IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

Appeal No. 09-10464-DD

_________________________

D. C. Docket No. 08-0899-CV-FTM-UA-MAP

DR. JORG BUSSE, et al.,

Plaintiff-Appellants,

versus

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.

Defendant-Appellees.
__________________________________________

On Appeal from the U.S. District Court

for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division
___________________________________________

NOTICE OF
JUDICIAL & CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE M. A. PIZZO

NOTICE OF CORRUPTION AND PRECEDENT-SETTING ERROR, AND

VIOLATION OF BINDING PRECEDENT UNDER, E.G., FIRST ENGLISH,
BOOM, CORN, ANTHONY

DEMAND FOR INVALIDATION OF CONFISCATORY O.R.569/875

(March 29, 2009)

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, AND

DR. JORG BUSSE, Appellants, pro se
P.O. Box 7561, Naples, FL 34101-7561
T: 239-595-7074; E-mail: JRBU@aol.com
 PIZZO CONCEDED TO APPELLANTS’ RIPE CLAIMS

1. In his 12/30/2008 Order, Defendant-Appellee corrupt U.S. Magistrate Judge

Mark A. Pizzo conceded that

“Plaintiffs, who own a lot in that subdivision [PID 12-44-20-01-

00015.015A], have argued repeatedly and in various ways that the
Board’s action violated their rights [under the 14th, 4th, 5th, 7th, and 1st
Constitutional Amendments].” Id., p.1.

“…each action centers on a [unexecuted and unduly vague] December

10, 1969, [ipse dixit confiscatory, invalid, and unenforceable]
resolution [purportedly] passed by the Lee County Board of County
Commissioners regarding “public lands” in the Cayo Costa subdivision.”

Here, Pizzo conceded to Appellants’ “valid” Complaints about

“unconstitutional temporary takings” and their other ripe Federal claims

based on ‘violations’ of their fundamental Constitutionally-protected rights

under the 14th, 4th, 5th, 7th, and 1st Amendments. No ripeness requirements

attached, because confiscatory/condemnatory O.R.569/875 was an invalid

measure and admittedly never “passed”, which was evidenced by the self-

authenticating public record before the Court. See Anthony v. Franklin,

Corn, infra. Because on 12/30/2008 Pizzo conceded to Appellants’ ripe

Federal causes of action, his Order was frivolous and fraudulent. Pizzo knew

that O.R.569/875 could not have possibly been “passed”, because on its face it

was indisputably defective, unduly vague, unexecuted, and unenforceable.

Therefore, ripeness conditions could not have possibly attached. Here, Pizzo’s
 order had no basis in law and fact, and Pizzo must be punished for his case-

fixing in exchange for Appellees’ bribes. Furthermore, Pizzo knew that since

1912, no public lands had ever existed in the private undedicated Cayo Costa

Subdivision based on the self-authenticating public record evidence on file

[e.g., Plat Book 3, p.25].

PIZZO KNEW THAT O.R.569/875 WAS CONFISCATORY AND INVALID

2. Here, Pizzo knew that the ‘Lee County Board’s action’ was confiscatory and

invalid under binding 11th Circuit and Supreme Court precedent. Because

O.R.569/875 was confiscatory and null and void, inverse condemnation was

unavailable, but invalidation and damages were the exclusive remedies under,

e.g., Corn, Anthony, Boom, Lake Lucerne, First English. Therefore, the

Appellants had stated highly meritorious and cognizable ripe Federal causes

of action. Here, Pizzo treated the Appellants disparately from the similarly-

situated landowners in said binding precedent and deliberately deprived

Appellants of just, speedy, and inexpensive adjudication of their “arbitrary and

capricious” type “unconstitutional temporary takings” and other claims

under Boom, Corn, First English. Thus, Pizzo must be punished for his

deliberate deprivations under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, removed, and recused

according to public policy and 28 U.S.C. §§ 455. The public cannot trust Pizzo

who tarnished the reputation of the Federal Courts.

3. Here, Pizzo fabricated a lack of merit, while simultaneously and

unintelligently identifying Appellants’ allegations about Appellees’

‘violations‘ of Appellants’ well-proven Constitutional and Federal Statutory

rights under the 14th, 4th, 5th, 7th, and 1st Amendments, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,

1985, 1988, 28 U.S.C. § 455. See Order., p.1. Just because here the Federal

Courts have been corruptly and deliberately depriving the Appellants of their

day in Federal Court did not render the Appellants’ requests for just, speedy,

and inexpensive adjudication litigious or vexatious. No single final adverse

decision exists. Thus vexatiousness was factually and legally impossible, and

Pizzo’s slander and libel wrongful, frivolous, and clearly erroneous and

abusive. As a result of Pizzo’s frivolity, his Order was improper and for the

criminal purpose of extending the conceded violations and deliberate

deprivations under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242.

SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL WAS PROHIBITED

4. Wrongfully and frivolously, Pizzo tried to invoke Jefferson Fourteenth

Assocs. v. Wometco de P.R., Inc., 695 F.2d 524, 527(11th Cir.1983) in order to

fix and dismiss sua sponte Appellants’ “valid” “unconstitutional temporary

takings” and other ripe Federal claims. Here, Pizzo did not only not accept as

true Plaintiff-Appellants’ well-pleaded indisputable facts [e.g., invalidity of

 confiscatory O.R.569/875 under Corn, Anthony], but perverted and

corrupted them [absent any evidence] in exchange for Appellants’ bribes.

PIZZO VIOLATED SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT

5. In Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 329-330, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1834, 104 L.

Ed. 2d 338, 350(1989), the Supreme Court has cautioned against sua sponte

dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6), and has declined to pass judgment on the

permissibility of such dismissals. Id . at 330 n.8, 109 S. Ct. at 1834, 104 L. Ed.

2d at 350. See also Danow v. Borack, 197 Fed. Appx. 853, 856(11th Cir. 2006).

Here, there was no basis whatsoever but a judicial conspiracy to fix and

dismiss Appellants’ causes by concocting ripeness requirements and

availability of inverse condemnation/state remedies, when invalidation of

O.R.569/875 was the exclusive equitable relief [in addition for damages for

the conceded “unconstitutional temporary taking”] under said precedent of

Corn, First English, Lake Lucerne.

APPELLANTS WERE ENTITLED TO PIZZO’S RECUSAL [28 U.S.C §455]

6. Here, Pizzo never gave any valid reason(s) for finding Appellants complaint

frivolous but conspired with, e.g., Defendant-Appellee John Edwin Steele to

fabricate ripeness requirements and availability of inverse condemnation

thereby disrupting precedent and uniformity. Here, the Appellants had made

highly meritorious and rational arguments in law and fact which entitled
 them to the demanded exclusive relief of invalidation and damages for

"unconstitutioal temporary takings” [see 03/05/2009 Opinion; 08-13170-BB]

under false pretenses of confiscatory and invalid O.R.569/875. Therefore,

objectively partial Pizzo must be recused and removed for his criminal

deprivatory acts. The public cannot trust Pizzo.

INVERSE CONDEMNATION WAS UNAVAILABLE UNDER PRECEDENT

7. In Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 816 F.2d 1514, 1517(11th Cir.1987), this

Court had concluded that Florida does not avail a property owner an action to

recover just compensation through inverse condemnation for injuries sustained

as a result of an unreasonable confiscatory measure later declared invalid.

The face of ipse dixit confiscatory O.R.569/875 was prima facie evidence of

its invalidity. Therefore, Appellants’ “valid” “unconstitutional temporary

takings” and other ripe Federal claims must be adjudicated. Furthermore, in

Anthony v. Franklin County, 799 F.2d 681(11th Cir.1986), this Court held:

“[R]egulation that goes so far that it has the same effect as a taking by
eminent domain is an invalid exercise of police power, violative of the
Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Should Government wish to
accomplish the goals of such regulation, it must proceed through exercise
of its eminent domain power, and of course, pay just compensation for
any property taken. The remedy for a regulation that goes too far, under
the due process theory, is not just compensation but invalidation of the
regulation, and if authorized and appropriate, actual damages.”

Anthony v. Franklin, 799 F.2d 681, at 684(11th Cir.1986).

 Here, confiscatory and unexecuted O.R.569/875 was an illegal de facto

eminent domain measure, which had to be invalidated. Therefore, sua sponte

dismissal was abusive, oppressive, arbitrary, capricious, and pretextual, and

Pizzo must be punished and removed for his criminal acts.

UNDER PRECEDENT EXCLUSIVE REMEDY WAS INVALIDATION

8. Therefore under Florida law, the exclusive remedy available to a property

owner challenging an invalid confiscatory measure was suit to invalidate the

illegitimate measure and enjoin its enforcement. This Court has wrongfully

obstructed invalidation because it is corrupt and objectively partial. No

intelligent, fit, and honest judge could have possibly determined that

confiscatory and facially defective O.R.569/875 was valid.

