Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-2

Filed 12/03/07 Page 5 of 10

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-2

Filed 12/03/07 Page 6 of 10

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-2

Filed 12/03/07 Page 7 of 10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frrlmChUoVs&feature=player_embedded#!

DEF. JACK N. PETERSON
IMAGES OF CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL CORRUPTION AND GOVERNMENT SCAM

O.R. 569/875

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frrlmChUoVs&feature=player_embedded#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frrlmChUoVs&feature=player_embedded#!

JACK N. PETERSON
IMAGES OF A FRAUDSTER

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frrlmChUoVs&feature=player_embedded#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frrlmChUoVs&feature=player_embedded#!

JACK N. PETERSON
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frrlmChUoVs&feature=player_embedded#!

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-2

Filed 12/03/07 Page 1 of 10

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-2

Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 10

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-2

Filed 12/03/07 Page 3 of 10

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-2

Filed 12/03/07 Page 4 of 10

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-2

Filed 12/03/07 Page 8 of 10

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-2

Filed 12/03/07 Page 9 of 10

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-2

Filed 12/03/07 Page 10 of 10

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276

Filed 12/03/07 Page 1 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276

Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276

Filed 12/03/07 Page 3 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276

Filed 12/03/07 Page 4 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276

Filed 12/03/07 Page 5 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276

Filed 12/03/07 Page 6 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276

Filed 12/03/07 Page 7 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276

Filed 12/03/07 Page 8 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276

Filed 12/03/07 Page 9 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276

Filed 12/03/07 Page 10 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276

Filed 12/03/07 Page 11 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276

Filed 12/03/07 Page 12 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276

Filed 12/03/07 Page 13 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276

Filed 12/03/07 Page 14 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276

Filed 12/03/07 Page 15 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276

Filed 12/03/07 Page 16 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276

Filed 12/03/07 Page 17 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276

Filed 12/03/07 Page 18 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-1

Filed 12/03/07 Page 1 of 7

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-1

Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 7

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-1

Filed 12/03/07 Page 3 of 7

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-1

Filed 12/03/07 Page 4 of 7

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-1

Filed 12/03/07 Page 5 of 7

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-1

Filed 12/03/07 Page 6 of 7

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-1

Filed 12/03/07 Page 7 of 7

“DESCRIPTION” OF HORSESHIT:

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

JUDICIAL TRASH DOC. # 213
2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC
Prescott, et al., v. State of Florida, et al., 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2009):

“I. BACKGROUND A. Current Action The Appellants are owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision in Lee County, Florida. On May 5, 2008, the Appellants filed the present pro se complaint against numerous state and county officials n1 alleging that they had violated the Appellants' constitutional rights with respect to their Cayo Costa property. Most of the allegations in the complaint concern the 1969 Lee County Resolution 569/875, which claimed the undesignated areas on the east and west side of the Cayo Costa subdivision plat and all accretions thereto as public land to be used for public purposes. 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.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 The complaint named the following defendants (herein collectively "the Appellees"): (1) the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund; (2) the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks; (3) Lee County, Florida; (4) the Board of Lee County Commissioners; (5) Jack N. Peterson, Lee County Attorneys [*3] Jack Peterson, Donna Marie Collins, and David Owen; (6) Lee County property appraisers Kenneth M. Wilkinson and Sherri L. Johnson; and (7) Cayo Costa State Park employees Reginald Norman, Harold Vielhauerin, Linda Funchess, Reagan Russell, and Tom Beason.

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS Public records confirm that Busse owns a lot in a platted subdivision located in Lee County. This lot (50' x 130') abuts a platted 60 foot wide street. At some point westward of the street is the Gulf of Mexico Since the subdivision was platted in 1912, considerable accretion has occurred on land bordering the Gulf of Mexico westward of Busse’s lot. Appellant claims riparian rights. Lee County has claimed said accreted lands for public park purposes.

4

CASE NO. 08-13170-B IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ATLANTA, GEORGIA JORG BUSSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; BOARD OF LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER; STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT FUND, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Defendants-Appellees. __________________________________/ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT COURT OF FLORIDA, FORT MYERS DIVISION _________________________________________________________________ ANSWER BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA and BOARD of LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

DAVID M. OWEN LEE COUNTY ATTORNEY 2115 Second Street Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 (239) 533-2236 (239) 485-2118 FAX JACK N. PETERSON Assistant County Attorney

no riparian rights attach per Florida law. (c) In the absence of any littoral rights, Plaintiff cannot claim any right to a dock

permit denied to him by Lee County as averred in paragraphs 79 and 80. 2. In paragraph 46, Plaintiff admits to his companion law suit now pending in state

court. LEE COUNTY is not yet a party in that suit (Case No. 06CA-3185). Should LEE COUNTY be joined, the County, in the interest of judicial economy, will remove the case to this Court. 3. In Plaintiff’s state case, his complaints utilize attachments of copies of his lot

description from public records including aerial photos which clearly depict his lot’s location as platted and as it exists today over 1200 feet from the Gulf of Mexico’s waters. (Those attachments are attached here as exhibits A and B to the Memorandum of Law). 4. In the alternative, the aforesaid notwithstanding, and reading Plaintiff’s complaint

most generously, the averments remain so vague or ambiguous that defendant, LEE COUNTY, cannot reasonably frame a responsive pleading. To wit: the majority of the numbered paragraphs state various legal holdings from state and federal courts, Florida statutory law, administrative rules, and opinions of the Florida Attorney General (see paragraphs 7, 9, 11, 13, 15). Other averments simply make statements apparently based on the Plaintiff’s readings of various authorities, legal or otherwise (see paragraphs 20, 21, etc.). While, for instance, paragraph 10 appears to state a cause of action, no facts are presented to support the allegation. In sum, Plaintiff’s complaint is neither short or plain or sufficient enough to allow a responsive pleading. 5. In the alternative, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b), since LEE COUNTY is

submitting matters outside the pleadings, for example exhibits A and B, the Court shall treat the matter as a motion for summary judgment. Vanero v. City of Tampa, 830 F. Supp. 1457, 1458 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

JORG BUSSE, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 2007 CV 228 FtM 29 SPC

LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, and its BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, and THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, and STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Defendants. ________________________________________________/ DEFENDANT LEE COUNTY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF Comes now Defendant, LEE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, by and through its counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 12(e), and 56(b) and moves the Court to dismiss the referenced matter and as grounds would state: 1. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed pro se and read most generously, is an apparent attempt

to enhance the value of the Plaintiff’s real property by attaching to it littoral or riparian rights. (a) As Plaintiff avers at paragraph 3(b), and more fully describes at paragraphs

16 and 66, Plaintiff’s lot abuts not a waterway, but an alleyway or street. (b) Beyond Plaintiff’s mere assertions of littoral rights, no averment presented,

however poorly pleaded, establishes any factual basis that Plaintiff’s lot abuts a waterway; therefore,

15A does not extend to the “shore” as in Axline, or even the ordinary high water mark as depicted on the plat. Florida law states: “The land to which the owner holds title must extend to the ordinary high water mark of the navigable water in order that rights may attach. §253.141(1) Fla. Stat. (2006). Since there are no riparian rights appurtenant to the Plaintiff’s lot, the complaint is fatally deficient and must be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jack N. Peterson JACK N. PETERSON Assistant County Attorney Florida Bar No. 0832774

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY, that a true and correct copy of Lee County’s Motion to Dismiss has been furnished by U.S. Mail to: Jorg Busse, Plaintiff, Post Office Box 1126, Naples, FL 34106-1126; Reagan Kathleen Roane, Assistant General Counsel, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Number 35, Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000; and Kenneth W. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser, 2480 Thompson Street, Fort Myers, FL 33901, on this 1st day of May, 2007.

By: /s/ Jack N. Peterson Jack N. Peterson Assistant County Attorney Florida Bar No. 0832774 DAVID M. OWEN LEE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 2115 Second Street Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398 Telephone No. (239) 533-2236 Facsimile Phone No. (239) 485-2118 PETERSJN@leegov.com

4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frrlmChUoVs&feature=player_embedded#!

U.S. GOVERNMENT FORGERY “O.R. 569/875”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frrlmChUoVs&feature=player_embedded#!

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 1 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT. MYERS DIVISION

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE, Plaintiffs, v. 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; 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, Defendants. / ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on five motions to dismiss: 1) Defendants A. Brian Albritton, Sean P. Flynn, E. Kenneth Stegeby, and David P. Rhodes filed their Motion to Dismiss CASE NO. 2: 09-CV-791-FtM-36SPC

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 2 of 23

and Motion for Injunctive Relief on February 26, 2010 (Dkt. 69);1 2) Defendants Kenneth W. Wilkinson, Roger Alejo, Roger Desjarlais, Jack N. Peterson, Lee County, Florida, Karen B. Hawes, Charlie Green, Bob Janes, Brian Bigelow, Ray Judah, Tammy Hall, and Frank Mann filed their Motion to Dismiss on March 30, 2010 (Dkt. 115);2 3) Defendants The Honorable Hugh D. Hayes and The Honorable Cynthia A. Pivacek filed their Motion to Dismiss on April 12, 2010 (Dkt. 148); 4) Defendant Mike Scott filed his Motion to Dismiss on April 20, 2010 (Dkt. 158); and Defendant Johnson Engineering, Inc. filed its Motion to Dismiss on May 24, 2010 (Dkt. 179). In addition, Plaintiffs have filed several motions: 1) Emergency Motion to Enjoin Fraudulent Judgments and Execution of Fraudulent Judgments in Case No. 2:07-CV-228 filed on December 4, 2009 (Dkt. 5); 2) Emergency Motion for Judicial Notice of Appeal and Payment of Appeal Fees in U.S. District Court, Case # 2:07-CV-00228-Fort Myers-JES-SPC, Doc. # 428, Appeal From Governmental Corruption, Fraud, and Fraud on the Court filed on March 29, 2010 (Dkt. 118); 3) Motion for Summary Judgment Against U.S. Attorneys filed on March 29, 2010 (Dkt. 119); 4) Motion for Sanctions After Expiration of 21 Days, and Memorandum, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 filed on March 29, 2010 (Dkt. 121); 5) Motion for Change of Venue Because of Record Corruption, Concealment, Fraud on the Court, and Obstruction of Justice filed on March 29, 2010 (Dkt. 123); 6) Motion for Relief from Defendants’ Fraud on the Court, and Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Fraud on the Court and Fraudulent Pleadings, Doc. # 69, and 70, and Plaintiffs’ Direct

These Defendants also filed a motion for injunctive relief (Dkt. 97) and a motion for sanctions against Plaintiffs (Dkt. 149). These Defendants also adopted co-Defendants Albritton, Flynn, Stegeby and Rhodes’ Motion (Dkt. 69) as to “Background,” Argument, and Injunctive Relief in their Motion to Dismiss. -22

