to jurisdiction. For example, the County argues frivolousness by pointing to purported transfers--by plaintiffs' predecessors in interest--that the County says are null and void. But the County stipulated to plaintiffs' chain of title; and, the County agreed that it was undisputed that "plaintiffs are the successors in interest to the Palm Beach Farms Company." The record was set in district court
CC∅ | TRANSFORMED BY PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG
Page 4 of 441 F.3d 1490
4/30/2009http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4...