Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
8Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Opinion & Order by Corrupt Judge John E. Steele, Doc. # 338

Opinion & Order by Corrupt Judge John E. Steele, Doc. # 338

Ratings: (0)|Views: 36|Likes:
Published by John_E_Steele
JUDICIAL CORRUPTION, DEF. CROOKED JUDGE JOHN E. STEELE
JUDICIAL CORRUPTION, DEF. CROOKED JUDGE JOHN E. STEELE

More info:

Published by: John_E_Steele on Jun 12, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/14/2010

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDAFORT MYERS DIVISIONJORG BUSSEPlaintiff,vs.Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-29SPCLEE 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 InternalImprovement Trust Fund (Trustees) and Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection’s (DEP) Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lackof 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’ Motionto Dismiss (Doc. #304), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc.#318). Because Plaintiff is proceeding
 pro se
, his pleadings areheld to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by anattorney and will be liberally construed. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003).
I.
On December 10, 1969, the Board of County Commissioners of LeeCounty, Florida adopted the “Resolution Pertaining to Public Landsin Cayo Costa Subdivision”, Book 569, page 875 (the Resolution).The Resolution stated that the Second Revised Plat of the CayoCosta Subdivision contained certain designated lot and block areasand other undesignated areas. The Resolution further noted thatthe plat contained certain un-numbered and unlettered areas lyingEast of the Easterly tier of blocks in the subdivision and lyingWest of the Westerly tier of blocks in the subdivision. TheResolution stated that Lee County claimed the lands to the east andwest of the tier of blocks as “public lands together with allaccretions thereto” and “does by this Resolution claim all of saidlands and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of the publicfor public purposes.” (Doc. #288, p. 9.)Plaintiff Jorg Busse (plaintiff or Dr. Busse) asserts he isthe current owner of Lot 15A of the Cayo Costa Subdivision and
 
-3-
accretions thereto. (Doc. #288, ¶¶ 1, 2.) Plaintiff describes Lot15A as being more than approximately 2.5 acres fronting the Gulf ofMexico with an estimated fair market value of more than $2 million.(Id. at ¶6.) Plaintiff asserts that the Resolution violates hisproperty rights in Lot 15A, which includes accretions, under bothfederal and state law.Count 1 sets forth a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffalleges that the Resolution deprived him of his riparian rights,private easements, accreted property and privileges secured by theUnited States Constitution. Specifically, plaintiff asserts thatLee County had no home rule powers or jurisdiction over theundedicated Cayo Costa Subdivision, and therefore the Resolutionwas unenforceable and in violation of the United StatesConstitution. (Doc. #288, ¶13.) Plaintiff asserts that defendantsconfiscated more than 2.5 acres of his accreted property withoutcompensation in violation of the Takings Clause of the FifthAmendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, andthe Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Id. at¶14.) Plaintiff asserts that defendants also illegally took morethan 200 acres of private accretions onto Cayo Costa pursuant tothe Resolution, all without compensation. (Id. at ¶15.) Further,plaintiff asserts that “Defendant State Actors” claimed riparianrights to Lots 38A and 41A which they denied to plaintiff, therebyunlawfully discriminating against plaintiff because he is entitledto equal rights as the State property owner. (Id. at ¶¶ 16, 27.)

Activity (8)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
Joel D. Bennett liked this
VEXATIOUS liked this
JUDICIAL TERROR liked this
Judicial_Fraud liked this
John_E_Steele liked this
VEXATIOUS liked this
John_E_Steele liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->