1

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 3 of 23

Attack Upon Any and All Previous Orders & Judgments, Which Were Procured Through Fraud & Fraudulent Pretenses filed on March 29, 2010 (Dkt. 124); 7) Motions for Corrections of Docket and Filing of Entire Complaint filed on April 7, 2010 (Dkt. 135);3 8) Emergency Motions to Enjoin Fraudulent Concealment of Governmental Forgeries by Crooked Defendant Assistant Attorney Jack N. Peterson, and Strike His Purported “Motion to Dismiss” for Idiotic Name Calling Such As, E.G., “Vexatious and/or Bothersome Litigant” to Criminally Coerce the Plaintiffs to Refrain from Litigation filed on April 9, 2010 (Dkt. 143); 9) Emergency Motion for Recusal of “Judicial Prostitute” Chappell Who Accepted Defendants’ Bribes in Exchange for Case Fixing, See “Order,” Doc. # 127, 04/01/2010 and for Judicial Notice of Nazi-Style Judicial and Governmental Record Bullying & Coercion to Cover Up Governmental Forgeries filed on April 12, 2010 (Dkt. 144); 10) Emergency Motions for Judicial Notice of Governmental Terror by Vexatious Defendants and of Appeal Number 10-10967-I as “Docketed on March 5, 2010" filed on April 9, 2010 (Dkt. 146);11) Emergency Motion to ‘Enjoin’ Nazi-Style Governmental Tactics of Terror, Oppression, Retaliation, Fraud on the Court, Doc. # 149, and Criminal Concealment of Forgeries “O.R. 569/875" filed on April 16, 2010 (Dkt. 152); 12) Emergency Motions for Judgment(s) on the Merits Against Defendants Lee County and Sanctions Against Said Defendants for Criminal Concealment of Fake “Law,” “O.R. 569/875,” which Had No Legal Effect, Because Law Prohibited “Legislative Adjudication” of Fundamental Property Rights & Plaintiffs’ Record Ownership filed on April 23, 2010 (Dkt. 160); 13) Emergency Motions for Judgment(s) on the Merits Against “Federal
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. -3-

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 4 of 23

Defendants” and Sanctions Against Said Defendants, and “Legal Whore” Corinis, for Criminal Concealment of Fake “Law,” E.G. Doc. #159, 04/21/2010, filed on April 23, 2010 (Dkt. 161); 14) Emergency Motion to Cease and Desist Case Fixing & Adjudicate Pro Se Plaintiffs’ Claims in Their Favor Under the Law filed on April 23, 2010 (Dkt. 162);15) Emergency Motion to Enjoin Reverse Discrimination & Fraud by Afro American Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell Against the Pro Se Caucasian Plaintiffs filed on April 23, 2010 (Dkt. 163); 16) Emergency Motion to Enjoin Hate Mail & Threats by Defendant Psychopath Jack N. Peterson filed on April 23, 2010 (Dkt. 164); 17) Emergency Motion to Comply with Fed. R. Evidence and to Enjoin “Final Solution” of “Frivolity” and Hate Crimes against Pro Se Plaintiffs filed on April 23, 2010 (Dkt. 165); 18) Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Judges Who Concealed Criminal Invasion of Private Property Rights Under Fraudulent Pretenses of “Frivolity” Doc. # 148 “04/12/2010" filed on April 23, 2010 (Dkt. 166); 19) Motion for Reconsideration filed on June 1, 2010 (Dkt. 182); 20) Motion for Reconsideration of Order filed on June 1, 2010 (Dkt. 183); 21) Emergency Motion to Enjoin Record Crimes & “Public Sale” Scam Perpetrated by Defendant Corrupt Official Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Emergency Motion to Enjoin Record Crimes and “Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property,” by Defendant Corrupt Official Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Doc. # 432-3, 5/21/10, Public Notice of Prima Facie Criminality of “Wilkinson’s Motion for Entry of Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property and Incorporated Memorandum of Law,” Doc. # 432, 05/21/2010, and Cover Up of Corruption under Fraudulent Pretenses of “Frivolity” filed on June 4, 2010 (Dkt. 184); 22) Emergency Motion for Relief from Fraud on the Court, Rule 60(b), Judicial Corruption, Bribery, and Criminal Concealment of Record Absence of Any “Lee County” Title or Ownership of Facially Forged Parcels “12-44-2001-00000.00A0" & 07-44-21-01-00001.0000 filed on June 17, 2010 (Dkt. 191); 23) Emergency -4-

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 5 of 23

Motions for Change of Venue Because of Proven Judicial Corruption, Bribery, and Criminal Concealment of Record Absence of Any “Lee County” Title or Ownership of Facially Forged Parcels “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0" & 07-44-21-01-00001.0000 filed on June 17, 2010 (Dkt. 192); 24) Emergency Motion for Recusal of Defendant Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell, 28 U.S.C. § 455, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 filed on June 17, 2010 (Dkt. 193); and 25) Emergency Motion for Order to Show Good Cause Why Crooked Judge C.E. Honeywell is Not Conspiring to Criminally Conceal Governmental Forgery of Non-Existent Sham “Parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0" as Evidenced by 1912 Plat in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25, and Transcript of 11/07/2007 Court Hearing Before Crooked Chappell filed on June 17, 2010 (Dkt. 194). I. BACKGROUND4 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). 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). On November 17, 2009, Plaintiff Busse appeared for a “quasi-judicial proceeding[]” before a Special Magistrate of the Value Adjustment Board of Lee County, Florida (Dkt. 1, p. 2; Dkt. 64, Ex. 1). Busse appealed a denial of agricultural classification of Lot 15A (Dkt. 64, Ex. 1, p. 38). Special Magistrate Lori Rutland noted that although he appealed a denial of the agricultural Plaintiffs’ Complaint is over one hundred (100) pages and does not clearly explain or designate the factual bases of the underlying causes of action. Based on multiple reviews of the Complaint, in addition to the opinions written by the Eleventh Circuit, this Court attempts to summarize the bases of Plaintiffs’ claims. -54

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 6 of 23

classification5 of Lot 15A, Busse “directed his testimony and argument to issues involving a boundary dispute that he had with the Property Appraiser and Lee County” (Dkt. 64, Ex. 1, p. 38). Special Magistrate Rutland further noted that she made “no findings concerning [Busse’s] argument regarding a boundary dispute with the County and the Property Appraiser as that [was] not the issue on appeal. The only issue [was] whether this property [was] entitled to an agricultural classification” (Dkt. 64, Ex. 1, p. 38). Besides this hearing before the Special Magistrate, there is no indication or record of a state court proceeding addressing the property dispute that Plaintiffs continue to pursue in federal court. A. Previous Cases

A total of nine cases have been filed in or transferred to the Middle District of Florida relating to Plaintiffs’ property dispute. 1. Case Number 2:07-CV-228

The first case was filed by Plaintiff Busse against Defendants Lee County, et al. Busse asserted that Defendants deprived him of ownership and riparian rights as to Lot 15A of the Cayo Costa Subdivision. Busse further claimed that Resolution 569/875 violated his property rights in the specified lot. Judge John Steele previously found that there was no jurisdiction over the Takings Clause claim, no procedural due process claim stated, no equal protection claim stated, and no other basis for exercising federal jurisdiction. On May 5, 2008, Judge Steele issued an Opinion and Order dismissing Busse’s Third Amended Complaint without prejudice as to all of the defendants (2:07CV-228, Dkt. 338), and a judgment was entered the following day (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 339). On August 30, 2006, Busse filed an application for agricultural classification of the property based on the alleged use of bee boxes. The Property Appraiser denied the application because the property was not being used for a bona fide agricultural purpose when the Appraiser made a physical inspection of the property on September 15, 2006. -65

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 7 of 23

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit found that Busse did not state a valid claim for procedural due process, equal protection, or substantive due process (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 365, p. 10-12); Busse, et al. v. Lee County, Florida, et al., 317 Fed. Appx. 968, 974 (11th Cir. Mar. 5, 2009), reh’g denied, 347 Fed. Appx. 555 (11th Cir. May 27, 2009). As for the Takings Clause claim, the Eleventh Circuit held that Busse “ha[d] not alleged that he sought and was denied compensation through available state procedures,” and therefore, “his Takings Clause claim [was] not . . . ripe for review” (2:07-CV228, Dkt. 365, p. 9). Consequently, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 365).6 In light of the Eleventh Circuit’s affirmation, Busse filed several notices of appeal in July 2009, seeking review of the same motions and demands that had previously been dismissed by the Eleventh Circuit. All of these notices were dismissed for lack of prosecution because Busse did not pay the filing fees. Despite previous court orders, Busse continued to file repetitive motions for relief from the judgment (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 381-83), which were denied as moot (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 384). On November 30, 2009, Defendant Wilkinson filed a Motion for Writ of Execution (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 386). Busse then filed several emergency motions for relief from the “fraudulent” judgment, in addition to several notices of appeal (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 388-415). Again, the notices of appeal were dismissed for lack of prosecution, and an order was issued on January 26, 2010 denying all of Busse’s pending notices of appeal and emergency motions for relief and recusal (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 422). Notably, the Order directed the Clerk to no longer accept any filing, related or unrelated to this Busse also filed a notice of appeal claiming case-fixing, bribery, corruption, conspiracy under false pretenses, etc. on May 4, 2009. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the Notice of Appeal sua sponte because Busse did not file it within 30 days of the District Court’s order, thus making his demands moot (Dkt. 366, p. 2). -76

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 8 of 23

specific case, by Plaintiff Prescott or Plaintiff Busse, for filing in the case was closed, except for a single notice of appeal as to the Order. On February 1, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued an order granting Defendant Wilkinson’s Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 424). The Writ of Execution issued on February 2, 2010 (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 425). 2. Case No. 2:08-CV-364

In the midst of the initial case, Plaintiffs filed a second complaint on May 5, 2008, which was the same day that Judge Steele dismissed Plaintiff Busse’s complaint in Case No. 2:07-CV-228. On July 15, 2008, the Court issued an order emphasizing that the allegations in the complaint were nearly identical to those in 2:07-CV-228 (2:08-CV-364, Dkt. 56). Because the Court previously found no basis for federal jurisdiction over Busse’s claims, it directed Plaintiffs to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On July 24, 2008, the Court issued an order dismissing the complaint without prejudice for the same reasons as previously stated in the related case, 2:07-CV-228 (2:08-CV-364, Dkt. 70).7 3. Case No. 2:08-CV-899

On December 8, 2008, while 2:07-CV-228 was pending and after 2:08-CV-364 was dismissed, Plaintiffs filed a third complaint. In this case, Plaintiffs alleged claims against various state and federal judges, including Judge Steele, Magistrate Judge Sheri Chappell, and state entities, alleging that Plaintiffs held “perfect exclusive unencumbered legal title” to Lot 15A, which was the basis of the two previous cases (2:08-CV-899, Dkt. 2, ¶2). Because the previous complaints were

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. Prescott, et al. v. State of Florida, et al., 343 Fed. Appx. 395 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2009). -8-

7

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 9 of 23

dismissed, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants were corrupt and denied their rights. The judges in the Fort Myers Division of the Middle District of Florida recused themselves from presiding over this case (2:08-CV-899, Dkt. 7). Consequently, Judge Richard Lazzara and Magistrate Judge Mark Pizzo of the Tampa Division presided over the case. On December 30, 2008, Magistrate Judge Pizzo entered an order directing Plaintiffs to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed based on the Opinion and Order entered in 2:07CV-228 (2:08-CV-899, Dkt. 52). The Order also established certain restrictions on Plaintiffs’ filings and contact with parties. Upon finding violations of the Order, Magistrate Judge Pizzo set a hearing for which Plaintiffs failed to appear (2:08-CV-899, Dkt. 75). After their failure to appear, Magistrate Judge Pizzo entered another order directing Plaintiffs to appear before Judge Lazzara to show cause as to why they should not be adjudged in contempt (2:08-CV-899, Dkt. 76). Magistrate Judge Pizzo also issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice (2:08-CV-899, Dkt. 121). On the date of the second hearing, January 20, 2009, Plaintiffs once again failed to appear in spite of notice that they would be subject to sanctions if they did not appear as directed (2:08-CV899, Dkt. 147-48). On February 4, 2009, the Report and Recommendation was adopted, the case was dismissed with prejudice, and further filings in the case were restricted (2:08-CV-899, Dkt. 186). The numerous and non-consolidated appeals were dismissed by the Eleventh Circuit because the orders appealed were not appealable, the notices of appeal were untimely, or the appeals were not prosecuted. 4. Case No. 2:09-CV-41

On January 23, 2009, while 2:07-CV-228 was being appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, after -9-