APPELLANTS ARE ENTITLED TO INVALIDATION

9. Appellants are entitled to invalidation of confiscatory O.R.569/875 under

binding precedent and demand an Emergency Order invalidating said

condemnatory fraud-scheme. Under Corn, "equitable relief is the exclusive

[state] remedy available to a property owner injured by virtue of a confiscatory

regulation." This Court obstructs justice by perverting its own precedent and

deliberately deprives the Appellants of their Constitutionally-protected rights

under the 14th, 4th, 5th, 1st, and 7th Amendments and Florida’s Constitution and

Eminent Domain Statutes.

10. This Court had concluded in Lake Lucerne Civic Ass'n, Inc. v. Dolphin

Stadium Corp., 878 F.2d 1360, 1370-72(11th Cir. 1989):

“In light of the foregoing, we conclude that Florida does not avail a
property owner an action to recover just compensation through inverse
condemnation for injuries sustained as a result of an unreasonable zoning
ordinance later declared invalid. We further find no support for the
availability of an action for money damages, based either on trespass or
violation of the right of due process, as guaranteed by the Florida
Constitution.8 As discussed above, the cited authorities are persuasive
that the remedy of invalidation is an exclusive one pursuant to Florida
law, because zoning is a function of the police power rather than the
exercise of eminent domain.”
8
. Article 1, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution provides that "No
person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process
of law...." Corn, supra, at 1519.

11. Here, this Court is mis-treating the Appellants disparately and deliberately

deprives them of the excusive remedy of invalidation, because this Court is

corrupt and partially objective. This Court is extending the eminent domain

fraud-scheme under confiscatory O.R.569/875 and deprives the Appellants of

property [PID12-44-20-01-00015.015A] without due process of law. Therefore,

the Appellants move for invalidation of confiscatory O.R.569/875 and

rehearing in an impartial Circuit, and mandatory recusal of this Circuit.

WHEREFORE, the Appellants request the following relief

1. An Order invalidating confiscatory O.R.569/875 under said binding

precedent;
2. An Order punishing Pizzo for deliberately depriving the Appellants of their

day in Federal Court;

3. An Order declaring confiscatory O.R.569/875 invalid and that inverse

condemnation was unavailable under said 11th Circuit and Supreme Court

precedent;

4. An Order for hearing by another impartial Circuit en banc;

5. An Order invalidating confiscatory null and void Lee County measure

O.R.569/875 under writ of mandamus;

6. An Order enjoining Lee County’s enforcement of confiscatory O.R.569/875;

7. An Order evicting/ejecting the Appellees out of Appellants’ riparian Gulf-front

land parcel PID 12-44-20-01-00015.015A which abuts the natural boundary of

the platted Gulf of Mexico [see triple meander line; PB 3, p.25];

8. An Order enjoining Appellees from any trespass onto the private undedicated

Cayo Costa Subdivision and Appellants’ lands, accretions, platted adjoining

street, and private easements.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

CERTIFY that copies of the foregoing were served on this 29th day of March, 2009

to the Hon. Thomas K. Kahn, Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th

Circuit, Appeal Numbers 09-10464-D; 09-10752-DD; 09-10752-D; 08-14846-FF;

09-10745-D; 09-10746-D; 09-10747-D [District Court Case Numbers 2:08-cv-899-

UA-MAP; 2:09-cv-41-FtM-UA-TBM; 2:07-cv-228-FtM-JES-SPC; 2:08-cv-364-

FtM-JES-SPC], and copies to Defendant-Appellees Richard A. Lazzara, Federal

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

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

First Street, Fort Myers 33901, Sheri Polster Chappell, U.S. Courthouse, 2110 First

Street, Fort Myers 33901, United States of America, Reagan K. Russell, 3900

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

Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office, Government Complex, Fort Myers, FL,

Sherri Johnson, Dent & Johnson, Chartered, 3415 Magic Oak Lane, Sarasota, FL

34232, Toby Prince Prigham, Brigham Moore, S. William Moore, Defendant

Brigham & Moore, LLP, Menelaos Papalas, Jack N. Peterson, Donna Marie

Collins, Defendant M. Owen, Appellees Lee County, Lee County Attorney,

Adminstrative Building, 2215 2nd Street, Fort Myers, FL 33901, Reagan Kathleen

Russell, Tom Beason, Kathryn Funchess, Harold G. Vielhauer, and Teresa L.

Mussetto, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection, Board of

Trustees for the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, Division of Forestry, Division

of Recreation and Parks, 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., M.S. # 35, Tallahassee, FL

32399.
 /S/JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, Appellant
P.O. Box 845, Palm Beach, FL 33480-0845
T: 561-400-3295

/S/DR. JORG BUSSE, Appellant

P.O. Box 7561, Naples, FL 34101-7561
T: 239-595-7074

Facially unconstitutional confiscatory measure O.R.569/875, which was

invalid under Corn, First English, Kaiser Aetna