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 10 of 23

2:08-CV-364 was dismissed and before 2:08-CV-899 was dismissed, Plaintiffs filed a fourth complaint again alleging conspiracy, “case-fixing,” corruption, and fraud by various federal and state judges, including Judge Steele, Magistrate Judge Chappell, and other state entities with regard to the same property. As done previously, the judges in the Fort Myers Division of the Middle District of Florida recused themselves from presiding over this case (2:09-CV-41, Dkt. 7). On January 30, 2009, Judge Lazzara issued an order directing Plaintiffs to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice and without notice (2:09-CV-41, Dkt. 8). On February 10, 2009, finding only “a barrage of motions, objections, and miscellaneous pleadings which were prolix in nature and incomprehensible and unintelligible in content,” Judge Lazzara dismissed the complaint with prejudice and directed that no further filings in the case would be accepted except for a single notice of appeal (2:09-CV-41, Dkt. 75).8 On September 10, 2009, the Eleventh Circuit summarily affirmed the dismissal of the complaint and four days later dismissed the additional appeals for want of prosecution (2:09-CV-41, Dkt. 133-34). 5. Case No. 2:09-CV-341

On May 26, 2009, after having two complaints dismissed without prejudice and two complaints dismissed with prejudice, Plaintiffs filed a fifth complaint alleging, yet again, claims against federal judges, the Clerk of Court, various state entities and counsel who appeared on behalf of named Defendants. Plaintiffs alleged several nefarious acts relating to the same property. Judge Lazzara issued an order directing Plaintiffs to show cause as to why the complaint should not be dismissed as frivolous (2:09-CV-341, Dkt. 7). On June 4, 2009, Judge Lazzara dismissed the case with prejudice after finding no intelligent response to the previous Order and determining that the Judge Lazzara previously reminded Plaintiffs of the Court’s obligation to respond to copious and almost daily emergency filings (See, e.g. 2:09-CV-41, Dkt. 31). - 10 8

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 11 of 23

complaint was patently frivolous (2:09-CV-341, Dkt. 17). Plaintiffs’ filings were again restricted based on their consistent pattern of frivolous filings of motions and notices. The numerous appeals were dismissed as frivolous or for want of prosecution. 6. Case No. 2:09-CV-602

On September 11, 2009, after the previous five cases were dismissed, Plaintiffs filed a sixth complaint relating to the same property. As before, Plaintiffs filed complaints alleging nefarious acts against federal judges, state judges, state entities, counsel representing Defendants, and even the United States of America. After several motions were filed by Plaintiffs for recusal, summary judgment, and other judicial actions, Judge Lazzara issued an order on November 11, 2009 dismissing the case with prejudice (2:09-CV-602, Dkt. 148). Judge Lazzara further directed the Clerk not to accept any filings from Plaintiffs in this case with the exception of a single notice of appeal from the Order. Judge Lazzara also warned that if Plaintiffs instituted another baseless action that the Court would look favorably on imposing an injunction and sanctions. 7. Case No. 2:10-CV-89

On February 9, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their eighth complaint about the same property. Again, Plaintiffs filed claims against federal judges, state judges, state entities, and counsel representing Defendants. This case has been reassigned to this Court. 8. Case No. 2:10-CV-390

On June 21, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their ninth complaint about the same property and court proceedings that have occurred in prior lawsuits. Plaintiffs filed claims against federal judges and attorneys. This case has been assigned to Judge John Steele.

- 11 -

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 12 of 23

B.

Current Case

Despite having a total of six dismissed complaints and being warned of instituting another action pertaining to Lot 15A against the same and similar Defendants, Plaintiffs filed their present complaint on December 1, 2009 in the West Palm Beach Division of the Southern District of Florida9 (Dkt. 1). Yet again, Plaintiffs assert virtually the same allegations of corruption, fraud, and bribery against state judges, state entities, and counsel for Defendants among others. Despite titling their Complaint as an “Independent Action for Relief from Fraud on the Courts,” it is apparent that the present complaint relates to the same property, Lot 15A of the Cayo Costa Subdivision. In their Complaint, which totals in excess of 230 numbered paragraphs, Plaintiffs continue to allege Constitutional violations relating to this property and the litigation surrounding it. As outlined previously, Plaintiffs have filed a litany of motions and notices, most of which are convoluted and incomprehensible. Plaintiffs allege claims in this case against several Defendants from previous litigation. Plaintiffs claim violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments (Dkt. 1, ¶229). They also state that there is federal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988. Id. These claims are in addition to several alleged state law claims. II. ANALYSIS A. Failure to State a Claim

“While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, [ ] a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’

The case was transferred to the Fort Myers Division of the Middle District of Florida on December 4, 2009 (Dkt. 3). - 12 -

9

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 13 of 23

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)(citations omitted). A plaintiff must plead enough facts to state a plausible basis for the claim. Id.(emphasis added). “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998)(citing Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d 1477, 1491 (11th Cir. 1991)). Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988,10 in addition to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eleventh, and Fourteenth Amendments. Even assuming that a federal question is present, this case must be dismissed for failure to adequately state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 1. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a plaintiff to state a cause of action in “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” There is a higher pleading requirement for Section 1983 cases in the Eleventh Circuit to “weed out

10

42 U.S.C. § 1988(a) reads: The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts by the provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70 of the Revised Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect . . . .

The Court is unclear what claim Plaintiffs attempt to allege under this particular statute. Generally, this statute has been cited as it applies to attorney and expert fees. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), (c). Seeing that neither appears to be applicable to this case, the Court will not analyze this alleged claim. - 13 -

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 14 of 23

nonmeritorious claims.” GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1367 (11th Cir. 1998). “Thus a plaintiff must allege some factual detail as the basis for a § 1983 claim.” Keating v. City of Miami, 598 F.3d 753, 763 (11th Cir. 2010)(citation omitted). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). The Court will now address Plaintiffs’ Constitutional claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. a. First Amendment Claim

“The First Amendment itself expressly provides that ‘Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Amnesty Int’l, USA v. Battle, 559 F.3d 1170, 1186 (11th Cir. 2009)(citing U.S. Const. Amend. I). “The First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances includes a right of access to the courts.” Bank of Jackson County v. Cherry, 980 F.2d 1362, 1370 (11th Cir. 1993)(citations omitted). However, “[t]he right of access to the courts ‘is neither absolute nor unconditional.’” Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1096 (11th Cir. 2008)(citing Cofield v. Ala. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 936 F.2d 512, 516 (11th Cir. 1991)). “Conditions and restrictions on each person’s access are necessary to preserve the judicial resource for all other persons. Frivolous and vexatious law suits threaten the availability of a well-functioning judiciary to all litigants.” Id. Plaintiffs claim that their First Amendment rights were violated because there was an “obstruction of redress of Governmental grievances” (Dkt. 1, p. 7). Plaintiffs do not allege facts to - 14 -

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 15 of 23

support this statement. The Complaint contains incoherent and rambling claims of alleged wrongdoing. The Court could assume that Plaintiffs are referring to the restrictions placed on their abilities to file pleadings. However, as shown in the Background section of this Order, Plaintiffs have access to the courts and can file their complaints and motions. Indeed, they have filed repetitious pleadings, motions, and notices. 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. Because insufficient facts are alleged to support this claim, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their First Amendment claim. b. Fourth Amendment Claim

“The Fourth Amendment applies to searches and seizures in the civil context and may serve to resolve the legality of . . . governmental actions without reference to other constitutional provisions.” U.S. v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 51, 114 S.Ct. 492, 126 L.Ed.2d.490 (1993). However, when the challenged governmental action goes beyond the traditional meaning of search and seizure, which is in the criminal context, the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are controlling. See id. at 52 (When “the Government seized property not to preserve evidence of wrongdoing, but to assert ownership and control over the property itself . . . . [o]ur cases establish that government action of this consequence must comply with the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”). “[T]he seizure of real property . . . violates fifth amendment due process if the property owner is not afforded notice and a hearing prior to the seizure.” United States v. 2751 Peyton Wood Trail, - 15 -

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 16 of 23

S.W., 66 F.3d 1164, 1166 (11th Cir. 1995)(citing James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. at 53). “Unless exigent circumstances are present, the Due Process Clause requires the Government to afford notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before seizing real property . . . .” Id.11 Here, Plaintiffs claim that the seizure of Lot 15A violated the Fourth Amendment (Dkt. 1, p. 7; ¶ 163). However, the Fifth Amendment controls, as opposed to the Fourth Amendment, because the seizure was not within the traditional meaning of a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. at 52. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Fourth Amendment claim. c. Fifth Amendment Claim

“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.” Busse, 317 Fed. Appx. at 971 (citing U.S. Const. Amend. V; Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617, 121 S.Ct. 2448, 2457, 150 L.Ed.2d 592 (2001)). A plaintiff may 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.” Id. at 971-72 (citing Eide v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 720 (11th Cir. 1990)). A plaintiff must demonstrate to the court that he has pursued the available state procedures to obtain just compensation for the property he alleges was taken for public use before filing suit in federal court. Id. at 972.

The Court notes that the cited case involves a seizure of real property in a civil forfeiture action. - 16 -

11

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 17 of 23

Plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe for review because they have not shown that they attempted to obtain or secure relief under established Florida state procedures. The proceeding before the Special Magistrate of the Value Adjustment Board is wholly unrelated to Plaintiffs’ dispute in this case because it only addressed the denial of the agricultural classification of the property in 2006. Because they have not alleged or demonstrated that they have sought compensation for Lot 15A and were denied such compensation through available state procedures, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Fifth Amendment Takings claim. In conclusion, Plaintiffs failed to state any claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court will now address the remaining federal claims in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 2. 42 U.S.C. § 1985 Claim

“42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) provides a cause of action where two or more people conspire ‘for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws . . . .’” Montford v. Moreno, No. 04-12909, 2005 WL 1369563, at *7 (11th Cir. June 9, 2005)(quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)). To state such a claim, the plaintiff must allege: “‘(1) a conspiracy, (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy, (4) whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.’” Id. (quoting Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2002)). The plaintiff must also allege “invidious discriminatory intent” on the part of each defendant. Id. (citation omitted). “‘[C]onclusory, vague, and general allegations of - 17 -

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 18 of 23

conspiracy may justify dismissal of a complaint.’” Id. (quoting Kearson v. S. Bell. Tel. & Tel. Co., 763 F.3d 405, 407 (11th Cir. 1985)). 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. Additionally, Plaintiffs have not alleged the elements of a claim brought under § 1985(3). As such, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. 3. Seventh Amendment Right to a Jury Trial Claim

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(a) states that “[t]he right to a jury trial as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution . . . shall be preserved to the parties inviolate.” Here, Plaintiffs allege that they have been denied the right to a jury trial. Plaintiffs, again, have not alleged facts to support this claim. The Background section of this Order demonstrates that Plaintiffs have been repeatedly dismissed from federal court not on the merits of their claims but on repeated procedural deficiencies. 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. 4. Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due Process Claim

“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” Busse, 317 Fed. Appx. at 972 (citing Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610, - 18 -

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 19 of 23

6115 (11th Cir. 1997); Zipper v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995)). The plaintiff must allege that state law failed to provide him with an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Busse, 317 Fed. Appx. at 972 (citing Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378, 382 (11th Cir. 1996)). Here, Plaintiffs make no argument that Florida failed to provide them with an adequate postdeprivation remedy. “Since alleged problems with the adoption of [the Resolution] cannot serve as the basis for a procedural due process claim,” Plaintiffs cannot rely on them to support such a claim. Id. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Procedural Due Process claim. 5. Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Claim

“The Fourteenth Amendment forbids states from ‘deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’” Busse, 317 Fed. Appx. at 973 (quoting 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.’” Id. (quoting Thigpen v. Bibb County, 223 F.3d 1231, 1237 (11th Cir. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 102 (2002)). 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 - 19 -

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 20 of 23

finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Equal Protection claim. 6. Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process Claim

“Substantive due process protects only those rights that are ‘fundamental,’ a description that applies only to those rights created by the United States Constitution.” Id. (citing Greenbriar Village, L.L.C. v. Mountain Brook, City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2003)). “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. 7. 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 - Conspiracy Against Rights Claim

“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State . . . in the free exercise of enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same . . . [t]hey shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not more than ten years, or both . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 241. Furthermore, “[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 242. Plaintiffs cannot bring an action under these statutes because they are only brought in criminal proceedings. U.S. v. City of Philadelphia, 644 F.2d 187, 192-93 (3d Cir. 1980)(noting that the United States initiates criminal prosecutions under these statutes, and there are other adequate - 20 -

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 21 of 23

remedies to seek alleged violations of Constitutional rights, such as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985). Because there are civil statutes to address Plaintiffs’ alleged Constitutional violations, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their claims under 42 U.S.C. §§241, 242. 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. III. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim in their Complaint upon which relief can be granted in federal court. Accordingly, the federal claims in the Complaint are dismissed.12 With its discretionary authority, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state claims. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Injunctive Relief of Defendants Albritton,

The Court notes that Defendants Albritton, Flynn, Stegeby, and Rhodes alleged that they are entitled to immunity (Dkts. 69, 119). Additionally, Defendants Hayes and Pivacek also argue that they are entitled to qualified and judicial immunity (Dkt. 148). Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted, it does not address the arguments of immunity in this Order. The Complaint does not allege sufficient facts for the Court to determine the issue of immunity. - 21 -

12

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 22 of 23

Flynn, Stegeby, and Rhodes (Dkt. 69) is GRANTED in part. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice. Additionally, the Court will reserve ruling on the Motion for Injunctive Relief until after the Show Cause Hearing scheduled in this case for June 22, 2010. 2. The Motion for Injunctive Relief of Defendants Albritton, U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, Rhodes, Flynn, Stegeby, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys for the Middle District of Florida (Dkt. 97) is DENIED as moot. 3. The Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Injunctive Relief of Defendants Wilkinson, Alejo, Desjarlais, Peterson, Lee County, Florida, Hawes, Green, Janes, Bigelow, Judah, Hall, and Mann (Dkt. 115) is GRANTED in part. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice. Additionally, the Court will reserve ruling on the Motion for Injunctive Relief until after the Show Cause Hearing scheduled in this case for June 22, 2010. 4. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Hayes and Pivacek (Dkt. 148) is GRANTED in part. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice. 5. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Scott (Dkt. 158) is GRANTED in part. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice. 6. 7. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Johnson Engineering (Dkt. 179) is GRANTED. Of Plaintiffs’ pending motions, fifteen (15) are labeled “Emergency Motion” (Dkt. 5, 118, 143, 152, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 184, 191, 192, 194 and 209). None of these motions present an emergency. They are repetitious, rambling,

incomprehensible and frivolous. In its March 31, 2010 (Dkt. 126) Order To Show - 22 -

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 23 of 23

Cause, the Court cautioned Plaintiffs about the unwarranted designation of a motion as an emergency motion. The Court retains jurisdiction to impose sanctions. 8. Plaintiffs’ pending Motions (Dkt. 5, 118, 119, 121, 123, 124, 134, 135,143, 146, 152, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 182, 183, 184, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196, and 209) are DENIED as moot. 9. 10. Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions, except the Motion for Prefiling Injunction and Sanctions (Dkt. 149), enter judgment accordingly and CLOSE this case. 11. The Court retains jurisdiction to impose sanctions.

DONE AND ORDERED at Ft. Myers, Florida, on June 23, 2010.

COPIES TO: COUNSEL OF RECORD AND UNREPRESENTED PARTIES

- 23 -

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

PUBLIC PROPERTY TAX RECORDS:
PLAINTIFFS PAID PROPERTY TAXES:
LAND PARCEL “12-44-20-01-00015.015A” “LEGAL DESCRIPTION: CAYO COSTA PB 3 PG 25 LOT 15A”

“PAID”
By Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Dr. Jorg Busse, Record Unimpeachable Landowners
http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

PRESCOTT v. HONEYWELL 2:2010cv00390
HISTORY OF GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION, FRAUD, FRAUD ON THE COURTS 16 PRESCOTT, JENNIFER FRANKLIN flmdce 2:2009cv00041 01/23/2009 890 02/11/2009 17 PRESCOTT, JENNIFER FRANKLIN flmdce 2:2010cv00089 02/09/2010 440 18 PRESCOTT, JENNIFER FRANKLIN flmdce 2:2009cv00341 05/26/2009 440 06/04/2009 19 PRESCOTT, JENNIFER FRANKLIN flmdce 2:2008cv00364 05/07/2008 440 07/25/2008 20 PRESCOTT, JENNIFER FRANKLIN flmdce 2:2010cv00390 06/21/2010 440 21 PRESCOTT, JENNIFER FRANKLIN flmdce 2:2009cv00602 09/11/2009 440 11/05/2009 22 PRESCOTT, JENNIFER FRANKLIN flmdce 2:2009cv00791 12/04/2009 440 06/24/2010 23 PRESCOTT, JENNIFER FRANKLIN flmdce 2:2008cv00899 12/05/2008 440 02/04/2009 2 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2009cv00041 01/23/2009 890 02/11/2009 3 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2010cv00089 02/09/2010 440 4 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2007cv00228 04/10/2007 440 05/06/2008 5 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2009cv00341 05/26/2009 440 06/04/2009 6 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2008cv00364 05/07/2008 440 07/25/2008 7 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2010cv00390 06/21/2010 440 8 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2009cv00602 09/11/2009 440 11/05/2009 9 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2009cv00791 12/04/2009 440 06/24/2010 10 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2008cv00899 12/05/2008 440 02/04/2009 11 BUSSE, JORG flsdce 9:2009cv82359 12/01/2009 440 12/04/2009

Responses of Charlene Edwards Honeywell Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the Written Questions of Senator Jeff Sessions

Gun Rights 1. According to a June 24, 1994 article in the St. Petersburg Times, a Fort Lauderdale gun show promoter, Atlantic Show Promotions, filed suit in federal court alleging that Tampa’s ban on gun shows and sales at the Tampa Convention Center was an unconstitutional attempt to regulate political and commercial speech about guns. The city had refused the request despite the fact that Tampa had permitted Atlantic to operate a gun show in 1993. As Assistant City Attorney, you were quoted as saying: “Our position is that if speech is involved, it’s commercial speech, which is not entitled to the same protection under the law as political speech.” a. Do you stand by your statement indicating that you believe that the City of Tampa’s ban on gun shows and sales at the convention center was constitutional? In June of 1994, I served as an Assistant City Attorney for the City of Tampa and chief of the City’s litigation division. In that capacity, I advocated the City’s position with regard to a prohibition of gun shows on city owned property. The mayor of Tampa, then, Sandra Freedman, and her staff decided in March of 1994 to prohibit gun shows on city owned property. The statement that I made to the reporter from the St. Petersburg Times was made in my capacity as a zealous advocate for my client, the City of Tampa. Given the status of the law in 1994, the position advanced by the City was honestly debatable. If confirmed by the Senate to serve as a District Court Judge, I will follow legal precedent, pursuant to the doctrine of stare decisis, on this issue. Does the Supreme Court’s opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, holding that the right to bear arms is an individual right affect your analysis of the constitutionality of the ban? District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) had not been decided when the City of Tampa announced its ban prohibiting gun shows on city owned property. Heller was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 26, 2008. If confirmed by the Senate to serve as a District Court Judge, I will follow legal precedent, including District of Columbia v. Heller, supra. In Nordyke v. King, the Ninth Circuit evaluated whether a county ordinance prohibiting the possession of firearms on county property, and thereby prohibiting a gun show on county property, was 1

Response:

b.

Response:

c.

constitutional. In its opinion, the Court held that the Second Amendment had been incorporated against the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has not yet addressed this question. Do you agree that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment applicable against state and county governments? Response: In Nordyke v. King, 563 F.3d 439 (9th Cir. 2009), the Ninth Circuit did find that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against states and local governments. However, a few weeks ago, on July 29, 2009, in Nordyke v. King, 575 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2009), the Ninth Circuit decided to rehear the previous Nordyke v. King decision en banc and indicated that the previous three judge panel opinion should not be cited as precedent by or to any other court of the Ninth Circuit. Therefore, it appears that the issue of the application of the Second Amendment to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment is still an unsettled area of the law. Until the U.S. Supreme Court or the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rules on this issue, it would be inappropriate for me, a district court nominee, to opine on this matter. If confirmed by the Senate to serve as a District Court Judge, I will follow legal precedent pursuant to the doctrine of stare decisis.

2.

Following your statement, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Atlantic against the City of Tampa. The District Court held that the State of Florida had pre-empted the field of gun regulation which prevented Tampa from arguing successfully that its refusal to allow the gun show advanced a strong municipal interest. The Court further rejected Tampa’s alternative argument that a gun show would put the Convention Center in a bad light. The District Court noted Supreme Court precedent holding that commercial speech is entitled to some First Amendment Protection, and that “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). Do you agree with the district court’s ruling? Response: Empathy I agree with the district court’s ruling.

1.

President Obama has described the types of judges that he will nominate to the federal bench as follows: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.” a. Do you believe that you fit the President’s criteria for federal judges, as described in his quote? 2

Response:

To the extent that I am an African American woman, I fit one of President Obama’s criteria for federal judges. What role do you believe that empathy should play in a judge’s consideration of a case? Empathy does not play a role in my consideration of cases. Presently, I decide cases by applying the law to the facts of the cases pending before me. If confirmed by the Senate to serve as a District Court Judge, I will decide cases in the same manner.

b.

Response:

Public Defender 1. Early in your career you spent several years as a public defender. a. Response: How will this experience impact your judging? My experience as an Assistant Public Defender will not have any particular impact on my judging. In addition to serving as an Assistant Public Defender for five years, I served as an Assistant City Attorney representing a governmental body, a municipal corporation, for seven years. Further, as a shareholder with a major Tampa law firm, I represented many corporate defendants for six years. I am the product of all of these experiences. However, I don’t decide cases based upon my experiences. Presently, as a state court judge, and if confirmed by the Senate to serve as a District Court Judge, I will decide cases by applying the law to the facts of the cases pending before me. Do you have any legal or moral beliefs which would inhibit or prevent you from imposing or upholding a death sentence in any criminal case that might come before you as a federal judge? No, I do not have any legal or moral beliefs which will inhibit or prevent me from imposing or upholding a death sentence in any criminal case that might come before me as a federal judge. If confirmed by the Senate as a District Court Judge, I will take an oath and follow that oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and the laws of this country. Do you believe that 10, 15, or even 20-year delays between conviction of a capital offender and execution is too long? The reasons for delays between conviction of a capital offender and execution are numerous and varied. The reasons for delays depend upon the particular facts of each case. Therefore, I am unable to address this

b.

Response:

c.

Response:

3

question specifically. Additionally, as a state court judge, I am prohibited from rendering an opinion on a matter that may come before me. d. Do you believe that once Congress or a state legislature has made the policy decision that capital punishment is appropriate that the federal courts should focus their resources on resolving capital cases expeditiously? Federal courts have the responsibility of applying the law to the facts of cases before them and of doing so in a timely manner.

Response:

Precedent 1. Supreme Court precedents are binding on all lower federal courts and Circuit Court precedents are binding on the district courts within the particular circuit. a. Are you committed to following the precedents of higher courts faithfully and giving them full force and effect, even if you personally disagree with such precedents? I am committed to following the precedents of higher courts faithfully and giving them full force and effect. As part of my training after becoming a state court judge, I was taught that, as a judge, I have no personal opinions, i.e., my personal opinions don’t matter. That advice has served me well over the past eight and one-half years. My role is simply to apply the law to the facts of the cases before me in an impartial and unbiased manner. How would you rule if you believed the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals had seriously erred in rendering a decision? Would you nevertheless apply that decision of your own best judgment of the merits? If confirmed by the Senate to serve as a District Court Judge, it would not be my role to question the opinions of courts of appeal or of the United States Supreme Court. Rather, I would be required to follow legal precedent, pursuant to the doctrine of stare decisis. Therefore, I would apply decisions of the Supreme Court or the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Response:

b.

Response:

4

The Role of a Judge 1. What in your view is the role of a judge? Response: The role of a judge is to apply the law to the facts of the case pending before the judge, and to do so in an impartial, unbiased and timely fashion. How would you define “judicial activism?” I don’t use the term “judicial activism” because of the confusion surrounding its meaning. Judicial activism is usually used to criticize judicial rulings that are viewed as unreasonable interpretations of laws and or cases which are tantamount to legislating from the bench. Some people refer to the Constitution as a “living” document that is constantly evolving as society interprets it. Do you agree with this perspective of constitutional interpretation? There are numerous meanings and conflicting contentions surrounding the idea of a “living” constitution. As such, I am unable to agree with any broad or general classifications of the Constitution. The Constitution represents the supreme law of this land. If confirmed by the Senate to serve as a District Court Judge, I will uphold the Constitution and follow legal precedent which has interpreted its provisions.

a. Response:

b.

Response:

5

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 20 of 23

finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Equal Protection claim. 6. Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process Claim

“Substantive due process protects only those rights that are ‘fundamental,’ a description that applies only to those rights created by the United States Constitution.” Id. (citing Greenbriar Village, L.L.C. v. Mountain Brook, City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2003)). “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. 7. 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 - Conspiracy Against Rights Claim

“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State . . . in the free exercise of enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same . . . [t]hey shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not more than ten years, or both . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 241. Furthermore, “[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 242. Plaintiffs cannot bring an action under these statutes because they are only brought in criminal proceedings. U.S. v. City of Philadelphia, 644 F.2d 187, 192-93 (3d Cir. 1980)(noting that the United States initiates criminal prosecutions under these statutes, and there are other adequate - 20 -

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

6/13/2010

Civil - Small Claims Detail

Civil / Small Claims Detail Information
* The data displayed below was last modified 1/20/2010 7:03:35 PM BUSSE, JORG ETAL PLAINTIFF VS STATE OF FLORIDA ETAL DEFENDANT Case Number: Uniform Case Number: Case Type: Sub Case Type: Judge: Filed Date: Disposition: Disposition Date: Gerald, Lynn, Jr. 7/31/2006 Other 12/5/2008 06-CA-003185 362006CA0031850001CH CA Declaratory Judgment

Plaintiffs Lay, Janet Busse, Jorg Roesch Family Ruzicka, Gerald E Carroll Family Attorney: Janet Lay Attorney: Jorg Busse Attorney: Roesch Family Attorney: Gerald E Ruzicka Attorney: Carroll Family

Defendants Beason, Tom Lee County Property Appraisers Office Turner, John Norman, Reginald
http://www.leeclerk.org/Civil_Detail.as…

Attorney: Attorney: Attorney: Attorney:
1/22

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 1 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT. MYERS DIVISION

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE, Plaintiffs, v. 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; 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, Defendants. / ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on five motions to dismiss: 1) Defendants A. Brian Albritton, Sean P. Flynn, E. Kenneth Stegeby, and David P. Rhodes filed their Motion to Dismiss CASE NO. 2: 09-CV-791-FtM-36SPC

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

WHEN STUPID JUDGES LIE RECORD JUDICIAL TRASH: Dishon. Charlene E. Honeywell

DOC. # 213 , p. 6
2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC
“Besides this hearing before the Special Magistrate, there is no indication or record of a state court proceeding addressing the property dispute that Plaintiffs continue to pursue in federal court.”

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 6 of 23

classification5 of Lot 15A, Busse “directed his testimony and argument to issues involving a boundary dispute that he had with the Property Appraiser and Lee County” (Dkt. 64, Ex. 1, p. 38). Special Magistrate Rutland further noted that she made “no findings concerning [Busse’s] argument regarding a boundary dispute with the County and the Property Appraiser as that [was] not the issue on appeal. The only issue [was] whether this property [was] entitled to an agricultural classification” (Dkt. 64, Ex. 1, p. 38). Besides this hearing before the Special Magistrate, there is no indication or record of a state court proceeding addressing the property dispute that Plaintiffs continue to pursue in federal court. A. Previous Cases

A total of nine cases have been filed in or transferred to the Middle District of Florida relating to Plaintiffs’ property dispute. 1. Case Number 2:07-CV-228

The first case was filed by Plaintiff Busse against Defendants Lee County, et al. Busse asserted that Defendants deprived him of ownership and riparian rights as to Lot 15A of the Cayo Costa Subdivision. Busse further claimed that Resolution 569/875 violated his property rights in the specified lot. Judge John Steele previously found that there was no jurisdiction over the Takings Clause claim, no procedural due process claim stated, no equal protection claim stated, and no other basis for exercising federal jurisdiction. On May 5, 2008, Judge Steele issued an Opinion and Order dismissing Busse’s Third Amended Complaint without prejudice as to all of the defendants (2:07CV-228, Dkt. 338), and a judgment was entered the following day (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 339). On August 30, 2006, Busse filed an application for agricultural classification of the property based on the alleged use of bee boxes. The Property Appraiser denied the application because the property was not being used for a bona fide agricultural purpose when the Appraiser made a physical inspection of the property on September 15, 2006. -65

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 22 of 23

Flynn, Stegeby, and Rhodes (Dkt. 69) is GRANTED in part. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice. Additionally, the Court will reserve ruling on the Motion for Injunctive Relief until after the Show Cause Hearing scheduled in this case for June 22, 2010. 2. The Motion for Injunctive Relief of Defendants Albritton, U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, Rhodes, Flynn, Stegeby, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys for the Middle District of Florida (Dkt. 97) is DENIED as moot. 3. The Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Injunctive Relief of Defendants Wilkinson, Alejo, Desjarlais, Peterson, Lee County, Florida, Hawes, Green, Janes, Bigelow, Judah, Hall, and Mann (Dkt. 115) is GRANTED in part. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice. Additionally, the Court will reserve ruling on the Motion for Injunctive Relief until after the Show Cause Hearing scheduled in this case for June 22, 2010. 4. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Hayes and Pivacek (Dkt. 148) is GRANTED in part. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice. 5. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Scott (Dkt. 158) is GRANTED in part. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice. 6. 7. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Johnson Engineering (Dkt. 179) is GRANTED. Of Plaintiffs’ pending motions, fifteen (15) are labeled “Emergency Motion” (Dkt. 5, 118, 143, 152, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 184, 191, 192, 194 and 209). None of these motions present an emergency. They are repetitious, rambling,

incomprehensible and frivolous. In its March 31, 2010 (Dkt. 126) Order To Show - 22 -

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 1 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT. MYERS DIVISION

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE, Plaintiffs, v. 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; 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, Defendants. / ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on five motions to dismiss: 1) Defendants A. Brian Albritton, Sean P. Flynn, E. Kenneth Stegeby, and David P. Rhodes filed their Motion to Dismiss CASE NO. 2: 09-CV-791-FtM-36SPC

6/13/2010

Civil - Small Claims Detail

Papalas, Menelaos Brigham, Tony Prince Moore, S William Brigham Moore LLP Peterson, Jack Neil Owen, David W Vielhauer, Harold George Godfrey, Lynda Russell, Reagan Kathleen Funchess, L Kathryn Funchess, L Kathryn Johnson, Sherri L Collins, Donna Marie Chappell, Sheri Polster Steele, John E Gerald, Lynn Scott, Mike Green, Charlie Lach, Chad Carta, Steven W State of Florida State of Florida Bush, John Ellis Armstrong, Eva Forsyth, Karen L W Jones, Timothy Janes, Bob Bigelow, A Brian Judath, Ray Hall, Tammy
http://www.leeclerk.org/Civil_Detail.as…

Attorney: Attorney: Attorney: Attorney: Attorney: Attorney: Attorney: Attorney: Attorney: Attorney: Attorney: Attorney: Amy Kathryn Tuck Farrington Attorney: Attorney: Attorney: Attorney: Richard Michael Prendergast Attorney: John Westbrook Lewis Attorney: Steven William Carta Attorney: Attorney: Steven William Carta Attorney: Linda Kathryn Funchess Attorney: Reagan Kathleen Russell Attorney: Attorney: Attorney: Attorney: Attorney: Attorney: Attorney: Attorney:
2/22

6/13/2010

Civil - Small Claims Detail

Lee County Florida Board of Lee County Commissioners Mann, Frank Stilwell, Donald D Wilkinson, Kenneth M

Attorney: Attorney: Attorney: Attorney: Attorney: Sherri Lynn Johnson

Service Events Event Date 7/31/2006 10/3/2006 3/30/2007 8/14/2007 8/14/2007 4/14/2008 4/25/2008 4/25/2008 7/17/2008 7/17/2008 7/17/2008 7/17/2008 7/17/2008 11/14/2008 Service Text Summons (20 day) Issued Summons (20 day) Issued Summons (20 day) Issued Summons (20 day) Issued Summons (20 day) Issued Summons (20 day) Issued Summons (20 day) Issued Summons (20 day) Issued Summons (20 day) Issued Summons (20 day) Issued Summons (20 day) Issued Summons (20 day) Issued Summons (20 day) Issued Summons (20 day) Issued Name State of Florida State of Florida Lee County Florida Board of County Commissioners Forsyth, Karen L W Vielhauer, Harold George Russell, Reagan Kathleen Vielhauer, Harold George Funchess, L Kathryn Johnson, Sherri L Collins, Donna Marie Peterson, Jack Neil Wilkinson, Kenneth M Russell, Reagan Kathleen Steele, John E 11/18/2008 12/8/2008 11/19/2008
3/22

Service Date 8/8/2006 10/18/2006 4/4/2007 10/27/2008

Response Due Date 8/28/2006 11/8/2006 4/24/2007 11/17/2008

Return Date 8/16/2006 3/14/2007 4/5/2007 10/28/2008

4/23/2008

5/13/2008

4/28/2008

10/8/2008 7/24/2008 7/24/2008 7/24/2008

10/28/2008 8/13/2008 8/13/2008 8/13/2008

10/24/2008 7/25/2008 7/25/2008 7/25/2008

http://www.leeclerk.org/Civil_Detail.as…

6/13/2010

Civil - Small Claims Detail

11/14/2008 11/14/2008 11/17/2008 11/17/2008 11/17/2008 11/20/2008 11/20/2008 11/25/2008 11/25/2008 12/1/2008

Summons (20 day) Issued Summons (20 day) Issued Summons (20 day) Issued Summons (20 day) Issued Summons (20 day) Issued Summons (20 day) Issued Summons (20 day) Issued Summons (20 day) Issued Summons (20 day) Issued Summons (20 day) Issued

Gerald, Lynn, Jr. Scott, Mike Green, Charlie Janes, Bob Owen, David W Carta, Steven W Lach, Chad Brigham, Tony Prince Chappell, Sheri Polster Chappell, Sheri Polster

11/18/2008 11/18/2008 11/19/2008 11/18/2008 11/18/2008 11/24/2008 12/1/2008

12/8/2008 12/8/2008 12/9/2008 12/8/2008 12/8/2008 12/15/2008 12/22/2008

11/19/2008 11/19/2008 11/20/2008 11/19/2008 11/19/2008 11/25/2008 12/3/2008

Docket Lines Docket Date 7/31/2006 7/31/2006 7/31/2006 8/14/2006 8/16/2006 8/16/2006 8/29/2006 9/6/2006 9/8/2006 10/3/2006 10/3/2006 Docket Text Petition Civil Cover Sheet Summons (20 day) Issued State of Florida (Served 08/08/2006) Notice of Appearance Petition Motion to Dismiss Correspondence Motion for Temporary Injunction Motion to Dismiss Summons (20 day) Issued State of Florida (Served 10/18/2006) Amended Petition
4/22

http://www.leeclerk.org/Civil_Detail.as…

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1.

Nature of the Suit Appellant Busse claims to own and public records confirm his ownership of a

50' x 130' lot bordering a platted 60' street on a barrier island in Lee County named Cayo Costa. Busse claims riparian rights. The State, the County and the Property Appraiser deny his claim of riparian rights. 2. Course of Proceedings Busse’s various attempts to frame a complaint (Dkt. Nos. 1, 25, 102, 282, 288) were dismissed by the Court (Dkt. Nos. 87, 267, 338). Between these events, Busse, in what can only be termed as vexatiously, filed a barrage of “motions” (e.g. Dkt. No. 65: “emergency motion for criminal prosecution of defendants’ lawyers”; Dkt. No. 68: “plaintiff’s motion for emergency hearing on the issue of defendants’ 1969 bogus resolution”; Dkt. No. 70:, inter alia, “motion to restrain defendants...from use of deadly weapons in the private Cayo Costa subdivision”) and other pleadings variously termed “notices” (e.g. Dkt.Nos. 48, 62, 63, 92, 221), “responses”, “exhibits”, “evidence”, “interrogatories”, “affidavits”, “memorandums”, etc. The docket below stands res ipsa loquitur. Busse, apparently as a litigation tactic, also filed formal complaints with the
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF CITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Nature of the Suit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Course of Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Disposition Below . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 2 3

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 STANDARD OF REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1. The District Court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

i

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August ____, 2008, I sent two true and correct copies of the foregoing to: Jorg Busse, Post Office Box 1126, Naples, FL 341061126; and one copy each to the following: Harold G. Vielhauer, Esq., L. Kathryn Funchess, Esq. and Reagan K. Russell, Esq., Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., M.S. 35, Tallahassee, FL 32399 and Sherri L. Johnson, Dent & Johnson, Chartered, 3415 Magic Oak Lane, Post Office Box 3259, Sarasota, FL 34230. DAVID M. OWEN LEE COUNT ATTORNEY 2115 SECOND STREET POST OFFICE BOX 398 FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33902 (239) 533-2236

By:________________________ JACK N. PETERSON Assistant County Attorney Florida Bar No. 0832774

11

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

JUDICIAL TRASH
DOC. # 213, PAGE 5 CORRUPT BUNGLING JUDGE CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL
“I. BACKGROUND 4 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). 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).”

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

CORRUPT HONEYWELL STRUCK AGAIN:

Fixed Latest Case & “Dismissed” UN-FILED Allegations & Evidence against Defendant(s), e.g.:
Johnson Engineering, Inc. Lee County, Florida Lee County Value Adjustment Board State of Florida Attorney General Janes
http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell Bigelow Pivacek Mann Siebens Hayes Rutland Scott Peterson Bernard Judah Quillen Carta Hall Gilbertson Martin

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

THE COURT ONLY FILED COMPLAINT PAGES 1-100, AND 179,180. THE COURT NEVER FILED PAGES 101-178 AND EXHIBITS: See Doc. # 1.

Page 9 26 32 34 38 49

Defendant(s) State of Florida Stevens Lach Russell Alejo Peterson

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

56 Wilkinson 73 Green 79 Hawes 81 Desjarlais 94-113 (U.S. Attorneys)

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

Face of Real Estate Fraud:
• Fake “lot” and “block” numbers such as, e.g.: o “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”; o “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”; Neither fake “lot” “00A0” nor “block” “00001”ever existed. • Fake “Government ownership” claims; • Fake “transaction(s)” such as, e.g., “O.R. 569/875”; • Fake “resolution” and “law” “claims”; • Fake “land” “parcels”; • Fake “frivolity” “defenses”; • Fake “vexatiousness” contentions;

• Fake “legal descriptions”:

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.reportpubliccorruption.org/

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

http://www.reportpubliccorruption.org/

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 1 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT. MYERS DIVISION

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE, Plaintiffs, v. 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; 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, Defendants. / ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on five motions to dismiss: 1) Defendants A. Brian Albritton, Sean P. Flynn, E. Kenneth Stegeby, and David P. Rhodes filed their Motion to Dismiss CASE NO. 2: 09-CV-791-FtM-36SPC

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 2 of 23

and Motion for Injunctive Relief on February 26, 2010 (Dkt. 69);1 2) Defendants Kenneth W. Wilkinson, Roger Alejo, Roger Desjarlais, Jack N. Peterson, Lee County, Florida, Karen B. Hawes, Charlie Green, Bob Janes, Brian Bigelow, Ray Judah, Tammy Hall, and Frank Mann filed their Motion to Dismiss on March 30, 2010 (Dkt. 115);2 3) Defendants The Honorable Hugh D. Hayes and The Honorable Cynthia A. Pivacek filed their Motion to Dismiss on April 12, 2010 (Dkt. 148); 4) Defendant Mike Scott filed his Motion to Dismiss on April 20, 2010 (Dkt. 158); and Defendant Johnson Engineering, Inc. filed its Motion to Dismiss on May 24, 2010 (Dkt. 179). In addition, Plaintiffs have filed several motions: 1) Emergency Motion to Enjoin Fraudulent Judgments and Execution of Fraudulent Judgments in Case No. 2:07-CV-228 filed on December 4, 2009 (Dkt. 5); 2) Emergency Motion for Judicial Notice of Appeal and Payment of Appeal Fees in U.S. District Court, Case # 2:07-CV-00228-Fort Myers-JES-SPC, Doc. # 428, Appeal From Governmental Corruption, Fraud, and Fraud on the Court filed on March 29, 2010 (Dkt. 118); 3) Motion for Summary Judgment Against U.S. Attorneys filed on March 29, 2010 (Dkt. 119); 4) Motion for Sanctions After Expiration of 21 Days, and Memorandum, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 filed on March 29, 2010 (Dkt. 121); 5) Motion for Change of Venue Because of Record Corruption, Concealment, Fraud on the Court, and Obstruction of Justice filed on March 29, 2010 (Dkt. 123); 6) Motion for Relief from Defendants’ Fraud on the Court, and Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Fraud on the Court and Fraudulent Pleadings, Doc. # 69, and 70, and Plaintiffs’ Direct

These Defendants also filed a motion for injunctive relief (Dkt. 97) and a motion for sanctions against Plaintiffs (Dkt. 149). These Defendants also adopted co-Defendants Albritton, Flynn, Stegeby and Rhodes’ Motion (Dkt. 69) as to “Background,” Argument, and Injunctive Relief in their Motion to Dismiss. -22

1

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 3 of 23

Attack Upon Any and All Previous Orders & Judgments, Which Were Procured Through Fraud & Fraudulent Pretenses filed on March 29, 2010 (Dkt. 124); 7) Motions for Corrections of Docket and Filing of Entire Complaint filed on April 7, 2010 (Dkt. 135);3 8) Emergency Motions to Enjoin Fraudulent Concealment of Governmental Forgeries by Crooked Defendant Assistant Attorney Jack N. Peterson, and Strike His Purported “Motion to Dismiss” for Idiotic Name Calling Such As, E.G., “Vexatious and/or Bothersome Litigant” to Criminally Coerce the Plaintiffs to Refrain from Litigation filed on April 9, 2010 (Dkt. 143); 9) Emergency Motion for Recusal of “Judicial Prostitute” Chappell Who Accepted Defendants’ Bribes in Exchange for Case Fixing, See “Order,” Doc. # 127, 04/01/2010 and for Judicial Notice of Nazi-Style Judicial and Governmental Record Bullying & Coercion to Cover Up Governmental Forgeries filed on April 12, 2010 (Dkt. 144); 10) Emergency Motions for Judicial Notice of Governmental Terror by Vexatious Defendants and of Appeal Number 10-10967-I as “Docketed on March 5, 2010" filed on April 9, 2010 (Dkt. 146);11) Emergency Motion to ‘Enjoin’ Nazi-Style Governmental Tactics of Terror, Oppression, Retaliation, Fraud on the Court, Doc. # 149, and Criminal Concealment of Forgeries “O.R. 569/875" filed on April 16, 2010 (Dkt. 152); 12) Emergency Motions for Judgment(s) on the Merits Against Defendants Lee County and Sanctions Against Said Defendants for Criminal Concealment of Fake “Law,” “O.R. 569/875,” which Had No Legal Effect, Because Law Prohibited “Legislative Adjudication” of Fundamental Property Rights & Plaintiffs’ Record Ownership filed on April 23, 2010 (Dkt. 160); 13) Emergency Motions for Judgment(s) on the Merits Against “Federal
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. -3-

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 4 of 23

Defendants” and Sanctions Against Said Defendants, and “Legal Whore” Corinis, for Criminal Concealment of Fake “Law,” E.G. Doc. #159, 04/21/2010, filed on April 23, 2010 (Dkt. 161); 14) Emergency Motion to Cease and Desist Case Fixing & Adjudicate Pro Se Plaintiffs’ Claims in Their Favor Under the Law filed on April 23, 2010 (Dkt. 162);15) Emergency Motion to Enjoin Reverse Discrimination & Fraud by Afro American Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell Against the Pro Se Caucasian Plaintiffs filed on April 23, 2010 (Dkt. 163); 16) Emergency Motion to Enjoin Hate Mail & Threats by Defendant Psychopath Jack N. Peterson filed on April 23, 2010 (Dkt. 164); 17) Emergency Motion to Comply with Fed. R. Evidence and to Enjoin “Final Solution” of “Frivolity” and Hate Crimes against Pro Se Plaintiffs filed on April 23, 2010 (Dkt. 165); 18) Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Judges Who Concealed Criminal Invasion of Private Property Rights Under Fraudulent Pretenses of “Frivolity” Doc. # 148 “04/12/2010" filed on April 23, 2010 (Dkt. 166); 19) Motion for Reconsideration filed on June 1, 2010 (Dkt. 182); 20) Motion for Reconsideration of Order filed on June 1, 2010 (Dkt. 183); 21) Emergency Motion to Enjoin Record Crimes & “Public Sale” Scam Perpetrated by Defendant Corrupt Official Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Emergency Motion to Enjoin Record Crimes and “Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property,” by Defendant Corrupt Official Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Doc. # 432-3, 5/21/10, Public Notice of Prima Facie Criminality of “Wilkinson’s Motion for Entry of Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property and Incorporated Memorandum of Law,” Doc. # 432, 05/21/2010, and Cover Up of Corruption under Fraudulent Pretenses of “Frivolity” filed on June 4, 2010 (Dkt. 184); 22) Emergency Motion for Relief from Fraud on the Court, Rule 60(b), Judicial Corruption, Bribery, and Criminal Concealment of Record Absence of Any “Lee County” Title or Ownership of Facially Forged Parcels “12-44-2001-00000.00A0" & 07-44-21-01-00001.0000 filed on June 17, 2010 (Dkt. 191); 23) Emergency -4-

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 5 of 23

Motions for Change of Venue Because of Proven Judicial Corruption, Bribery, and Criminal Concealment of Record Absence of Any “Lee County” Title or Ownership of Facially Forged Parcels “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0" & 07-44-21-01-00001.0000 filed on June 17, 2010 (Dkt. 192); 24) Emergency Motion for Recusal of Defendant Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell, 28 U.S.C. § 455, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 filed on June 17, 2010 (Dkt. 193); and 25) Emergency Motion for Order to Show Good Cause Why Crooked Judge C.E. Honeywell is Not Conspiring to Criminally Conceal Governmental Forgery of Non-Existent Sham “Parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0" as Evidenced by 1912 Plat in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25, and Transcript of 11/07/2007 Court Hearing Before Crooked Chappell filed on June 17, 2010 (Dkt. 194). I. BACKGROUND4 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). 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). On November 17, 2009, Plaintiff Busse appeared for a “quasi-judicial proceeding[]” before a Special Magistrate of the Value Adjustment Board of Lee County, Florida (Dkt. 1, p. 2; Dkt. 64, Ex. 1). Busse appealed a denial of agricultural classification of Lot 15A (Dkt. 64, Ex. 1, p. 38). Special Magistrate Lori Rutland noted that although he appealed a denial of the agricultural Plaintiffs’ Complaint is over one hundred (100) pages and does not clearly explain or designate the factual bases of the underlying causes of action. Based on multiple reviews of the Complaint, in addition to the opinions written by the Eleventh Circuit, this Court attempts to summarize the bases of Plaintiffs’ claims. -54

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 6 of 23

classification5 of Lot 15A, Busse “directed his testimony and argument to issues involving a boundary dispute that he had with the Property Appraiser and Lee County” (Dkt. 64, Ex. 1, p. 38). Special Magistrate Rutland further noted that she made “no findings concerning [Busse’s] argument regarding a boundary dispute with the County and the Property Appraiser as that [was] not the issue on appeal. The only issue [was] whether this property [was] entitled to an agricultural classification” (Dkt. 64, Ex. 1, p. 38). Besides this hearing before the Special Magistrate, there is no indication or record of a state court proceeding addressing the property dispute that Plaintiffs continue to pursue in federal court. A. Previous Cases

A total of nine cases have been filed in or transferred to the Middle District of Florida relating to Plaintiffs’ property dispute. 1. Case Number 2:07-CV-228

The first case was filed by Plaintiff Busse against Defendants Lee County, et al. Busse asserted that Defendants deprived him of ownership and riparian rights as to Lot 15A of the Cayo Costa Subdivision. Busse further claimed that Resolution 569/875 violated his property rights in the specified lot. Judge John Steele previously found that there was no jurisdiction over the Takings Clause claim, no procedural due process claim stated, no equal protection claim stated, and no other basis for exercising federal jurisdiction. On May 5, 2008, Judge Steele issued an Opinion and Order dismissing Busse’s Third Amended Complaint without prejudice as to all of the defendants (2:07CV-228, Dkt. 338), and a judgment was entered the following day (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 339). On August 30, 2006, Busse filed an application for agricultural classification of the property based on the alleged use of bee boxes. The Property Appraiser denied the application because the property was not being used for a bona fide agricultural purpose when the Appraiser made a physical inspection of the property on September 15, 2006. -65

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 7 of 23

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit found that Busse did not state a valid claim for procedural due process, equal protection, or substantive due process (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 365, p. 10-12); Busse, et al. v. Lee County, Florida, et al., 317 Fed. Appx. 968, 974 (11th Cir. Mar. 5, 2009), reh’g denied, 347 Fed. Appx. 555 (11th Cir. May 27, 2009). As for the Takings Clause claim, the Eleventh Circuit held that Busse “ha[d] not alleged that he sought and was denied compensation through available state procedures,” and therefore, “his Takings Clause claim [was] not . . . ripe for review” (2:07-CV228, Dkt. 365, p. 9). Consequently, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 365).6 In light of the Eleventh Circuit’s affirmation, Busse filed several notices of appeal in July 2009, seeking review of the same motions and demands that had previously been dismissed by the Eleventh Circuit. All of these notices were dismissed for lack of prosecution because Busse did not pay the filing fees. Despite previous court orders, Busse continued to file repetitive motions for relief from the judgment (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 381-83), which were denied as moot (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 384). On November 30, 2009, Defendant Wilkinson filed a Motion for Writ of Execution (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 386). Busse then filed several emergency motions for relief from the “fraudulent” judgment, in addition to several notices of appeal (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 388-415). Again, the notices of appeal were dismissed for lack of prosecution, and an order was issued on January 26, 2010 denying all of Busse’s pending notices of appeal and emergency motions for relief and recusal (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 422). Notably, the Order directed the Clerk to no longer accept any filing, related or unrelated to this Busse also filed a notice of appeal claiming case-fixing, bribery, corruption, conspiracy under false pretenses, etc. on May 4, 2009. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the Notice of Appeal sua sponte because Busse did not file it within 30 days of the District Court’s order, thus making his demands moot (Dkt. 366, p. 2). -76

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 8 of 23

specific case, by Plaintiff Prescott or Plaintiff Busse, for filing in the case was closed, except for a single notice of appeal as to the Order. On February 1, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued an order granting Defendant Wilkinson’s Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 424). The Writ of Execution issued on February 2, 2010 (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 425). 2. Case No. 2:08-CV-364

In the midst of the initial case, Plaintiffs filed a second complaint on May 5, 2008, which was the same day that Judge Steele dismissed Plaintiff Busse’s complaint in Case No. 2:07-CV-228. On July 15, 2008, the Court issued an order emphasizing that the allegations in the complaint were nearly identical to those in 2:07-CV-228 (2:08-CV-364, Dkt. 56). Because the Court previously found no basis for federal jurisdiction over Busse’s claims, it directed Plaintiffs to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On July 24, 2008, the Court issued an order dismissing the complaint without prejudice for the same reasons as previously stated in the related case, 2:07-CV-228 (2:08-CV-364, Dkt. 70).7 3. Case No. 2:08-CV-899

On December 8, 2008, while 2:07-CV-228 was pending and after 2:08-CV-364 was dismissed, Plaintiffs filed a third complaint. In this case, Plaintiffs alleged claims against various state and federal judges, including Judge Steele, Magistrate Judge Sheri Chappell, and state entities, alleging that Plaintiffs held “perfect exclusive unencumbered legal title” to Lot 15A, which was the basis of the two previous cases (2:08-CV-899, Dkt. 2, ¶2). Because the previous complaints were

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. Prescott, et al. v. State of Florida, et al., 343 Fed. Appx. 395 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2009). -8-

7

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 9 of 23

dismissed, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants were corrupt and denied their rights. The judges in the Fort Myers Division of the Middle District of Florida recused themselves from presiding over this case (2:08-CV-899, Dkt. 7). Consequently, Judge Richard Lazzara and Magistrate Judge Mark Pizzo of the Tampa Division presided over the case. On December 30, 2008, Magistrate Judge Pizzo entered an order directing Plaintiffs to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed based on the Opinion and Order entered in 2:07CV-228 (2:08-CV-899, Dkt. 52). The Order also established certain restrictions on Plaintiffs’ filings and contact with parties. Upon finding violations of the Order, Magistrate Judge Pizzo set a hearing for which Plaintiffs failed to appear (2:08-CV-899, Dkt. 75). After their failure to appear, Magistrate Judge Pizzo entered another order directing Plaintiffs to appear before Judge Lazzara to show cause as to why they should not be adjudged in contempt (2:08-CV-899, Dkt. 76). Magistrate Judge Pizzo also issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice (2:08-CV-899, Dkt. 121). On the date of the second hearing, January 20, 2009, Plaintiffs once again failed to appear in spite of notice that they would be subject to sanctions if they did not appear as directed (2:08-CV899, Dkt. 147-48). On February 4, 2009, the Report and Recommendation was adopted, the case was dismissed with prejudice, and further filings in the case were restricted (2:08-CV-899, Dkt. 186). The numerous and non-consolidated appeals were dismissed by the Eleventh Circuit because the orders appealed were not appealable, the notices of appeal were untimely, or the appeals were not prosecuted. 4. Case No. 2:09-CV-41

On January 23, 2009, while 2:07-CV-228 was being appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, after -9-

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 10 of 23

2:08-CV-364 was dismissed and before 2:08-CV-899 was dismissed, Plaintiffs filed a fourth complaint again alleging conspiracy, “case-fixing,” corruption, and fraud by various federal and state judges, including Judge Steele, Magistrate Judge Chappell, and other state entities with regard to the same property. As done previously, the judges in the Fort Myers Division of the Middle District of Florida recused themselves from presiding over this case (2:09-CV-41, Dkt. 7). On January 30, 2009, Judge Lazzara issued an order directing Plaintiffs to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice and without notice (2:09-CV-41, Dkt. 8). On February 10, 2009, finding only “a barrage of motions, objections, and miscellaneous pleadings which were prolix in nature and incomprehensible and unintelligible in content,” Judge Lazzara dismissed the complaint with prejudice and directed that no further filings in the case would be accepted except for a single notice of appeal (2:09-CV-41, Dkt. 75).8 On September 10, 2009, the Eleventh Circuit summarily affirmed the dismissal of the complaint and four days later dismissed the additional appeals for want of prosecution (2:09-CV-41, Dkt. 133-34). 5. Case No. 2:09-CV-341

On May 26, 2009, after having two complaints dismissed without prejudice and two complaints dismissed with prejudice, Plaintiffs filed a fifth complaint alleging, yet again, claims against federal judges, the Clerk of Court, various state entities and counsel who appeared on behalf of named Defendants. Plaintiffs alleged several nefarious acts relating to the same property. Judge Lazzara issued an order directing Plaintiffs to show cause as to why the complaint should not be dismissed as frivolous (2:09-CV-341, Dkt. 7). On June 4, 2009, Judge Lazzara dismissed the case with prejudice after finding no intelligent response to the previous Order and determining that the Judge Lazzara previously reminded Plaintiffs of the Court’s obligation to respond to copious and almost daily emergency filings (See, e.g. 2:09-CV-41, Dkt. 31). - 10 8

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 11 of 23

complaint was patently frivolous (2:09-CV-341, Dkt. 17). Plaintiffs’ filings were again restricted based on their consistent pattern of frivolous filings of motions and notices. The numerous appeals were dismissed as frivolous or for want of prosecution. 6. Case No. 2:09-CV-602

On September 11, 2009, after the previous five cases were dismissed, Plaintiffs filed a sixth complaint relating to the same property. As before, Plaintiffs filed complaints alleging nefarious acts against federal judges, state judges, state entities, counsel representing Defendants, and even the United States of America. After several motions were filed by Plaintiffs for recusal, summary judgment, and other judicial actions, Judge Lazzara issued an order on November 11, 2009 dismissing the case with prejudice (2:09-CV-602, Dkt. 148). Judge Lazzara further directed the Clerk not to accept any filings from Plaintiffs in this case with the exception of a single notice of appeal from the Order. Judge Lazzara also warned that if Plaintiffs instituted another baseless action that the Court would look favorably on imposing an injunction and sanctions. 7. Case No. 2:10-CV-89

On February 9, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their eighth complaint about the same property. Again, Plaintiffs filed claims against federal judges, state judges, state entities, and counsel representing Defendants. This case has been reassigned to this Court. 8. Case No. 2:10-CV-390

On June 21, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their ninth complaint about the same property and court proceedings that have occurred in prior lawsuits. Plaintiffs filed claims against federal judges and attorneys. This case has been assigned to Judge John Steele.

- 11 -

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 12 of 23

B.

Current Case

Despite having a total of six dismissed complaints and being warned of instituting another action pertaining to Lot 15A against the same and similar Defendants, Plaintiffs filed their present complaint on December 1, 2009 in the West Palm Beach Division of the Southern District of Florida9 (Dkt. 1). Yet again, Plaintiffs assert virtually the same allegations of corruption, fraud, and bribery against state judges, state entities, and counsel for Defendants among others. Despite titling their Complaint as an “Independent Action for Relief from Fraud on the Courts,” it is apparent that the present complaint relates to the same property, Lot 15A of the Cayo Costa Subdivision. In their Complaint, which totals in excess of 230 numbered paragraphs, Plaintiffs continue to allege Constitutional violations relating to this property and the litigation surrounding it. As outlined previously, Plaintiffs have filed a litany of motions and notices, most of which are convoluted and incomprehensible. Plaintiffs allege claims in this case against several Defendants from previous litigation. Plaintiffs claim violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments (Dkt. 1, ¶229). They also state that there is federal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988. Id. These claims are in addition to several alleged state law claims. II. ANALYSIS A. Failure to State a Claim

“While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, [ ] a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’

The case was transferred to the Fort Myers Division of the Middle District of Florida on December 4, 2009 (Dkt. 3). - 12 -

9

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 13 of 23

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)(citations omitted). A plaintiff must plead enough facts to state a plausible basis for the claim. Id.(emphasis added). “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998)(citing Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d 1477, 1491 (11th Cir. 1991)). Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988,10 in addition to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eleventh, and Fourteenth Amendments. Even assuming that a federal question is present, this case must be dismissed for failure to adequately state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 1. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a plaintiff to state a cause of action in “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” There is a higher pleading requirement for Section 1983 cases in the Eleventh Circuit to “weed out

10

42 U.S.C. § 1988(a) reads: The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts by the provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70 of the Revised Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect . . . .

The Court is unclear what claim Plaintiffs attempt to allege under this particular statute. Generally, this statute has been cited as it applies to attorney and expert fees. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), (c). Seeing that neither appears to be applicable to this case, the Court will not analyze this alleged claim. - 13 -

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 14 of 23

nonmeritorious claims.” GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1367 (11th Cir. 1998). “Thus a plaintiff must allege some factual detail as the basis for a § 1983 claim.” Keating v. City of Miami, 598 F.3d 753, 763 (11th Cir. 2010)(citation omitted). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). The Court will now address Plaintiffs’ Constitutional claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. a. First Amendment Claim

“The First Amendment itself expressly provides that ‘Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Amnesty Int’l, USA v. Battle, 559 F.3d 1170, 1186 (11th Cir. 2009)(citing U.S. Const. Amend. I). “The First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances includes a right of access to the courts.” Bank of Jackson County v. Cherry, 980 F.2d 1362, 1370 (11th Cir. 1993)(citations omitted). However, “[t]he right of access to the courts ‘is neither absolute nor unconditional.’” Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1096 (11th Cir. 2008)(citing Cofield v. Ala. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 936 F.2d 512, 516 (11th Cir. 1991)). “Conditions and restrictions on each person’s access are necessary to preserve the judicial resource for all other persons. Frivolous and vexatious law suits threaten the availability of a well-functioning judiciary to all litigants.” Id. Plaintiffs claim that their First Amendment rights were violated because there was an “obstruction of redress of Governmental grievances” (Dkt. 1, p. 7). Plaintiffs do not allege facts to - 14 -

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 15 of 23

support this statement. The Complaint contains incoherent and rambling claims of alleged wrongdoing. The Court could assume that Plaintiffs are referring to the restrictions placed on their abilities to file pleadings. However, as shown in the Background section of this Order, Plaintiffs have access to the courts and can file their complaints and motions. Indeed, they have filed repetitious pleadings, motions, and notices. 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. Because insufficient facts are alleged to support this claim, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their First Amendment claim. b. Fourth Amendment Claim

“The Fourth Amendment applies to searches and seizures in the civil context and may serve to resolve the legality of . . . governmental actions without reference to other constitutional provisions.” U.S. v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 51, 114 S.Ct. 492, 126 L.Ed.2d.490 (1993). However, when the challenged governmental action goes beyond the traditional meaning of search and seizure, which is in the criminal context, the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are controlling. See id. at 52 (When “the Government seized property not to preserve evidence of wrongdoing, but to assert ownership and control over the property itself . . . . [o]ur cases establish that government action of this consequence must comply with the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”). “[T]he seizure of real property . . . violates fifth amendment due process if the property owner is not afforded notice and a hearing prior to the seizure.” United States v. 2751 Peyton Wood Trail, - 15 -

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 16 of 23

S.W., 66 F.3d 1164, 1166 (11th Cir. 1995)(citing James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. at 53). “Unless exigent circumstances are present, the Due Process Clause requires the Government to afford notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before seizing real property . . . .” Id.11 Here, Plaintiffs claim that the seizure of Lot 15A violated the Fourth Amendment (Dkt. 1, p. 7; ¶ 163). However, the Fifth Amendment controls, as opposed to the Fourth Amendment, because the seizure was not within the traditional meaning of a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. at 52. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Fourth Amendment claim. c. Fifth Amendment Claim

“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.” Busse, 317 Fed. Appx. at 971 (citing U.S. Const. Amend. V; Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617, 121 S.Ct. 2448, 2457, 150 L.Ed.2d 592 (2001)). A plaintiff may 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.” Id. at 971-72 (citing Eide v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 720 (11th Cir. 1990)). A plaintiff must demonstrate to the court that he has pursued the available state procedures to obtain just compensation for the property he alleges was taken for public use before filing suit in federal court. Id. at 972.

The Court notes that the cited case involves a seizure of real property in a civil forfeiture action. - 16 -

11

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 17 of 23

Plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe for review because they have not shown that they attempted to obtain or secure relief under established Florida state procedures. The proceeding before the Special Magistrate of the Value Adjustment Board is wholly unrelated to Plaintiffs’ dispute in this case because it only addressed the denial of the agricultural classification of the property in 2006. Because they have not alleged or demonstrated that they have sought compensation for Lot 15A and were denied such compensation through available state procedures, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Fifth Amendment Takings claim. In conclusion, Plaintiffs failed to state any claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court will now address the remaining federal claims in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 2. 42 U.S.C. § 1985 Claim

“42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) provides a cause of action where two or more people conspire ‘for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws . . . .’” Montford v. Moreno, No. 04-12909, 2005 WL 1369563, at *7 (11th Cir. June 9, 2005)(quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)). To state such a claim, the plaintiff must allege: “‘(1) a conspiracy, (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy, (4) whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.’” Id. (quoting Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2002)). The plaintiff must also allege “invidious discriminatory intent” on the part of each defendant. Id. (citation omitted). “‘[C]onclusory, vague, and general allegations of - 17 -

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 18 of 23

conspiracy may justify dismissal of a complaint.’” Id. (quoting Kearson v. S. Bell. Tel. & Tel. Co., 763 F.3d 405, 407 (11th Cir. 1985)). 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. Additionally, Plaintiffs have not alleged the elements of a claim brought under § 1985(3). As such, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. 3. Seventh Amendment Right to a Jury Trial Claim

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(a) states that “[t]he right to a jury trial as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution . . . shall be preserved to the parties inviolate.” Here, Plaintiffs allege that they have been denied the right to a jury trial. Plaintiffs, again, have not alleged facts to support this claim. The Background section of this Order demonstrates that Plaintiffs have been repeatedly dismissed from federal court not on the merits of their claims but on repeated procedural deficiencies. 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. 4. Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due Process Claim

“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” Busse, 317 Fed. Appx. at 972 (citing Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610, - 18 -

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 19 of 23

6115 (11th Cir. 1997); Zipper v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995)). The plaintiff must allege that state law failed to provide him with an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Busse, 317 Fed. Appx. at 972 (citing Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378, 382 (11th Cir. 1996)). Here, Plaintiffs make no argument that Florida failed to provide them with an adequate postdeprivation remedy. “Since alleged problems with the adoption of [the Resolution] cannot serve as the basis for a procedural due process claim,” Plaintiffs cannot rely on them to support such a claim. Id. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Procedural Due Process claim. 5. Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Claim

“The Fourteenth Amendment forbids states from ‘deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’” Busse, 317 Fed. Appx. at 973 (quoting 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.’” Id. (quoting Thigpen v. Bibb County, 223 F.3d 1231, 1237 (11th Cir. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 102 (2002)). 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 - 19 -

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 20 of 23

finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Equal Protection claim. 6. Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process Claim

“Substantive due process protects only those rights that are ‘fundamental,’ a description that applies only to those rights created by the United States Constitution.” Id. (citing Greenbriar Village, L.L.C. v. Mountain Brook, City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2003)). “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. 7. 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 - Conspiracy Against Rights Claim

“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State . . . in the free exercise of enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same . . . [t]hey shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not more than ten years, or both . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 241. Furthermore, “[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 242. Plaintiffs cannot bring an action under these statutes because they are only brought in criminal proceedings. U.S. v. City of Philadelphia, 644 F.2d 187, 192-93 (3d Cir. 1980)(noting that the United States initiates criminal prosecutions under these statutes, and there are other adequate - 20 -

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 21 of 23

remedies to seek alleged violations of Constitutional rights, such as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985). Because there are civil statutes to address Plaintiffs’ alleged Constitutional violations, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their claims under 42 U.S.C. §§241, 242. 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. III. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim in their Complaint upon which relief can be granted in federal court. Accordingly, the federal claims in the Complaint are dismissed.12 With its discretionary authority, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state claims. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Injunctive Relief of Defendants Albritton,

The Court notes that Defendants Albritton, Flynn, Stegeby, and Rhodes alleged that they are entitled to immunity (Dkts. 69, 119). Additionally, Defendants Hayes and Pivacek also argue that they are entitled to qualified and judicial immunity (Dkt. 148). Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted, it does not address the arguments of immunity in this Order. The Complaint does not allege sufficient facts for the Court to determine the issue of immunity. - 21 -

12

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 22 of 23

Flynn, Stegeby, and Rhodes (Dkt. 69) is GRANTED in part. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice. Additionally, the Court will reserve ruling on the Motion for Injunctive Relief until after the Show Cause Hearing scheduled in this case for June 22, 2010. 2. The Motion for Injunctive Relief of Defendants Albritton, U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, Rhodes, Flynn, Stegeby, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys for the Middle District of Florida (Dkt. 97) is DENIED as moot. 3. The Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Injunctive Relief of Defendants Wilkinson, Alejo, Desjarlais, Peterson, Lee County, Florida, Hawes, Green, Janes, Bigelow, Judah, Hall, and Mann (Dkt. 115) is GRANTED in part. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice. Additionally, the Court will reserve ruling on the Motion for Injunctive Relief until after the Show Cause Hearing scheduled in this case for June 22, 2010. 4. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Hayes and Pivacek (Dkt. 148) is GRANTED in part. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice. 5. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Scott (Dkt. 158) is GRANTED in part. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice. 6. 7. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Johnson Engineering (Dkt. 179) is GRANTED. Of Plaintiffs’ pending motions, fifteen (15) are labeled “Emergency Motion” (Dkt. 5, 118, 143, 152, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 184, 191, 192, 194 and 209). None of these motions present an emergency. They are repetitious, rambling,

incomprehensible and frivolous. In its March 31, 2010 (Dkt. 126) Order To Show - 22 -

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213

Filed 06/23/10 Page 23 of 23

Cause, the Court cautioned Plaintiffs about the unwarranted designation of a motion as an emergency motion. The Court retains jurisdiction to impose sanctions. 8. Plaintiffs’ pending Motions (Dkt. 5, 118, 119, 121, 123, 124, 134, 135,143, 146, 152, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 182, 183, 184, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196, and 209) are DENIED as moot. 9. 10. Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions, except the Motion for Prefiling Injunction and Sanctions (Dkt. 149), enter judgment accordingly and CLOSE this case. 11. The Court retains jurisdiction to impose sanctions.

DONE AND ORDERED at Ft. Myers, Florida, on June 23, 2010.

COPIES TO: COUNSEL OF RECORD AND UNREPRESENTED PARTIES

- 23 -

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 212

Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 3

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 212

Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 3

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 212

Filed 06/22/10 Page 3 of 3

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful