8/5/2010

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

Document Selection Menu Select the document you wish to view. Document Number: 436 33 pages 1.2 mb

Attachment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Description Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit 31 pages 27 pages 30 pages 30 pages 35 pages 36 pages 30 pages 47 pages 23 pages 23 pages 27 pages 30 pages 34 pages 40 pages 33 pages 24 pages 1.1 mb 0.9 mb 1.0 mb 1.0 mb 1.1 mb 1.1 mb 1.0 mb 1.9 mb 0.7 mb 0.7 mb 1.0 mb 1.1 mb 1.0 mb 1.4 mb 1.1 mb 0.8 mb

Note: You must view each document individually because the combined PDF would be over the 10 MB size limit.

ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/…/show_doc.pl?…

1/1

8/5/2010

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC
Busse v. Lee County, Florida et al Assigned to: Judge John E. Steele Referred to: Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell Case in other court: 08-13170B 09-12372-B 09-13517F 09-13519F 09-13522F 09-14281F 09-14282F 09-14284F 09-14285F 09-16211F 09-16212F 09-16213F 09-16214F 09-16335F 10-10963-I 10-10967-I 10-11884-I Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation Plaintiff Jorg Busse represented by Jorg Busse P.O. Box 1126 Naples, Fl 34106-1126 239/595-7074 PRO SE Date Filed: 04/10/2007 Date Terminated: 05/06/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Kenneth M. Roesch, Jr. TERMINATED: 09/21/2007 represented by Kelly Lina Rooth Rooth Law Group, PA Suite 322 4399 35th St N St Petersbsurg, FL 33714 727/824-6212 Fax: 727/822-8048 Email: krooth@roothlawgroup.com
1/6

ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p…

8/5/2010

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Anita M. Roesch TERMINATED: 09/21/2007 represented by Kelly Lina Rooth (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Troy Parnell TERMINATED: 09/21/2007 represented by William Alfred Keyes , Jr. Stewart & Keyes, PL 2125 First St - Ste 101 PO Drawer 790 Ft Myers, FL 33902 239/334-7477 Fax: 239/334-7941 Email: stewartkeyespl@comcast.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Lee County, Florida represented by Jack Neil Peterson Lee County Attorney's Office 2115 Second St PO Box 398 Ft Myers, FL 33902 239/533-2236 Fax: 239/485-2118 Email: peterj@leegov.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Board of Lee County Commissioners represented by Jack Neil Peterson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant The Lee County Property Appraiser represented by Jack Neil Peterson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
2/6

ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p…

8/5/2010

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Sherri L. Johnson Dent & Johnson, Chartered 3415 Magic Oak Lane Sarasota, FL 34232 941/952-1070 Email: sjohnson@dentjohnson.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant State of Florida, Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund past & present represented by Harold George Vielhauer Florida Department of Environmental Protection MS 35 3900 Commonwealth Blvd Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 850/245-2242 Fax: 850/245-2296 Email: Harold.Vielhauer@dep.state.fl.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Linda Kathryn Funchess Florida Department of Environmental Protection MS 35 3900 Commonwealth Blvd Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 850/245-2242 Fax: 850/245-2296 Email: kathy.funchess@dep.state.fl.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Reagan Kathleen Russell Florida Department of Environmental Protection* MS 35 3900 Commonwealth Blvd Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Email: reagan.russell@dep.state.fl.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 3/6

8/5/2010

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson represented by Jack Neil Peterson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Sherri L. Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant Lee County Attorney represented by Jack Neil Peterson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and Division of Recreation and Parks represented by Harold George Vielhauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Linda Kathryn Funchess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Reagan Kathleen Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant Jack N. Peterson

Date Filed 02/02/2010 02/04/2010

#

Docket Text

425 WRIT of Execution issued per Order 424 . (drn) (Entered: 02/02/2010) 426 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) dismissing for want of prosecution as to 404 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse. EOD: 1/22/2010; USCA number: 09-16335-F. (slp) (Entered: 02/04/2010) 427 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 425 Writ issued by Jorg Busse. Filing fee not paid. (RMT) (Entered: 02/11/2010)
4/6

02/10/2010

ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p…

8/5/2010

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

02/24/2010 04/06/2010 04/06/2010 04/16/2010 05/21/2010

428 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 422 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Jorg Busse. Filing fee not paid. (kma) (Entered: 03/01/2010) 429 US Marshal 285 form for Writ of execution. (SPB) (Entered: 04/08/2010) 430 WRIT of execution returned Executed as to Jorg Busse. (SPB) (Entered: 04/08/2010) 431 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 429 US Marshal 285 form, 430 Writ returned by Jorg Busse. Filing fee not paid. (SPB) (Entered: 04/19/2010) 432 MOTION for order of sale and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by The Lee County Property Appraiser, Kenneth M. Wilkinson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit C)(Peterson, Jack) (Entered: 05/21/2010) 433 ORDER of USCA dimissing this appeal for want of prosecution as to 431 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse. EOD: 05/21/2010; USCA number: 10-11884I. (kma) (Entered: 05/25/2010) 435 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) DISMISSING AS FRIVOLOUS as to 428 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, 427 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse. EOD: 7/19/10; USCA number: 10-10963-I & 10-10967-I. (slp) (Entered: 07/23/2010) 434 ORDER that plaintiff may file ONE response to defendant's 432 Motion for entry of Order directing public sale of real property within 14 days of this Order. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 7/22/2010. (RKR) (Entered: 07/22/2010) 436 RESPONSE re 434 Order filed by Jorg Busse. Document titled Affidavit Notice of appeal, racketeering, and organized government crimes, Notice of appeal from fraudulent "order(s)", Doc ## 434, 435, 424, and racketering, extortion, retaliation, obstruction of justice, and any and all null & void "orders" by Def. J.E. Steele & S.P. Chappell, and falsified "writ of execution", Doc. ## 425, 434, 435, 433, 430; affidavit; Emergency motion to enjoin fraud on court, Doc. ## 435, 434, 424, 425; Emergency motion to enjoin "sale of property" which government had fraudulently "claimed" to "own" under color of forged "land parcel" ""12-44-20-01-00000.00A0", and facially forged "O.R. 569/875" and Fake "legislative act/resolution/regulation"; Direct independent attqck on organized government crimes; United Staes of America, Ex rel, et al. v. United States of America, et al.; Def. John E. Steele obstructed justice & perverted Florida law (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit)(kma) (Entered: 08/05/2010)

05/25/2010

07/21/2010

07/22/2010

08/03/2010

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
08/05/2010 18:01:30 PACER
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p…

we0083

Client
5/6

8/5/2010

Login: Description: Billable Pages:

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co… we0083 Code:

Docket Report 4

Search Criteria: Cost:

2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Starting with document: 425 0.32

ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p…

6/6

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 3 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 4 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 5 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 6 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 7 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 8 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 9 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 10 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 11 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 12 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 13 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 14 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 15 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 16 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 17 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 18 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 19 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 20 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 21 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 22 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 23 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 24 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 25 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 26 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 27 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 28 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 29 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 30 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 31 of 34

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 64

Filed 08/03/10 Page 32 of 34

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-18
*.JS 44 (Rev. 12/07)

Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 1

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local niles of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. DR. JORG BUSSE AND JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE, JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. DR. JORG BUSS
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES COURTS, UNITED STATES CUSTOM & IMMIGRATION SERVICE, TONY WEST, BEVERLY B. MARTIN, JOHN EDWIN STEELE, RYAN BAR County of Residence of First Listed Defendant WASHINGTON, D.C.
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE LAND INVOLVED.

(c)

Attomev's (Firm Name, Address, and Teleohone Number)

_

Attorneys (If Known)

DR. JORG BUSSE AS PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT AS PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
II. B A S I S O F J U R I S D I C T I O N D 1 U.S. Govenunent Plaintiff M2 U.S. Govenunent Defendant (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

c:

in.

O 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party) O 4 Diversity

CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Pia^n x inO^jforPi Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box$iCDt>*Hldant) lN D E F PTF DEF ^ I—-EfrP2 Citizen of This State O 1 Incorporated or PrincipftPPlace T H r Q ^ ^ ^ a i of Business In This State 1 3 ^n™^ Citizen of Another State Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country a 2 O O 2 Incorporated and Principal Place -fB CS of Business In AnoffccP State 3 1 C Z 3 Foreign Nation fO OD O Tf O5 0 6

(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) a3

IV. NATURE OF SUIT
O 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 O 610 Agriculture PERSONAL INJURY O 362 Personal Injury O 620 Other Food & Drug O 423 Withdrawal O Med. Malpractice O 625 Drug Related Seizure 28 USC 157 o Injury of Property 21 USC88I a 365 Personal Liability a Product O 630 Liquor Laws a mwmwwsmwmrHimm a Truck O 820 Copyrights H a 368 Asbestos Personal O 640 R.R.& Regs. Injuty Product O 650 Airline O 830 Patent a Liability O 660 Occupational O 840 Trademark o PERSONAL PROPERTY Safety/Health a o O 690 Other O 370 Other Fraud a • O 371 Truth in Lending "f"mi", TmtkB*,™:"O 861HIA(1395ff> of Veteran's Benefits a O 380 Other Personal a 710 Fair Labor Standards O 862 Black Lung (923) O 160 Stockholders'Suits Property Damage Act a o O 190 Other Contract O 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations O 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) O 385 Property Damage O 195 Contract Product Liability Product Liability O 730Labor/MgmtReporting O 864 SS1D Title XVI a o O 196 Franchise & Disclosure Act O 865RSI(405(B» o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ | | | | g p ^ | t a B B 4 | | | ^ ^ ^ ^ -«s O 740 Railway Labor Act o lift; a D* wn tssmsmi3 mmsmMMMsm O 790 Other Labor Litigation O 870 Taxes (U.S Plaintiff m,510 Motions to Vacate O 210 Land Condemnation O 441 Voting o O 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. O 220 Foreclosure Sentence or Defendant) Employment o 442 Housing/ o O 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment O 871 IRS—Third Party Habeas Corpus: Security Act o 443Accommodations o •J 530 General O 240 Torts to Land 26 USC 7609 o o 444 Welfare 535 Death Penalty O 245 Tort Product Liability J£.J Wh3B^^«Hif»l!»*^«* ii..A O 290 All Other Real Property o 445 Amer. w/Disabilities 540 Mandamus & Other O 462 Naturalization Application Employment O 463 Habeas Corpus a 550 Civil Rights Amer. Alien Detainee o 446Other w/Disabilities - a 555 Prison Condition o O 465 Ot.ier Immigration 440 Other Civil Rights Actions G O O O O 110 Insurance 120 Marine 130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment • 151 Medicare Act O 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans (Excl. Veterans)

a a

PERSONAL INJURY 310Aiiplane 315 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 330 Federal Employers' Liability 340 Marine 345 Marine Product Liability 350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 360 Other Personal Iniury

O

400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 810 Selective Service 850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange 875 Customer Challenge 12 USC 3410 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 892 Economic Stabilization Act 893 Environmental Matters 894 Energy Allocation Act 895 Freedom of Information Act 900Appeal of Fee Determination Under Equal Access to Justice 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

a

V. ORIGIN 8 1 Original Proceeding ProSeedina

a

(Place an "X" in One Box Only) 2 Removed from O 3 State Court

Remanded from Appellate Court Annellate

O 4 Reinstated or Reopened Reonened

O

5 T ^ A I ^ J T (swIcifV)

1

O 6 Multidistrict Litigation

O 7

Ameal to District wSSfJ™,? J^agistrate

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
VI. VII. CAUSE OF ACTION REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

16USCS1964.18USC$g1961-1968.18USC$1341.4th.7th.14th.1st.5th.11th U.S. Const.Amend. Civil Rights Act
Brief description of cause:

Racketeerina/Civil RICO. Corruption. Obstruction of Justice. Extortion of Property & Monev: 4th. 7th. 14th. 1st U.S.
O CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMANDS UNDER F R C P . 23 19,000,000.00 (See instructions). CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: J U R Y DEMAND: fif Yes O No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY
DATE

JUDGE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

DOCKET NUMBER

07/27/2010
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT # AMOUNT

PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERALS

LIN PRESCOTT

APPLYING IFF

JUDGE

MAG. JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1

Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 30

UNITI-D SI AT[:S DIS1 RICI COURI DIStRICI OFNPW IIAMPSIIIRI-;

U.S. OISTRICI COURT
DISTRICT OF N.H.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA /-.'A' RI-.L. DR. .l()R(i UUSSI- AND .lE^klFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT. DR. JORCi IH'SSE. JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTfj o. oo STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. DR. JORG BUSSI AND .IE.NNIFllft1OpRJANKLI5N L' 0 PRESCOTT. DR. JORG BUSSE AND JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT AS PRIVATE ATTORNEY(S) GENERAL. Plaintill's, v. Case No. 2010-cv-

UNITED STATES OI: AMERICA. UNITED STATES COURTS. UNITED STATES CUSTOM & IMMIGRATION SERVICE. TONY WEST. BEVERLY B. MARTIN, JOHN EDWIN STEELE. RYAN BARRY. CllAREENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL, SHERI POLSTER CIIAPPEI.L. KENNEFII M. WILKINSON. RICHARD A. LAZZARA. JACK N. PETERSON. RYAN BARRY. DREW HEAIHCOAT. BETTYE G. SAMUEL. STANLEY F. BIRCH. JR. GERALD B. LIOFLAT. SUSAN H. BLACK, JOEL F. DUB1NA. SHERRI L. JOHNSON. EUGENE C. TURNER. LEE COUNTY, FL, COMMISSION AND COMMISSIONERS. ED CARNES. JOHN E. MANNING, U.S. RACKETEERING AGENTS. HUGH D. HAYES. JOHN LEY. RICHARD JESSUP, DIANE NIPPER. LYNN GERALD. JR.. KINNE1II L. RYSKAMP. CHARLIE CRIST. CHARLES "BARRY" STEVENS. JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., MARK ALLAN PIZ/.O. ANNE CONWAY. CHARLIE GREEN. REAGAN KATHLEEN RUSSELL. RICHARD D. DEBOEST. II. CI ILNL M. 11 lOMPSON, el a/., Defendants. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND SI9,000,000.00 / COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COMPLAINT OF RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, PUBLIC CORRUPTION IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, 20™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEE & COLLIER COUNTIES, FL, AND OF UNLAWFUL AND CRIMINAL ACTS BY GOVERNMENT AGENTS & OFFICIALS IN THEIR PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES OUTSIDE ANY "IMMUNITY' COMPLAINT UNDER CIVIL RICO, 18 U.S.C. $ 1964, 1961-1968 COMPLAINT OF GOVERNMENTS' MALICIOUS CIRCULAR ARGUMENT FOR PURPOSES OF RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, AND RETALIATION: 'THE CONCLUSIVELY PROVENALLEGA TIONS ARE FRIVOLOUS. THEREFORE THE CASE IS FIXED AS FRIVOLOUS.' l t t I $ R T TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, THE HAGljf [PAGES TOTAL: 196 + 213 (IMiibii.s||

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1

Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 30

CORRUPT UNITED STATES, FLORIDA, LEE & COLLIER COUNTY OFFICIALS 1. Crooked United States, Florida State, and Lcc and Collier County Agents and Officials are named party Defendants in this U.S. and international Complaint of organized rampant extortion, obstruction of justice, public corruption, concealment of corruption, cover-up, conspiracy to conceal, and deliberate deprivations of the most fundamental rights under the Federal and Florida Constitutions. 2. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing the Defendant U.S., State, and County Government Officials in their private individual capacities, because, e.g., the record extortion, obstruction of justice, retaliation, corruption, coercion, concealment of crimes, cover-up, conspiracy to corrupt, fraud on the Courts, slander, and reckless deprivations were outside the scope of any immunity and official capacity. PARTIES' RECORD PATTERN OF RACKETEERING, CIVIL RICO, 18 USC § 1964 3. The named Defendants engaged and conspired to engage in the record pattern of racketeering and perpetrated RICO predicate acts of, e.g., retaliation against the Caucasian pro se Plaintiff whistleblowers, extortion of money [e.g., $5,048.60] and property under false pretenses of a "writ of execution", falsified and un-recorded "judgmenf\ Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338, 365, 87, 25. NAMED CROOKED ATTORNEYS, AND OTHER PARTIES 4. The Plaintiff corruption victims arc suing the other named Defendant parties and Attorneys, who conspired with U.S., Florida, Lcc and Collier County, Florida, Government Officials and Agents to, e.g., extort money and property, obstruct justice, retaliate, deliberately

2

deprive, defraud, coerce, conceal corruption, cover up for corrupt Officials, and perpetuate the perpetration of fraud on the State and U.S. Courts of record since at least 2006. THE PARTIES ORCHESTRATED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & ADJUDICATION 5. The multi-year record organized extortion, retaliation, obstruction of justice and adjudication of Plaintiffs’ perfected claims of orchestrated deliberate violations of express most fundamental rights under the Federal and Florida Constitutions were prima facie illegal and criminal acts of record. NAMED DEFENDANT CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT PREDATORS OF RECORD 6. Just like in the Catholic Church scandals of organized pedophilia, rape, concealment, and cover-up, here U.S. Government Officials betrayed the trust, retaliated, threatened and intimidated innocent victims of organized institutional crimes and illegal acts with e.g., “punishment”, sanctions, extortion of fees and property, and coercion to refrain from rightful prosecution. 7. Just like in the worldwide Catholic Church scandals, here under facially fraudulent pretenses and color of authority, institutional Government predators in and of the United States concealed Plaintiffs’ record Complaints of exactly how, when, and where U.S. Agents fucked and raped innocent corruption victims. E.g., Dockets in the U.S. Circuit Court for the 11th Circuit could “not be located”. See Docket ## 201010963; 201010967. JULY AND JUNE 2010 PUBLIC CORRUPTION & OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE: DEFENDANT GOVERNMENT WHORE C. E. HONEYWELL 8. Inexperienced and incompetent female Afro-American U.S. District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell has emerged as the latest Defendant Crooked Judge in the record U.S.

3

Government culture of rampant retaliation, extortion, public corruption, bribery, coercion, concealment, cover-up, fraud, slander, and deliberate deprivations of record. 9. In June and July 2010, Defendant “Judicial Whore” C. E. Honeywell ramped up, e.g., the organized retaliation, coercion, corruption, threats, intimidation, harassment, and intensity of facially idiotic, irrational, arbitrary, capricious, and malicious attacks upon the Plaintiff public corruption victims. 10. Defendant Government Whore C. E. Honeywell forever tarnished the reputation of U.S. Courts, because she conspired with other Defendants to, e.g., extort, obstruct justice, and fraudulently conceal. Def. Honeywell falsified and caused others to falsify official records and documents for criminal and illegal purposes of, e.g., extorting, retaliating, defrauding, and deliberately depriving the Plaintiff record landowners of their unimpeachable and unencumbered marketable title and record property ownership. Honeywell acted with wanton disregard for Plaintiffs’ express fundamental right under the Federal and Florida Constitutions such as, e.g., Plaintiffs’ rights to redress Governmental grievances; own property, and exclude Governments, be free of publicly recorded Government extortion, retaliation, fraud, deliberate deprivations, and corruption. ORCHESTRATED EXTORTION, RETALIATION, COERCION, AND CORRUPTION 11. Defendant U.S. Whore Honeywell illegally orchestrated the institutional and methodical obstruction of justice & court access, retaliation, extortion, illegal denial of “filing privileges”, and the rejection of pleadings and appeals for criminal and unlawful purposes of extorting fees and Plaintiffs’ property under color of a fraudulently procured and facially forged “writ of execution”, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. ## 236; 213, 214; and Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. ## 48, 49, 50.

4

PARTIES IRREPARABLY TARNISHED CORRUPT REPUTATION OF U.S. COURTS 12. Any faith in any Government Official would appear “fundamentally” misplaced, because the named party Defendants conspired to extort Gulf-front property worth hundreds of Millions of Dollars [see fake “land parcels” of record] and deliberately deprived the Plaintiff corruption victims of, e.g., the most fundamental 7th, 1st, 14th, 4th, and 5th U.S. Constitutional Amendment and Florida Constitutional rights to, e.g., own property, exclude Government, be free of unlawful and criminal seizures, redress Government grievances, prosecute by jury trial, et al. PLAINTIFF CORRUPTION, RACKETEERING, AND CORRUPTION VICTIMS 13. With particularity, the Plaintiff Government corruption victims defend their unimpeachable and free and clear record real property title, riparian Gulf-front Parcel and/or S.T.R.A.P. # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A as perfectly conveyed and legally described in reference to the 1912 “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat of Survey in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25, against, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud on the Courts, deprivations, oppression, bribery, et al. PLAINTIFFS’ “EX RELATIONE” APPEARANCE IN COURT 14. The Plaintiffs also appear in U.S. Court “ex rel.” on behalf of the United States and the Federal Government, the State of Florida, and the People of Florida and/or the United States. 15. Under express public policy, the interests to be free of Government corruption, crimes, and oppression as advanced by Dr. Busse and Prescott are similar to the interests of the Government. 16. The practice of using private parties to prosecute criminal offenses is derived from English common law. Traditionally, English criminal procedure relied heavily on a system of private

5

prosecution. Said traditional English system of private prosecution has been supplemented by public intervention. The public prosecutor has no greater advantages than any private party. PROSECUTION OF PANDEMIC PUBLIC CORRUPTION IN FLORIDA 17. Under Florida and Federal law, private individuals may prosecute in the interest of the People. The Plaintiff private prosecutors seek legal remedies to free the People of the State of Florida and/or United States of endemic and pandemic public corruption in Florida. FLORIDA STATEWIDE GRAND JURY ON PUBLIC CORRUPTION 18. The Governor of the State of Florida called to convene a statewide grand jury on public corruption, because “too many cases of corruption have occurred in Florida, and our goal will be to hold government accountable.” 19. The State and U.S. Courts in Florida have not been in any position to exercise fair-minded judgment and therefore fixed Plaintiffs’ Cases in exchange for bribes. As a result, the People and Plaintiffs continue to suffer injuries from the publicly recorded Government falsifications of, e.g., “writ of execution” (Doc. ## 434, 432, 422, 424, 386, 365, 386, 87, 25), “judgment”, “land parcels”, a “park”, et al. JURISDICTION AND PROSECUTION PURSUANT TO DEF. U.S. ATTORNEY 20. The Defendant U.S. Attorney asserted prosecution and jurisdiction under civil RICO on or around 06/30/2010: “The only other vehicle for charging essentially criminal conduct in a civil forum is a suit under the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“civil RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).” See Case 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 29, p. 4.

6

PLAINTIFFS’ PRIVATE FUNCTIONS: PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO PERFORM ATTORNEY GENERAL’S FUNCTIONS 21. The Plaintiffs have been entitled to prosecute and perform the functions of the attorney general’s office. 22. For illegal cover-up purposes, Defendant Government Officials deceptively concealed that some private parties literally perform the exact functions of the attorney general’s office though they themselves are not attorneys general. The attorney general regularly hires a private attorney to do the work of her public office. In the Microsoft antitrust trial, e.g., deputy Attorney General Joel Klein hired private David Boies to try the United States’ case against Microsoft. In the tobacco litigation, e.g., state attorneys general hired plaintiffs’ private counsel on a contingent fee basis to recoup state governments’ monetary losses due to smoking. In Brown v. Board of Education, the State of South Carolina hired private lawyer John W. Davis. COMMON PRACTICE OF PRIVATIZATION 23. In such instances, public officials privatize their functions, hiring private parties to perform as attorneys general, thereby creating private attorneys general. 24. Given the ever-increasing record proof of utter Government incompetence, BP, Katrina, Madoff, Plaintiffs’ choice has been wise and prudent under the shocking circumstances of Florida Government corruption and racketeering. Customarily, Florida attorneys “play along to get along” and extort. See, e.g., Defendant Brigham Moore. QUI TAM ACTION 25. Another form of attorney general substitution is available through the qui tam action. In the qui tam case, private parties bring claims on behalf of the government. The qui tam lawyer is

7

not hired by the attorney general or government officials. Rather the private party is a selfappointed party, pursuing government fraud where the government has not done so. 26. Here Plaintiffs appointed themselves in the pursuit of, e.g., publicly recorded Government extortion, obstruction of justice, retaliation, and fraud. PLAINTIFFS SHALL SUPPLEMENT AND SIMULATE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 27. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs have been entitled to supplement and simulate the attorney general and act as their own private advocates in their fight against, e.g., Government corruption, fraud, extortion, and racketeering of public record. 28. Under public policy, deterrence and compensation have been the field of both private and public lawyering. Given the corruption and utter incompetence of Government in Florida, Plaintiffs have been wise to proceed privately. Under public policy, Plaintiffs shall deter public corruption and racketeering. See RICO statute. 29. The purpose of Florida Government is organized crime. Judicial Officers in U.S. Courts in Florida threatened, intimidated, and retaliated against the Plaintiffs, because Plaintiff Government victims exposed Government corruption, extortion, bribery, and fraud in Florida. See 19th Statewide Grand Jury on Public Corruption, Exhibit CC.

8

JURISDICTION: PATENTLY CLEAR FEDERAL JURISDICTION SINCE AT LEAST 2006 30. 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968; Civil RICO; “Organized Crime Control Act”; “Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act”; a. Section 1961 (Definitions) and Section 1962 (Prohibited Activities) apply to both criminal and civil cases. As a result, decisions involving criminal charges are frequently cited in civil appellate decisions. b. Section 1963 provides criminal penalties. c. Section 1964 creates the civil cause of action. d. Section 1965 addresses venue service of processes in civil cases. 31. 18 USC § 1341 (relating to mail fraud); 32. 1st, 14th, 7th, 4th, 11th, 5th U.S. Constitutional Amendments; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985; Civil Rights Acts; 28 U.S.C § 455; Recusal Statute; 33. [18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, deliberate deprivations under color of law (such as, e.g., fake “writ of execution”; fake “$5,048.60 judgment”; fake “resolution 569/875”, et al.); 18 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4, cover-up of crimes; 18 U.S.C. §§ 1511, 1513, 3771, retaliation against whistleblowers. 34. Jurisdiction over U.S. Agents’ record perversions and rape of Florida law such as, e.g.: a. Section 838.022, Florida Statutes, OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT; b. Chapter 838, Fla. Stat., BRIBERY, MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE; c. Chapter 55, 56, Final Process, 712 (Florida’s self-enforcing Marketable Record Title Act), 73 and 74 (Eminent Domain), 95 (Adverse Possession);

9

d. Chapter 51 Summary Procedure, Fla. Stat.; e. Florida express Constitutional Guarantees of Fundamental Right to own property, and eminent domain due process and equal protection of the law. JURISDICTION AND PROSECUTION PURSUANT TO DEF. U.S. ATTORNEY 35. The U.S. Courts have jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ causes of action regarding the eradication of publicly recorded organized Government crimes under color of, e.g., falsified “land parcels”, “writ of execution”, and fake “$5,048.60 judgment”. 36. The Defendant U.S. Attorney asserted prosecution and jurisdiction under civil RICO on or around 06/30/2010: “The only other vehicle for charging essentially criminal conduct in a civil forum is a suit under the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“civil RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).” See Case 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 29, p. 4. JURISDICTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 37. Plaintiffs are asserting Civil RICO claims, and in particular: a. (1) Injury to Plaintiffs’ property and/or business, because the Defendants b. (2) while involved in one or more identified relationships with an enterprise, c. (3) engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity and/or collecting an unlawful debt. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, e.g., Doc. ## 434, 432, 422, 424, 365, 386, 87, 25. CIVIL RICO LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION CLAUSE 38. RICO is a Federal statute with civil remedy provisions available to both the government and private individuals. RICO is a substantive Federal statute with a liberal construction clause. The clause specifically provides that "the provisions of this Title (Title IX) shall be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes". See PUB. L. No. 91452, Section 904(a), 84 STAT. 947 (1970). 39. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a) provides:

10

“The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 of this chapter by issuing appropriate orders, including, but not limited to: ordering any person to divest himself of any interest, direct, or indirect, in any enterprise; imposing reasonable restrictions on the future activities or investments of any person, including, but not limited to, prohibiting any person from engaging in the same type of endeavor as the enterprise engaged in, the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or ordering dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise, making due provision for the rights of innocent persons.” See also S. Rep. No. 617, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 79 (1969)(referring to RICO's "civil law approach of equitable relief broad enough to do all that is necessary to free the channels of commerce from all illicit activity"). 40. Here, the U.S. Courts had jurisdiction over Defendant Government Officials and Judges and their retaliation, obstruction of justice, adjudication, and orders for Defendant Racketeers to divest themselves of the extorted money and property such as, e.g., Hundreds of Acres of land on the Gulf of Mexico and Charlotte Harbor, PB 3 PG 25 (1912), under color of, e.g., a fake “writ of execution”, falsified “$5,048.60 debt”, and fake “land parcels” “12-44-20-0100000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”. FRAUD ON THE COURT, FALSE PRETENSES OF “NO JURISDICTION” 41. The corrupt U.S. District (Florida Middle District) and Circuit Courts (11th Circuit) have had patently clear jurisdiction over the unlawful and criminal acts of public record by the Defendant United States Agents and Government Officials. Fraudulently, Defendant United States Judges had concealed patently clear U.S. jurisdiction under color of, e.g., “no jurisdiction”, power, “authority”, “frivolity”, sham “regulatory taking” pretenses [absent any regulation], sham “inverse condemnation” pretenses [Plaintiffs refused to exchange and defended their perfected record title], and fake “ripeness requirements”. INDISPUTABLE JURISDICTION OVER RECORD RACKETEERING & EXTORTION

11

42. Under, e.g., the Civil RICO statute and Civil Rights Acts, the U.S. Courts have had indisputable jurisdiction over, e.g., record extortion, retaliation, concoctions of a nonexistent “07/29/2009 judgment”, fake “writ of execution”, Doc. # 434, 432, 425, 422, 424, 386, by Defendant U.S. Agents. CLEAR U.S. JURISDICTION OVER RECORD BRIBERY AND EXTORTION 43. The U.S. Courts have had indisputable jurisdiction over the publicly recorded Government corruption involving Defendant U.S. Government Agents and the acceptance of Defendants’ bribes by the Defendant U.S. and other Judges and Officials. 44. U.S. Courts have had indisputable jurisdiction over the fabrications of unsubstantiated “attorneys fees” and non-existent “writ of execution” and “judgment” by Defendant Government Officials, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 422, 424, 365, 360, 386, 87, 282, 288. 45. The U.S. Courts have had jurisdiction over unlawful and criminal acts perpetrated by U.S. Government Defendants outside the scope of their official capacity. 46. The U.S. Courts have known and concealed that just like in the Catholic Church scandals of institutional pedophiles and sexual predators, cover-up and concealment (from top Officials all the way down the institutional hierarchy) have been the Defendant Governments’ custom and policy in this and other Cases. Said Courts have known and concealed that just like the Church predators, U.S. Government criminals covered up for each other, which invoked U.S. jurisdiction. 47. Said Courts have a. Known and concealed that public corruption has been pandemic in Florida and involved U.S. Courts at all levels; and b. Fraudulently concealed that public policy therefore demanded the civil and criminal prosecution of Defendant corrupt U.S. Government Officials in U.S. Courts.

12

CLEAR U.S. JURISDICTION OVER ANY AND ALL CLAIMS 48. The U.S. Courts have had clear jurisdiction over any and all claims involving United States Agents and Defendants such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, deprivations, fraud, Judicial Officers’ fraud on the Courts, and of course including “state claims”. PREVIOUS CONCEALMENT OF JURISDICTION BY U.S. DEFENDANTS 49. In exchange for other Defendants’ bribes, the judicial Defendants previously concealed and conspired to conceal patently clear Federal jurisdiction. 50. The Federal Defendants’ deliberate deprivations of any meaningful opportunity of justice and the just, speedy, and inexpensive adjudication of Plaintiffs’ claims for relief were unlawful and criminal acts of record, which invoked U.S. jurisdiction. 51. Fraudulently and recklessly, Government Defendants had concealed jurisdiction under false pretenses of, e.g., non-existent ripeness requirements, which invoked U.S. jurisdiction. In particular, the U.S. Defendants have conspired to conceal that of course, the Plaintiffs rightfully prosecuted 1st, 14th, 4th, 7th and 5th Amendment violations by Federal Defendants in Federal Court. 52. The U.S. Courts have had jurisdiction over. e.g., Defendant corrupt U.S. Judge Honeywell’s 06/23/09 fabrications of “necessary state procedures”: “They have not exhausted the necessary state procedures to address their dispute prior to filing in federal court. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Seventh Amendment claim.” See Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791; Doc. # 213, p. 18. 53. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that Plaintiffs’ prosecution of Federal Defendants for Seventh Amendment Violations did of course not require “necessary state procedures”. Brazenly and idiotically, Defendant Honeywell concocted “necessary

13

state procedures” on the record. Said reckless fabrications were outside Honeywell’s scope of immunity and official capacity. 54. Fraudulently and recklessly, judicial Defendants had concealed jurisdiction under false pretenses of, e.g., “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”. See Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 50, p. 4. 55. Fraudulently and recklessly, judicial Defendants had concealed jurisdiction under false pretenses of, e.g., “lack of subject matter jurisdiction” even though the Defendant Federal Agents were subject to Federal jurisdiction whether or not the questions were Federal or nonFederal questions. 56. Therefore, the Plaintiffs had always properly prosecuted the Federal Agents in this Court. 57. In all previous Cases, this Court had always patently clear jurisdiction. 58. E.g., judicial Defendant Honeywell fraudulently pretended, Doc. # 213, p. 21: “B. Supplemental Jurisdiction The decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state claims rests within the discretion of the district court.” Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (11th Cir. 2004). Once a district court dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). This Court, therefore, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state claims.” 59. Any and all “state claims” involving Federal Agents and Defendants absolutely invoked Federal jurisdiction. This corrupt Court deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of justice and adjudication of their claims under fraudulent pretenses of, e.g., “lack of jurisdiction”, which invoked Federal jurisdiction.

14

VENUE: VENUE IN LIGHT OF PANDEMIC PUBLIC CORRUPTION & RACKETEERING 60. The Plaintiff Government racketeering and corruption victims are residing in New Hampshire, U.S.A., and are entitled to redress their Government grievances in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. See public records. 61. The Plaintiffs are European citizens who have lived in fear of, e.g., the record unlawful and criminal Government retaliation, extortion, obstruction of justice, threats, punishments, pandemic corruption, coercion, fraud, and deliberate deprivations by Government Agents. DEMAND FOR RELIEF FROM CORRUPTION: TRANSFER OF PENDING ACTIONS 62. Because of the record pandemic public corruption in the 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit and the two previous U.S. District Courts, the Plaintiffs demand equitable and other relief and immediate transfer of all pending actions to a non-corrupt venue outside of endemically corrupted Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. FLORIDA PATTERN AND POLICY OF FALSIFICATIONS 63. At the center of the public corruption and racketeering scandal and cover-up have been the recorded Florida falsifications of, e.g., a “writ of execution”, “$5,048.60 judgment”, “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” for criminal and illegal purposes of, e.g., retaliating and extorting Court fees, money, and property through organized illegal Government enterprises in Florida.

15

EXTORTION, PUBLIC CORRUPTION, AND RACKETEERING IN FLORIDA: CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL THAT PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE FUNDAMENTAL 64. The Federal Defendants conspired to fraudulently conceal that property rights are most fundamental rights under Florida and Federal supreme law. E.g., on or around 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell conspired to brazenly and irrationally concoct, Doc. # 213, p. 20: “Property rights would not be fundamental rights since they are based on state law.” Id. Here, Plaintiffs claim that they have been denied their alleged property rights in Lot 15A. These property rights are defined by state law. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Substantive Due Process Claim.” 65. No halfway intelligent and non-corrupt judge in Defendant Honeywell’s shoes could have possibly denied that property rights and the right to own property and exclude Government are most fundamental rights. IDIOTIC AND NAZI STYLE GOVERNMENT CRIMES IN FLORIDA 66. Any reading of most of the orders and judgments (in dozens of Plaintiffs’ Cases since 2006) by the Defendant Judges in State and Federal Courts for Florida evidenced shocking similarity with NAZI Government tactics of oppression and terror. See, e.g., BUSSE v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 2006-CA-003185, Lee County, Florida, Circuit Court. 67. Reckless destruction and erosion of most of the express fundamental rights under the Florida and Federal Constitutions required transfer away from corrupt Florida Courts with a totally tarnished reputation. PLAINTIFFS ARE CORRUPTION VICTIMS IN FEAR OF FURTHER RETALIATION: RECORD OWNERSHIP OF AND TITLE TO LOT 15A, 12-44-20-01-00015.015A 68. Plaintiffs are Government corruption victims in fear of further Government retaliation, obstruction of justice, and extortion on the run from Florida’s pandemic culture of public corruption and racketeering. 16

69. Defendant U.S. Government Agents fraudulently concealed, and conspired to conceal, their recorded and published extortion, obstruction of justice, corruption, bribery, crimes, and illegal acts of record. Defendant Government Racketeers covered up for each other for years. 70. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are the unimpeachable record owners of riparian Lot 15A on the Gulf on Mexico, S.T.R.A.P. # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). 71. Plaintiffs’ Warranty Deed, Lee County INSTRUMENT # 2010000171344, expressly stated the extent of Plaintiffs’ conveyance in reference to the 1912 Plat of Survey of the private undedicated residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25. 72. Three other Plats of Survey in Plat Book 1, Pages 48, 51, and 52, conclusively evidenced the history and accretion of the private “Cayo Costa” Subdivision lands since 1910. 73. Because Lot 15A, “Cayo Costa”, had naturally accreted the record designation was “Lot 15A”. See four “Cayo Costa” Plats of Survey in Lee County Plat Book 1, Pages 48, 51, and 52 (1910 through 1912) and Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912). See PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009).

17

HISTORY OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION & RACKETEERING: PREVIOUS LITIGATION IN STATE AND U.S. DISTRICT & CIRCUIT COURTS STATE ACTION, 2006-CA-003185, BUSSE v. STATE OF FLORIDA 74. In State Court, 2006-CA-003185, BUSSE v. STATE OF FLORIDA, the Plaintiffs had conclusively evidenced, e.g., fraud, deception, conspiracy to defraud and deliberately deprive, corruption “”land grab scheme”), and their most fundamental rights to, e.g., own their riparian Lot 15A, “Cayo Costa”, exclude Government, be free of Government seizures, corruption, forgeries, and legally incomprehensible and fake “land parcels” and “land claims”, which the law did not recognize. PREVIOUSLY ALLEGED & CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN FRAUD, CORRUPTION… 75. Under “COUNT 4: CONSPIRACY TO FABRICATE UNPLATTED LOT A, BLOCK 1 & PARK; FRAUD; MALFEASANCE”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 288, p. 5, the Plaintiffs had perfectly pleaded, e.g., “conspiracy to fabricate”, “fraud”, “malfeasance”, “deception”, trickery, public corruption (“land grab scheme”), and “denial of the equal protection of the laws”: “24. Without title evidence in the public Grantor/Grantee Index, Defendant [Wilkinson] conspired to concoct un-platted lot A ([fake] Property I.D. 12-44-20-0100000.00A0), block 1, ([forged] Property I.D. 07-44-21-01-00001.0000), and park. With malicious purpose, Defendant [Wilkinson] assisted the plan to deceive with materially altered plat, maps, and records to obtain benefits for State and County. Said acts and omissions were in willful disregard of property. Defendant denied agricultural classification of Plaintiff’s accreted lot, all of which had been formed by accretions since approx. 1910. Therefore, Defendant [Wilkinson] destroyed most of Plaintiff’s property value, deprived him of private easements without compensation, and denied equal protection of the laws in a land grab scheme pursuant to Ch. 768.” “A reasonable appraiser, surveyor or title agent cannot locate lot A or block 1 on the Plat and must presume invalidity of ‘OR 569/875’, lot A, and block 1 as a matter of established real property law, standards, and tenets…” See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 288, p. 5, ¶¶ 24, 25.

18

76. Defendant Government Officials and Defendants knew their false assertions of “eminent domain” to be unlawful and criminal acts, because “eminent domain” had never occurred. 77. The Defendants knew and fraudulently concealed that Plaintiffs’ perfectly pleaded causes of action were perfectly ripe for Federal adjudication. However, the Defendants conspired to obstruct justice and adjudication in an organized orchestration of Government rape and perversion of supreme Florida and Federal law. 78. The corrupt State and U.S. Courts never addressed the perfectly pleaded causes of action for criminal and illegal purposes of concealing Government forgeries and covering up for Government criminal who acted outside the scope of their official capacity. 79. Had there been [merely hypothetically] “eminent domain”, title would have transferred from Plaintiffs to Government. Plain and short, Plaintiffs had pleaded, e.g., Government “deception”, trickery, fraud, fraudulent concealment, and public corruption, which of course invoked Federal jurisdiction did not require any “23. Defendant Property Appraiser claimed and published that draft “569/875’ entitled Lee County to claim ownership of un-platted lot A, and block 1. Under oath, Defendant Appraiser admitted that Cayo Costa was unencumbered by public easements and not dedicated.” See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 288, Third Amended Complaint, p. 5, ¶ 23. 80. Defendant Government Officials knew and fraudulently concealed that as a matter of law, the fraudulently pretended and fabricated “Lee County ownership” of non-existent “lot A”, fake “parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”, and non-existent “block 1”, fictitious “parcel” “07-4421-01-00001.0000” had been absolutely legally impossible, because any ownership would have implied easement rights the record absence of which Defendant Wilkinson had admitted under oath thereby affirming the public record and PB 3 PG 25 (1912).

19

81. “Selective reading” of a complaint and “concealment of its essential parts did not constitute failure to state a claim but reckless deprivations, public corruption, deception, trickery, fraud, malfeasance as perfectly pleaded in said Third Amended Complaint. 82. The U.S. Courts [Defendant Crooked Judges Steele and Chappell removed 2006 State action to Federal Court] obstructed the adjudication of Plaintiffs’ perfectly pleaded claims for relief. The Defendant Corrupt Judges were obligated to review the entire Complaint: Pick and choose was not any lawful option under the law.

20

ADOPTION: ADOPTION BY REFERENCE OF THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, DOC. 288, 282 83. Hereby, the Plaintiffs adopt by reference the attached “Third Amended Complaint”, Doc. ## 288, 282, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228 in this Complaint. See Exhibit A. 84. In said Complaint, Plaintiffs had alleged and proven the prima facie illegality, criminality, and nullity of facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-0100001.0000”.

21

DEFENDANT JACK N. PETERSON RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS 85. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing JACK N. PETERSON in his private individual capacity and official capacity as Assistant Lee County Attorney. Defendant Peterson’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 86. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer PETERSON perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 87. Defendant PETERSON knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”, Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering: “In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2. Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 88. Defendant Crooked J. N. PETERSON injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section

22

1961(3). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant PETERSON’S extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice. 89. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official PETERSON extorted money, fees, and property under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at Brigham Moore. 90. Defendant PETERSON knew that a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1; b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386; c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record; d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”; e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”; f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired; g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed; h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson. 91. Said Defendant PETERSON fraudulently concealed that “(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).” See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. 18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS 92. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant PETERSON’S Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation,

23

fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338, 288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5. CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY 93. Defendant PETERSON acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire control of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.: a. Exercising various forms of extortion; b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such as, e.g., “$5,048.60”; c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates; d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes. FOR BRIBES DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT 94. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeer PETERSON concealed and conspired with other Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent: WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490 (11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959) DEFENDANT PETERSON’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY 95. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake “$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant J. N. PETERSON has been collecting an unlawful debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie illicit “park” enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision

24

as platted in 1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant PETERSON’S and other Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”, entertainment, and recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of falsified “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an area of Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25. 96. Section 1962(B) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.” DEFENDANT’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION” 97. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake “$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant PETERSON has been collecting an unlawful debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant PETERSON’S and other Officials’ participation in said record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ## “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in Government fraud and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”. 98. Section 1962(c) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.” 99. The Plaintiffs proved 1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce;

25

2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation” enterprise; 3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 100. As a Crooked Attorney overseeing Lee County Defendants’ prima facie fraudulent

defenses, claims, falsifications, and forgeries, Defendant PETERSON had a very meaningful connection between the illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of land, money, and fees for the enterprise under color of, e.g., office and authority. 101. Defendant PETERSON extorted and concealed, and conspired to extort and conceal,

that he procedure on execution did not accord with the procedure of the State of Florida. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 69. Defendant knew that Florida procedure required a recorded and certified judgment, which here had never existed. The Court never had any authority to award “$5,048.60”, and the judgment issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 in the amount of $24.30 had been paid. The prima facie fraudulent “affidavit” by Defendant Racketeer JACK N. PETERSON fraudulently pretended a “07/29/2009” “judgment”, Doc. # 432-2, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, which all Defendants knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal had never existed. See also Ch. 55, 56, Florida Statutes. CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT 102. Defendant PETERSON conspired with other Officials and Defendants to extort fees,

money, and property from the Plaintiffs in the recorded absence of any “judgment” and “writ of execution”. See certified Docket of Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.

26

COVER-UP AND CONCEALMENT OF DEF. WILKINSON’S RECORD FORGERIES 103. As latest Attorney for Defendant Forger K. M. Wilkinson, Def. PETERSON concealed

forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with wanton disregard for Plaintiffs’ express fundamental property rights under the Florida and Federal Constitutions. CONSPIRACY TO BRIBE AND DELIBERATELY DEPRIVE 104. Def. PETERSON conspired with other Defendants to bribe Defendant Government

Officials and Judges and deliberately deprive the Plaintiffs of express fundamental rights and guarantees of the Florida and Federal Constitutions such as, e.g., to own property, exclude Governments from Plaintiffs’ Lot 15A, “Cayo Costa”, be free of Government corruption, oppression, fraud, terror, prosecute by jury trial, and of due process and equal protection of the law under fraudulent pretenses of, e.g., forged “land parcels” and “writ of execution”. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF DEF. WILKINSON’S CRIMES 105. After Def. “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson had deceptively “claimed” 11th U.S. Const.

Amendment immunity, which in and by itself had invoked Federal jurisdiction, Defendant Lee County Assistant Attorney PETERSON acted as Def. Forger Wilkinson’s Attorney and concealed Wilkinson’s publicly recorded crimes and unlawful acts. EXTENSION OF CULTURE OF ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIMES 106. Def. Peterson extended the policy and culture of organized Lee County Government

crimes and public corruption. Over the years dozens of Lee County Officials have been criminally investigated and/or faced criminal charges. In particular, Peterson extended the publicly recorded fabrications of fake “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-

27

44-21-01-00001.0000”, which Def. Peterson could not locate on the Plat of the private Cayo Costa Subdivision as conveyed and legally described in reference to the 1912 Plat in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25. CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AND EVADE CLAIMS 107. In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, bribed Judges simply obstructed justice and evaded

the issues and claims for relief. In this recorded conspiracy and “Cayo Costa Gate”, any and all Judges in the criminal gang of Judges conspired not to determine the obvious and patently clear lack of any “lot 00A0” and “block “00001” on the 1912 “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat, PB 3 PG 25. See “Third Amended Complaint”, Doc. ## 288, 282, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. While said “parcel” forgeries and fraud and extortion scheme could have been certified and verified within seconds, Peterson managed to conspire with other Government Officials and Defendants to perpetuate the decades old record crimes with corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits at Plaintiffs’ expense and injury. 108. Perhaps Judge Douglas N. Frazier should be noted here, because he recused himself “in

the interest of justice”. FABRICATION OF “writ of execution” 109. Def. PETERSON fabricated and conspired to fabricate: “… along with this Court’s Writ of Execution …” See Doc. # 434, 425, 432, p. 1, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. 110. With corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits and injure the Plaintiff corruption victims,

Defendant Peterson and Wilkinson “moved for entry of order directing public sale of real property …”, Doc. # 432, 05/21/10, in the known record absence of any judgment that could have possibly become a lien on property. See Ch. 56, § 55.10, Fla. Stat.

28

CONSPIRACY TO FABRICATE 111. Defendants Peterson and Wilkinson conspired with other Defendants to fabricate a

“$5,048.60 judgment” even though none could be found on the Docket of Case No. 2:2007cv-00228. DEFENDANT RYAN BARRY RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS 112. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Ryan Barry in his private individual

capacity and official capacity as Supervising U.S. Deputy Marshal, Fort Myers, FL. Defendant Barry’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF WRIT OF EXECUTION-EXTORTION-SCHEME 113. Defendant Ryan Barry knew and fraudulently concealed that no authentic and genuine

“writ of execution” had ever existed or been “issued”. Barry knew that on the face of a sham “writ”, no judge could possibly be identified. AFFIDAVIT AND OBSTRUCTION OF SUSPENSION OF EXECUTION 114. Defendant Barry acknowledged receipt of Plaintiffs’ AFFIDAVIT requiring

SUSPENSION of any and all proceedings on execution under Florida law. Def. Barry obstructed justice, extorted, and retaliated. In the recorded absence of any “judgment” and debt, Def. Barry conspired with other Officials to extort Plaintiffs’ property and money. See recorded and published AFFIDAVIT. CONSPIRACY TO FALSIFY OFFICIAL DOCUMENT 115. Defendant Barry conspired with other Officials and Defendants to falsify official

records. In the record absence of any genuine and valid “writ of execution”, Def. Supervisor

29

Barry refused to correct the fraudulent acts on the record and prevent further harm. With corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits, Def. Barry deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of their express fundamental rights and Constitutional guarantees to own property, exclude Government, and be free of Government corruption, extortion, and illegal seizures. CONSPIRACY TO INTIMIDATE AND RETALIATE AGAINST PLAINTIFFS 116. Because the Plaintiff public corruption victims had previously sued Richard Jessup, U.S.

Deputy Marshal, Defendant R. Barry agreed with other Officials to intimidate and retaliate against the Plaintiff record landowners. Def. Barry conspired with other Government Officials and Defendants to intimidate, harass, and coerce the Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecuting and reporting the record public corruption in the U.S. District and Circuit Court. CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT PROPERTY UNDER FRAUDULENT PRETENSES 117. Under fraudulent pretenses of a facially forged “writ of execution”, Def. Barry

conspired with other Officials to extort Plaintiffs’ property without any justifying “judgment” or any other explanation and due process. When Plaintiffs notified Def. Barry and proved the fraud on the record, Barry expressly stated that he did not care. PATTERN AND POLICY OF THREATS AND COERCION 118. Previously under Def. Barry’s reported supervision, Co-Defendant Richard Jessup had

threatened Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorg Busse in Naples, Florida, in the presence of a witnessing family member (B. P.). 119. Even though the Plaintiffs had filed police reports and complained about Co-Defendant

Richard Jessup’s coercion and threats, Jessup continued to harass and intimidate the Plaintiffs. In particular, Co-Defendant Jessup continued to coerce the Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecution or face seizure of their property in the “Cayo Costa” Subdivision.

30

120.

Def. Barry knew that the Plaintiffs had specifically reported the prima facie nullity and

illegality of Jessup’s “writ of execution”-extortion-scheme. With particularity, Defendant Barry knew and fraudulently concealed that there had never been any legitimate grounds for any “writ of execution” and that the facially forged “writ” was for criminal and illegal purposes of, e.g., record coercion and extorting fees and property from the Plaintiff public corruption whistleblowers. OBSTRUCTION OF COMMUNICATIONS AS TO COMMISSION OF CRIMES 121. Defendant Ryan Barry obstructed and prevented the communications of information

relating to the commission of felonies and unlawful acts directly involving, e.g., Defendant Crooked Judges Honeywell, S. Polster Chappell, and John E. Steele. THREATS, INTIMIDATION, AND HARRASSMENT 122. For unlawful purposes of, e.g., coercing the Plaintiffs to refrain from reporting crimes

and prosecuting corrupt Government Officials and concealing public corruption, Defendant Samuel intimidated, harassed, and threatened the Plaintiffs with punishment and prosecution under color of office and authority. 123. Defendant Barry knew and fraudulently concealed that Defendant U.S. Judges had

deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of express fundamental rights such as, e.g., due process, equal protection of the law, prosecution by jury trial, equal court access, freedom from Government oppression and terror, and freedom from unlawful seizures. CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL CORRUPTION AND BRIBERY 124. Defendant Ryan Barry conspired to conceal public corruption, and that in exchange for

bribes, Defendant Judges and Government Officials had deliberately deprived the Plaintiff corruption victims of their express fundamental rights under the Florida and Federal

31

Constitutions. Def. Barry knew that on the record, U.S. Defendants had perverted, e.g., the express fundamental rights to be free of Government corruption, oppression, fraudulent seizure of property, to own property, exclude Government, redress Government grievances, and defend against public corruption and Government crimes. CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT COMMUNICATIONS OF CRIME INFORMATION 125. In direct communications, the Plaintiffs had repeatedly reported Government forgeries

of fictitious “land parcels” and a non-existent “park” to Def. Barry, who recklessly obstructed Plaintiffs’ crime information about the land-grab-extortion-scheme and fake “parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, which neither Def. Barry nor Co-Defendant Jessup could identify on the 1912 “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat of Survey in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25. PERJURY AND/OR MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION FOR EXTORTION 126. Def. Barry knew and fraudulently concealed that for criminal and/or unlawful purposes

of extortion of property and coercion, Co-Defendant Barry had perjured himself and/or materially misrepresented “service” and/or “process”. See Doc. # 429, Case No. 2:2007-cv00228. Def. Barry knew and fraudulently concealed that Co-Defendant Richard Jessup had never served Dr. “Jorg Busse at Clerk’s office of U.S. Courthouse” on “2-8-10”. FRAUD AND DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS 127. Defendants Ryan Barry and Richard Jessup knew the facially deceptive information on

the “process receipt and return” to be fraudulent, Doc. # 429, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228: “Subject property is located as shown on maps contained in the website of the Lee County Property Appraiser, Parcel No. 12-44-20-01-00015.015A (www.leepa.org).”

32

CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT & MISLEAD UNDER COLOR OF OFFICE 128. Defendant Wilkinson was a named party Defendant without any authority to pervert

Plaintiffs’ record conveyance of riparian Lot 15A, “Cayo Costa”, on the Gulf of Mexico in reference to said PB 3 PG 25 (1912). See Warranty Deed, Lot 15A, LEE COUNTY INSTR # 2010000171344. Def. Supervisor Barry knew and fraudulently concealed that Defendant Wilkinson was not any professional surveyor or real property attorney, and unauthorized to determine any parcel boundaries or “site” on the soil. See also PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009): “I. BACKGROUND A. Current Action The Appellants are owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision in Lee County, Florida.” CONSPIRACY TO DECEIVE AND PERPETRATE FRAUD ON THE COURT 129. Defendants R. Barry and R. Jessup ignored, concealed, and deceived, and conspired to

fraudulently misrepresent the specific “disclaimers” and notices on the referenced website, “www.leepa.org”. Said website was only for “assessed property value” purposes. Plaintiff Dr. Jorg Busse is a State Certified Appraiser who had proven the fraud and extortion schemes by Def. “land parcel” Forger Kenneth M. Wilkinson. EXTENSION OF RECORD EXTORTION AND FRAUD SCHEMES 130. Defendant Ryan Barry extended the record extortion and fraud schemes by Defendant

“land parcel” Forger Kenneth M. Wilkinson. CONSPIRACY TO “POST” PLAINTIFFS’ UNENCUMBERED PROPERTY 131. Defendant Crooked Barry knew and fraudulently concealed that Plaintiffs’ riparian

property was unencumbered and free and clear of any “judgment”, because no unpaid

33

“judgment” could be found on the Docket of Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228 and no genuine valid “writ of execution” had ever been “issued”. 132. Defendant Barry conspired with other Officials to “post” Plaintiffs’ facially

unencumbered property for illegal and criminal purposes such as, e.g., coercing and retaliating against the Plaintiffs, and extorting their property. See Doc. # 429, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. DEFENDANT BETTYE G. SAMUEL RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS 133. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing U.S. Defendant Bettye G. Samuel in her

private individual capacity and official capacity as Judicial Assistant to Defendant Crooked Judge C. E. Honeywell. Defendant Samuel’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. OBSTRUCTION OF COMMUNICATIONS AS TO COMMISSION OF CRIMES 134. Defendant Samuel obstructed and prevented the communications of information

relating to the commission of felonies and unlawful acts directly involving, e.g., Defendant Crooked Judge Honeywell and S. Polster Chappell. THREATS, INTIMIDATION, AND HARRASSMENT 135. For unlawful purposes of, e.g., coercing the Plaintiffs to refrain from reporting crimes

and prosecuting corrupt Government Officials and concealing public corruption, Defendant Samuel intimidated, harassed, and threatened the Plaintiffs with punishment and prosecution under color of office and authority. 136. Defendant Samuel knew and fraudulently concealed that Def. Corrupt Honeywell

deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of express fundamental rights such as, e.g., due

34

process, equal protection of the law, prosecution by jury trial, equal court access, freedom from Government oppression and terror. CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL CORRUPTION AND BRIBERY 137. Defendant Samuel knew and conspired to conceal public corruption, and that in

exchange for bribes, Defendant Judges and Government Officials had deliberately deprived the Plaintiff corruption victims of their express fundamental rights under the Florida and Federal Constitutions. On the record, U.S. Defendants had perverted, e.g., the express fundamental rights to be free of Government corruption, oppression, fraudulent seizure of property, to own property, exclude Government, redress Government grievances, and defend against public corruption and Government crimes. DEFENDANT RICHARD A. LAZZARA RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS 138. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Corrupt Richard A.

Lazzara in his private individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. District Judge. Defendant Lazzara’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 139. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer R. A. Lazzara perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 140. Defendant R. A. Lazzara knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,

Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering:

35

“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2. Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, and fraud. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 141. Defendant Crooked R. A. Lazzara injured the Plaintiff record property and business

owners by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant R. A. Lazzara’s racketeering, extortion, and obstruction of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS 142. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant

Lazzara’s Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338, 288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5. CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY

36

143.

Defendant Lazzara acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire

control of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.: a. Exercising various forms of extortion; b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such as, e.g., “$5,048.60”; c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates; d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes. FOR BRIBES DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT 144. In exchange for bribes, Defendant U.S. Racketeer Lazzara concealed and conspired

with other Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent: WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490 (11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959) DEFENDANT LAZZARA’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY 145. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Lazzara has been collecting an unlawful debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie illicit “park” enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision as platted in 1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Lazzara’s and other Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”, entertainment, and recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of falsified “land

37

parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an area of Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25. 146. Section 1962(B) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.” DEFENDANT LAZZARA’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION” 147. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Lazzara has been collecting an unlawful debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Lazzara’s and other Officials’ participation in said record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ## “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in Government fraud and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”. 148. Section 1962(c) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.” 149. The Plaintiffs proved 1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce; 2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation” enterprise; 3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 38

150.

As an objectively partial and Crooked U.S. Judge presiding over Defendants’ prima facie

fraudulent defenses, claims, falsifications, and forgeries, Defendant Lazzara had a very meaningful connection between the illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of land, money, and fees for the enterprise under color of, e.g., office and authority. 151. Defendant Lazzara extorted and concealed, and conspired to extort and conceal, that he

procedure on execution did not accord with the procedure of the State of Florida. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 69. Defendant knew that Florida procedure required a recorded and certified judgment, which here had never existed. The Court never had any authority to award “$5,048.60”, and the judgment issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 in the amount of $24.30 had been paid. The prima facie fraudulent “affidavit” by Defendant Racketeer JACK N. PETERSON fraudulently pretended a “07/29/2009” “judgment”, Doc. # 432-2, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, which all Defendants knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal had never existed. See also Ch. 55, 56, Florida Statutes. BRIBERY AND PUBLIC CORRUPTION 152. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Richard A. Lazzara deliberately deprived the

Plaintiff corruption victims of their express fundamental rights under the Florida and Federal Constitutions. Defendant Lazzara perverted and conspired with other Officials to pervert the express fundamental rights to be free of Government corruption, oppression, fraudulent seizure of property, to own property, exclude Government, redress Government grievances, and defend against public corruption and Government crimes. CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL AND COVER UP 153. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Crooked Lazzara conspired with other Government

and judicial Officials and Defendants to conceal that the U.S. Courts had jurisdiction over

39

any and all claims for relief, which U.S. Defendants Steele and Chappell had removed from State to Federal Court, Case No. 2:2008-cv-00899. See State action, 2006-CA-003185, BUSSE v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Lee County Circuit Court. CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPT THE LAW AND FIX CASES FOR BRIBES 154. Defendant R. A. Lazzara made a mockery of the Federal proceedings by, e.g., illegally

“punishing” the Plaintiff corruption victims and fraudulently pretending authority under Federal.R.Civ.P.11 for pleadings, which the Plaintiffs had filed in STATE Court. Just like a bungling Government Whore, Defendant Lazzara perverted the law and rules and recklessly misapplied them for criminal and unlawful purposes of, e.g., coercing the Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecuting and reporting judicial and Governmental crimes and extorting Plaintiffs’ property under color of a non-existent “regulation”. FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS 155. Def. Lazzara falsified official records and fraudulently pretended a “regulation” and

“regulatory taking”. RECORD DECEPTION, TRICKERY, AND FRAUD ON THE COURT 156. Just like a corrupt fool, Judicial Officer Lazzara deceived the Court and

“incomprehensibly” rambled about a “regulation”, “resolution”, and/or “resolution 569/875” for criminal and illicit purposes of extorting Lot 15A, “Cayo Costa” under fraudulent pretenses of, e.g., a “regulatory taking” and “frivolity”. DECEPTIVE CONCEALMENT OF LACK OF RECORD AND COVER-UP 157. With corrupt intent to obtain benefits and harm the Plaintiff record owners, Crooked

Lazzara knew and recklessly concealed that nobody have ever “regulated” anything. See

40

Third Amended Complaint, Doc. ## 288, 282; see “O.R. 569/875”; see 2006-CA-003185; see 2:2008-cv-00899. CONCEALMENT OF PLAINTIFFS’ EXPRESS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS 158. For bribes, Defendant Crooked Judge Lazzara conspired with other Defendants and

Officials to conceal Def. Crooked Appraiser Wilkinson’s prima facie record forgeries of “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” and cover up for, e.g., Defendant Wilkinson and other Government Officials and Defendants. CRIMINAL AND UNLAWFUL MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION 159. Crooked Lazzara materially misrepresented Plaintiffs’ claims for relief against Corrupt

Government and other Officials to cover up for Defendants and obstruct justice and adjudication. Lazzara perverted Plaintiffs’s Complaint and conclusively proven allegations in their Third Amended Complaint, Case # 2:2007-cv-00228 and subsequent Complaints of public record. See Doc. ## 5, 87, 282, 288, 338, 422; Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. RECKLESS DENIAL OF COURT ACCESS & OBSTRUCTION OF COURT ACCESS 160. Just like Nazi Judges in Nazi Germany, Lazzara simply shut down Plaintiffs Cases and

fixed them for bribes. See Docket, Case 2:2008-cv-00899. RECORD FRAUD ON THE COURTS 161. Just like sexual predators in the Catholic Church scandals, Government predator Lazzara

concealed and covered up to obstruct any opportunity of justice and keep the Plaintiffs away from the Courts.

41

FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS 162. Just like in Nazi Germany and the Church scandals, official records mysteriously and

illegally disappeared. Capriciously, Lazzara falsified official records and documents for illicit purposes of procuring “dismissal” through fraud and fraud on the Court. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT 163. Corrupt Lazzara knew and fraudulently concealed that on the record Defendant Forger

Wilkinson had forged “land parcels”, which Def. Lazzara could not locate on the 1912 “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat recorded in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25. FRAUDULENT PRETENSES 164. For illegal purposes of concealing the record forgeries of “land parcels”, a non-existent non-existent “authority” to coerce, “punish”, and “sanction” Plaintiff

“park”,

whistleblowers, Defendant Lazzara fraudulently pretended “frivolity” and “vexatiousness” under non-applicable Federal R. Civ. P. 11, which Lazzara knew did not apply to Plaintiffs’ pleadings in STATE court. POLICY AND CUSTOM OF ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIMES 165. Lazzara caused the record custom and policy of organized Government corruption and

crimes to be further extended. 166. The record depravity of Def. Lazzara’s acts was further evidenced by the organized

systematic cover-up and concealment of the State Court records. Defendant Lazzara conspired with Def. U.S. Attorney, Def. Steele, and Chappell to in effect destroy any and all State Court records in the corrupted process of removing Plaintiffs’ State action.

42

EXTORTION OF FEES AND PROPERTY 167. Just like Nazi and Catholic Church Officials, Defendant Crooked Lazzara recklessly

orchestrated a “punishment” and “sanctions” scheme of intimidation for criminal and illicit purposes of extorting fees and property from the Plaintiffs and coercing the Plaintiffs to refrain from pursuing justice in State and Federal Courts, 2006-CA-003185; 2:2007-cv00228; 2:2008-cv-00899. CONCEALMENT OF RECORD FORGERIES & RETALIATION 168. Crooked Lazzara conspired to conceal record forgeries such as, e.g., fake “land “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” and thereafter

parcels”

retaliated and “punished” the Plaintiffs for blowing the whistle on said Government crimes. DEFENDANT DREW HEATHCOAT RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS 169. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Crooked U.S. District Court

Clerk Drew Heathcoat (“deputy in charge”) in his private individual capacity and official capacity. Defendant Heathcoat’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF LACK OF RECORD 170. Def. Crooked Clerk Heathcoat knew and fraudulently concealed that

a. No judgment pertaining to a non-existent “Rule 38 motion” existed; b. No “Rule 38 motion” by Def. Forger Wilkinson could be found in the official records of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida;

43

c. No mandated “July 2009 judgment” in the amount of “$5,048.60” had ever existed and/or been received by the District Clerk; d. No lawful, legitimate, and authentic “writ of execution” was “issued” by any U.S. Court of Clerk. FALSIFICATIONS OF OFFICIAL RECORDS 171. Defendant Crooked Clerk Heathcoat falsified official documents and records for

criminal and unlawful purposes of, e.g., obtaining unlawful benefits, extorting fees and property from the Plaintiff whistleblowers, coercing the pro se Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecution, obstructing justice and the just, speedy, and inexpensive adjudication of Plaintiffs’ record claims for relief, et al. CAUSING OTHERS TO FALSIFY OFFICIAL RECORDS 172. Defendant Crooked Clerk Heathcoat caused others such as, e.g., Defendants Kim Arnett

and Diane Nipper to falsify records such as, e.g., a non-authentic and non-genuine “writ of execution” and a non-existent “Rule 38 motion”. CAUSING OTHERS TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE 173. Defendant Crooked Clerk Heathcoat caused others such as, e.g., Defendants Kim Arnett

and Diane Nipper to obstruct Plaintiffs’ filing of their pleadings and Notices of Appeal. 174. In July 2010, Crooked Heathcoat caused Arnett and Nipper to obstruct justice and

Plaintiffs’ filing of their “NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM ORDER, DOC. # 213 …” for criminal and unlawful purposes of concealing the prima facie illegal acts in this Court and covering up for Defendant corrupt Judges, who on the record conspired to conceal the fabrications of, e.g., fake “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-0100001.0000” in exchange for bribes.

44

DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS 175. On July 16, 2009, Defendant Heathcoat deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of their

fundamental Constitutionally guaranteed rights to, e.g., redress Government grievances, have meaningful court access, have electronic filing privileges, use the honest services of the Clerk of U.S. Courts, be free of Government corruption, concealment, cover up, oppression under, e.g., color of authority and office, fraudulent pretenses of a non-existent “writ of execution”, non-existent “judgment”, non-existent “Rule 38 motion”, non-existent “bill of costs”. RECKLESS DEPRIVATIONS OF EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES 176. On July 16, 2009, Defendant Heathcoat deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of express

Constitutional guarantees such as, e.g., the fundamental rights to due process and equal protection of the law. CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT 177. Defendant Corrupt Heathcoat conspired with other Officials and Defendants to extort

fees and Plaintiffs’ real property, unlawfully seize Plaintiffs’ record property under facially false pretenses of a non-existent “writ of execution”, and a “July judgment”, which Heathcoat knew did not exist on the Docket of Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE 178. On July 16, 2009, Defendant Heathcoat obstructed, delayed, and prevented the

communication of crime information relating to the commission of felonies by Government and judicial Officials and Defendants. Specifically, Clerk Heathcoat obstructed to issue a. “A written statement that a diligent search of the designated records in Case No. 2:2007cv-00228 revealed no record or entry of any valid “writ of execution”; b. “A written statement that a diligent search of the designated records in Case No. 2:2007cv-00228 revealed no record or entry of any valid “judgment in the amount of 5,048.60”;

45

c. “A written statement that a diligent search of the designated records revealed no record or entry of any “electronic filing privileges” in the names of Plaintiff corruption whistleblowers Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott. 179. On July 16, 2009, Defendant Heathcoat obstructed Plaintiffs’ filing of their “NOTICE

OF APPEAL FROM ORDER, DOC. # 213 …”, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, and obstructed, delayed, and prevented the communication of crime information relating to the commission of felonies and illegal acts by Government and judicial Officials and Defendants. DEFENDANT JOHN EDWIN STEELE RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS 180. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Corrupt John Edwin Steele

in his private individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. District Judge. Defendant Steele’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 181. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer John E. Steele perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 182. Defendant Crooked Judge John E. Steele injured the Plaintiff record property and

business owners by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property

46

losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Steele’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS 183. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant John E.

Steele’s Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338, 288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5. CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY 184. Defendant Steele acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire control

of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.: a. Exercising various forms of extortion; b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such as, e.g., “$5,048.60”; c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates; d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes. FOR BRIBES DEF. STEELE FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT 185. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeer Steele concealed and conspired with other

Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent:

47

WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490 (11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959) DEFENDANT STEELE’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY 186. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Steele has been collecting an unlawful debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie illicit “park” enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision as platted in 1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Steele’s and other Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”, entertainment, and recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of falsified “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an area of Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25. 187. Section 1962(B) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.” DEFENDANT STEELE’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION” 188. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Steele has been collecting an unlawful debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Steele’s and other Officials’ participation in said record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ## “12-44-20-01-

48

00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in Government fraud and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”. 189. Section 1962(c) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.” 190. The Plaintiffs proved 1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce; 2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation” enterprise; 3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 191. As a Judge presiding over Defendants’ prima facie fraudulent defenses, claims,

falsifications, and forgeries, Defendant Steele had a very meaningful connection between the enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of land and money for the enterprise under color of office and authority. DEFENDANT STEELE’S SECTION 1962(A) LIABILITY & DERIVED INCOME 192. Under color of prima facie falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution

569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, a falsified “writ of execution”, unrecorded fake “judgment in the purported amount of $5,048.60”, official right, and a facially forged and non-authentic “writ

49

of execution”, Defendant J. E. Steele received bribes and income derived from a pattern of racketeering and/or through collection of an unlawful debt in which Defendant Steele participated as presiding Judge and principal. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 338, 288, 282, 87, 5. Section 1962(A) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce …” Plaintiffs demand relief for their injuries by reason of the investment and use of the

193.

racketeering income from unlawful use of the private undedicated residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision and its private implied easements. Defendants and Steele have derived income from people from all over the world, who unlawfully use the private implied easements and Subdivision lands as conveyed in reference to said PB 3 PG 25 (1912). 194. Defendant Steele played a central Government role and participated in the

Government operation by extorting land and money for the enterprise. 195. With corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits at Plaintiffs’ expense and injury, Steele

falsified documents for the Government enterprise under color of office. Steele knew that it would be extremely difficult to eradicate public corruption, and that he would most likely “get away with the proverbial murder” and “racketeering”. 196. Because the “park and recreation” enterprise was a Government enterprise, Defendant

Steele was empowered to play a central role of obstructing, delaying, and preventing the communication of crime and felony information. DEFENDANT STEELE’S SECTION 1962(D) LIABILITY & CONSPIRACY 197. Defendant Steele conspired to violate all subsections. Section 1962(D) provides that:

50

“It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.” 198. The alleged violations, or "predicate acts", included violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1341,

relating to mail fraud. 18 USC Section 1341 provides that "whoever, having devised . . . any scheme or artifice to defraud. . . for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice . . . places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service . . . shall be fined . . . or imprisoned . . .." 199. The Plaintiffs proved

a. The existence of a plan or scheme to defraud [fake “O.R. 569/875; fake “writ” …] b. That it was foreseeable that the defendant's scheme would cause the mails to be used; c. That the use of the mails was for the purpose of carrying out the fraudulent scheme. It was unnecessary to show that Defendant Steele’s mailings contained a misrepresentation unlike common law fraud. RECORDED SCHEME TO DEFRAUD AND DELIBERATELY DEPRIVE 200. As a matter of public record, Def. Steele’s scheme to defraud included, e.g.:

a. Prima facie idiotic fabrication of a “legislative act” [“O.R. 569/875”]; b. Prima facie idiotic fabrication of involuntary alienation by “law”; c. Prima facie idiotic fabrication of a “writ of execution” absent any recorded judgment; d. Removal of Plaintiffs’ State action to U.S. Court and destruction of official records; e. Prevention of Plaintiffs’ communications about Def. Steele’s and other Defendants’ commission of felonies, extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. BRIBERY 201. In exchange for bribes, Defendant John E. Steele deliberately deprived the Plaintiff

corruption victims of their express fundamental rights under the Florida and Federal Constitutions. Defendant Steele perverted the express fundamental rights to be free of

51

Government corruption, oppression, fraudulent seizure of property, to own property, exclude Government, redress Government grievances, and defend against public corruption and Government crimes. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF LACK OF RECORD 202. Crooked Steele knew and fraudulently concealed that

a. No judgment pertaining to the non-existent “Rule 38 motion” existed; b. No “Rule 38 motion” by Def. Forger Wilkinson could be found in the official records of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit; c. No lawful and legitimate “writ of execution” was “issued”; d. No mandated “July 2009 judgment” in the amount of “$5,048.60” had ever existed and/or been received by the District Clerk. CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL AND COVER UP 203. For bribes, Defendant Crooked Steele conspired with other Defendants and Officials to

conceal Def. Crooked Appraiser Wilkinson’s prima facie record forgeries of “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” and cover up for, e.g., Defendant Wilkinson and other Government Officials and Defendants. See Doc. ## 87, 338, 422; Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT 204. Corrupt Steele knew and fraudulently concealed that on the record Defendant Forger

Wilkinson had forged “land parcels”, which Def. Steele could not locate on the 1912 “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat recorded in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25.

52

CONSPIRACY TO FABRICATE “RULE 38 MOTION” 205. Def. Corrupt Steele conspired with other Officials to fabricate a “Rule 38 Motion”,

which Defendant “land parcel” Forger K. M. Wilkinson had never signed and/or filed. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF FALSIFIED “motions” AND “orders” 206. Defendant Crooked Steele knew and fraudulently concealed that Def. S. F. Birch had

falsified “motions” and “orders”; e.g., on 03/05/09, Def. Birch had falsified a motion for sanctions for Busse’s pursuit of a frivolous appeal, Doc. # 386-4, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. 207. Corrupt Steele knew and concealed that the fraudulently pretended “grant” of a non-

existent “motion” was a fraud and extortion scheme on the public record. FALSIFICATIONS OF RECORD AND NON-EXISTENT “$5,048.60 JUDGMENT” 208. Steele falsified the record and fraudulently pretended a “judgment” even though no

“judgment” in the amount of “$5,048.60” had ever existed on the Docket of Case No. 2:2007cv-00228, or could have possibly become a lien on Plaintiffs’ property. FABRICATIONS OF “FRIVOLITY” FOR ILLEGAL PURPOSES 209. Defendant Steele knew and fraudulently concealed that Def. “land parcel” Forger

Wilkinson had never filed any motion for sanctions for a frivolous appeal, Fed.R.Civ.P. 38. Defendant Corrupt Steele concealed that any time to file the non-existent “Rule 38 motion” had expired on 08/08/2009. See 11th Cir. R. 38-1 and Dockets. 210. Def. Steele fabricated “frivolity” for criminal and unlawful purposes of “punishing” the

Plaintiffs and coercing them to refrain from prosecuting Government Officials and Defendants and extorting fees and Plaintiffs’ property.

53

DEFENDANT STANLEY F. BIRCH (JR.) RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS 211. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Corrupt U.S. Circuit Judge

Stanley F. Birch, Jr., in his private individual capacity and official capacity. Defendant Birch’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. FABRICATIONS OF “RULE 38 MOTION” 212. Defendant Crooked Judge Birch fabricated a “Rule 38 Motion” by Defendant Forger K.

M. Wilkinson. No “Rule 38 motion” by Def. Forger Wilkinson could be found in the official records of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. CONSPIRACY TO FABRICATE “RULE 38 MOTION” 213. Def. Corrupt Birch conspired with other Officials to fabricate a “Rule 38 Motion”,

which Defendant Forger K. M. Wilkinson had never signed and/or filed. FALSIFICATIONS OF “ORDERS” 214. Crooked Birch falsified “motions” and “orders”. E.g., on 03/05/09, Corrupt Birch

falsified a motion for sanctions for Busse’s pursuit of a frivolous appeal, Doc. # 386-4, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. 215. Corrupt Birch knew that the fraudulently pretended “grant” of a non-existent “motion”

was a fraud and extortion scheme on the public record. 216. Defendant Birch knew and fraudulently concealed that Def. Forger Wilkinson had never

filed any motion for sanctions for a frivolous appeal, Fed.R.Civ.P. 38. Defendant Corrupt Birch concealed that any time to file the non-existent “Rule 38 motion” had expired on 08/08/2009. See 11th Cir. R. 38-1 and Dockets.

54

CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT 217. Crooked Birch conspired with other Defendants and Officials to extort fees and

Plaintiffs’ property under fraudulent pretenses of a fictitious “Rule 38 Motion”, which Def. Birch knew had never existed. CAUSING DEFENDANT CIRCUIT CLERK OF COURT TO FALSIFY ENTRIES 218. Def. Crooked Birch caused the Defendant Clerk of the U.S. Circuit Court to falsify an

“entry” of a “Rule 38 motion”, which had never existed or been filed and signed by Defendant Appellee “land parcel” Forger K. M. Wilkinson. CONSPIRACY TO CAUSE DEF. CIRCUIT CLERK TO FALSIFY DOCKET 219. Defendant Crooked Circuit Judge Birch conspired with other Judges, Defendants,

judicial panelists, and Officials to falsify docket entries and in particular, falsify a “Rule 38 motion” “entry”. RECORD FRAUD AND EXTORTION 220. Defendant Birch knew and fraudulently concealed that Def. Forger Wilkinson had

never submitted and/or filed any “bill of costs” for “attorney’s fees” or “costs” in the amount of “$5,000.00”. DECEPTION & TRICKERY 221. Def. Corrupt Judge Birch deceived the 11th Circuit about the record lack of any “costs”

in the amount of “$5,000.00” and arbitrarily and capriciously fabricated “$5,000.00” in a publicly recorded conspiracy to extort fees and Plaintiff whistleblowers’ property.

55

CONSPIRACY TO RETALIATE AGAINST PLAINTIFF CORRUPTION VICTIMS 222. Defendant Birch conspired with other Defendants and Officials to retaliate against the

Plaintiffs under color of “frivolity” and a fictitious “Rule 38 motion” for criminal purposes of extorting fees and property from the Plaintiffs. CONSPIRACY TO COERCE THE PLAINTIFF RECORD OWNERS 223. Defendant Birch conspired with other Defendants and Officials to coerce the Plaintiffs

to refrain from prosecuting and communicating the commission of publicly recorded Government crimes under color of “frivolity” and a fictitious “Rule 38 motion” for criminal purposes of extorting fees and property. DEFENDANT SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLEGAL ACTS 224. The Plaintiff public corruption and extortion victims are suing Defendant corrupt Sheri

Polster Chappell (“Chappell”) in her private individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. Magistrate Judge. Defendant Chappell’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND COMMUNICATIONS OF CRIME INFORMATION 225. Maliciously, Defendant Chappell obstructed and prevented Plaintiffs’ communications

of crime information relating to the recorded commission of felonies by, e.g., Defendant Forger K. M. Wilkinson, and Defendant Attorneys Jack N. Peterson and Sherri L. Johnson. ALTERATION, DESTRUCTION, AND CONCEALMENT OF PUBLIC RECORDS 226. With corrupt intent to obtain a benefit, Defendant Corrupt Chappell illegally altered,

destroyed and/or concealed public records. In particular, Chappell practiced the record

56

policy and custom of having Plaintiffs’ pleadings disappear from the Docket after they had been filed. FALSIFICATIONS OF “lien” 227. With corrupt intent to obtain unlawful benefits, Defendant Crooked Chappell falsified a

“lien” in the record absence of any mandated “judgment” “received” by this Court in Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. Because of the lack of any recorded “judgment”, nothing could have possibly become a “lien”. See § 55.10, Fla. Stat. FALSIFICATION OF “ORDERS” 228. Crooked Chappell falsified “motions” and “orders”. E.g., on 02/01/10, Corrupt Chappell

falsified a “motion for sanctions for Busse’s pursuit of a frivolous appeal”, Doc. # 424, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. Defendant Whore Chappell knew and fraudulently concealed that Def. Forger Wilkinson had never filed any “motion for sanctions for a frivolous appeal”, Fed.R.Civ.P. 38. Corrupt Chappell concealed that any time to file the non-existent “Rule 38 motion” had expired on 08/08/2009. See 11th Cir. R. 38-1 and Dockets. CAUSING OTHERS TO FALSIFY OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS 229. On or around 02/01/10, Def. Corrupt Chappell caused the Co-Defendant Clerk of this

Court to falsify an official document and “issue” a facially fraudulent “writ of execution”, Doc. # 424, p. 2, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. In said bogus “order”, Def. Chappell brazenly falsified: “The motion was referred to this Court by the District Court on January 26, 2009.” INTIMIDATION, HARASSMENT, AND OBSTRUCTION OF ADJUDICATION 230. Def. Forger Wilkinson’s forgeries of “land parcels”, which neither Corrupt Chappell

nor anyone else could possibly find on the 1912 “Cayo Costa” Plat of Survey, PB 3 PG 25,

57

were fully supported by the law. Whore Chappell’s “order”, Doc.# 424, was without any “legal merit” and for record improper purposes such as, e.g., to harass, intimidate, and threaten the Plaintiffs and to cause unnecessary delay and needlessly increase the cost of litigation. CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE & PERPETRATE FRAUD ON COURT 231. Any “Rule 27-4 motion” would have had to appear on the official Docket but never did.

Any “Rule 27-4 motion” would have required the following but never did: “(2) Contents of a Motion. (A) Grounds and relief sought. A motion must state with particularity the grounds for the motion, the relief sought, and the legal argument necessary to support it. (B) Accompanying documents. (i) Any affidavit or other paper necessary to support a motion must be served and filed with the motion. (ii) An affidavit must contain only factual information, not legal argument. (iii) A motion seeking substantive relief must include a copy of the trial court’s opinion or agency’s decision as a separate exhibit.” 232. Crooked Chappell concealed that Def. Forger and Racketeer Wilkinson

a. Never “stated” any “grounds” and “legal argument necessary”; b. Forged, e.g., “land parcels”, maps; c. Falsified “real property data” to extort property worth Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in 2007.

58

CONSPIRACY TO COERCE & EXTORT 233. Corrupt Chappell conspired with Defendant Forger Wilkinson to expressly

“discourage” and coerce Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecuting and communicating the commission of felonies by Government Officials and to extort: “5. In order to discourage the Appellant from engaging in the same practices in this Court, the Appellee would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 386-2, p. 2. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF PAID “$24.30” JUDGMENT 234. Corrupt Chappell fraudulently concealed the paid “$24.30” “judgment” “issued as

mandate on 06/11/2009” in Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Fed.R.App.P. 39. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION OF “BILL OF COST” 235. Corrupt Chappell concealed that Defendant Forger Wilkinson had never, and could have

never possibly filed any “$5,000” “bill of cost” and “Rule 38 motion”. Corrupt Chappell concealed that any time to file the non-existent “Rule 38 motion” had expired on 08/08/2009. See certified Dockets and 11th Cir. R. 38-1. 236. Crooked Chappell concocted a “Rule 38 motion” for criminal and illicit purposes of

extorting fees and property from the Plaintiff corruption victims and whistleblowers. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF WILKINSON’S FORGED “LAND PARCELS” 237. Recklessly, Defendant Chappell concealed Defendant Forger K. M. Wilkinson’s facially

forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”. COVER UP FOR DEFENDANT FORGER WILKINSON 238. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Whore Chappell covered up for Co-Defendant

Forger Kenneth M. Wilkinson under fraudulent pretenses of, e.g., purported “frivolity” and “Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 violations”.

59

239.

On, e.g., 11/07/2007, Corrupt Chappell obstructed Plaintiff(s)’ communications of

conclusive proof of the commission of felonies by the Defendant in Chappell’s own Court. The Transcript of said 11/07/2007 Court Hearing conclusively proved public corruption and Chappell’s criminal and illegal concealment of public corruption information under oath. CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL RECORD FALSIFICATIONS 240. With corrupt intent to receive illegal benefits, Defendant Corrupt Chappell conspired

with other Officials and Defendants to conceal the record forgeries of said fake “land parcels”. Chappell knew that Defendant Forger Wilkinson’s forged “land parcels” could not be found on the 1912 “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat of Survey in Lee County Plat Book 3 Page 25. BRIBERY 241. Defendant Crooked Chappell accepted Defendants’ bribes, and in exchange, fixed

Plaintiffs’ Cases under fraudulent pretenses of, e.g., lack of jurisdiction even though Chappell knew that the U.S. Courts had jurisdiction over any and all claims against the U.S. Agents and Defendants. 242. For bribes, corrupt Chappell fabricated that Plaintiffs’ conclusively proven allegations

of said forgeries were purportedly “frivolous”, covered up for Defendant corrupt Officials, and concealed their record crimes. FALSIFICATION OF “writ of execution” 243. With corrupt intent to obtain unlawful benefits for Government Officials, Defendant

Crooked Chappell falsified a “writ of execution” and/or “judgment” for illegal purposes of extorting money and property from the Plaintiffs.

60

FALSIFICATION OF “regulation” 244. With corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits for Government Officials, Defendant

Crooked Chappell falsified a “regulation” and/or “law” for criminal and illegal purposes of extorting fees and property from the Plaintiffs. FALSIFICATION OF “Rule 38 motion” 245. Defendant Crooked Chappell falsified a “Rule 38 motion”, which she knew Defendant

Forger K. M. Wilkinson had never filed in the 11th Circuit. EXTORTION 246. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Chappell extorted fees, money, and property from the

Plaintiff corruption victims. MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE, CONCEALMENT, AND COVER UP 247. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Whore Chappell obstructed, delayed, and prevented

the communications of judicial and Government corruption information relating to the commission of felonies by, e.g., U.S. Agents J. E. Steele, S. Polster Chappell, M. A. Pizzo, R. A. Lazzara, and Def. record Forger of “land parcels” K. M. Wilkinson, and Crooked Attorney Jack N. Peterson, § 838.022 (1)(c), Fla. Stat. PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 248. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Chappell perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 249. Defendant Crooked Chappell injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners

by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs

61

are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Chappell’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice and court access. 18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS 250. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant

Chappell’s Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338, 288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5; see Transcript of November 2007 Court Hearing during which Def. Chappell concealed Wilkinson’s falsified “land parcels”. CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY 251. Defendant Chappell acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire

control of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.: a. Exercising various forms of extortion; b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such as, e.g., “$5,048.60”; c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates;

62

d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes. FOR BRIBES CHAPPELL FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT 252. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeer Chappell concealed and conspired with

other Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent: WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490 (11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959) DEFENDANT CHAPPELL’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY 253. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Chappell has been collecting an unlawful debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie illicit “park” enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision as platted in 1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Chappell’s and other Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”, entertainment, and recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of falsified “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an area of Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25. 254. Section 1962(B) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.” DEFENDANT CHAPPELL’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION” 255. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”,

63

“O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Chappell has been collecting an unlawful debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Chappell’s and other Officials’ participation in said record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ## “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in Government fraud and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”. 256. Section 1962(c) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.” 257. The Plaintiffs proved 1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ Government fee, entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce; 2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Recreation” and Government fee and money extortion enterprise; 3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 258. As a Magistrate presiding over Defendants’ prima facie fraudulent defenses, claims,

falsifications, and forgeries, Defendant Chappell had a very meaningful connection between the illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of land, fees, and money for the enterprise under color of office and authority. DEFENDANT BEVERLY B. MARTIN RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS 259. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Beverly B. Martin (“Martin”)

in her private individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. Circuit Judge. Defendant

64

Martin’s unlawful and criminal acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. FELONIES OUTSIDE ANY “official” CAPACITY 260. Under color of undocketed and/or falsified Cases ## 2010-10963 and 2010-10967, Def.

Martin falsified official records and documents and caused others to falsify for criminal and illegal purposes of extorting money and property under fraudulent pretenses of “frivolity”. 261. Def. Martin knew and concealed that the only paid judgment of record had been in the

amount of $24.30. When the Plaintiffs conclusively proved the prima facie criminality, illegality, and nullity of a falsified “$5,048.60 judgment”, which could nowhere be found, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Def. Martin retaliated with further case fixing on “Jul 19 2010”. COERCION, EXTORTION UNDER FALSE PRETENSES, AND COVER-UP 262. Def. Martin coerced the Plaintiff corruption victims to refrain from redressing their

grievances of a facially falsified and un-recorded “$5,048.60 judgment”, fake “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, and forged “land parcels”. No court had ever reviewed the record forgeries of said fake “land parcels”, and Def. Martin conspired with other Offenders to keep it that way and keep Plaintiffs out of Court. Just like a Government whore, Def. Martin procured her order through brazen fraud on the Court, Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540; see also 1.550. CONTEMPT OF FLORIDA LAW, CHAPTERS 55, 56, 71, 73, 74, 95, 712, FLA. STAT. 263. Def. Martin concealed that here nothing could have possibly become a lien on Plaintiffs’

property under Ch. 55, 56, 71, Fla. Stat. MARTIN’S KNOWLEDGE OF CRIMES AND UNLAWFUL ACTS 264. Defendant Corrupt Martin had knowledge of the actual commission of felonies such as,

e.g., the falsifications of

65

a. a “$5,048.60 judgment”; b. an appeal [see Case ## 2010-10967, and/or 2010-10963]; c. a “writ of execution” [Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 425]; d. “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”; e. a “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “legislative act”, and/or “O.R. 569/875”. However, Def. Martin concealed and conspired to conceal said record falsifications. Here even though Def. Martin had knowledge of, e.g., judicial Co-Defendant Polster Chappell’s, Steele’s, Pizzo’s, and Lazzara’s obstruction of justice and fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels”, a falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “$5,048.60 judgment”, Corrupt Martin did not make the same known to some judge or person in authority, but covered up for said Offenders in exchange for bribes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4. ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT 265. Defendant Crook Martin knew that Defendant principal Offenders Steele, Chappell,

Pizzo, and Lazzara had committed record offenses and assisted said Offenders, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4. In particular, Martin assisted said Offenders with a facially fraudulent “writ of execution” and the falsification and/or destruction of official records. DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS UNDER COLOR OF FAKE “writ” AND “resolution” 266. Defendant Martin deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs, e.g., under color of a fake “writ

of execution”, “resolution 569/875”, and “frivolous appeal”, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242. RECORD RETALIATION UNDER COLOR OF WRIT OF EXECUTION & SANCTIONS 267. With the intent to retaliate, Corrupt Martin knowingly took actions harmful to the

Plaintiff public corruption victims, which included interference with Plaintiffs’ livelihood and record land ownership, because the Plaintiff landowners had provided truthful

66

information relating to the commission of Federal offenses to law enforcement, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1513. EXTORTION ASSISTANCE UNDER COLOR OF “FRIVOLOUS APPEAL” 268. Knowingly, Def. Martin assisted the extortion of Plaintiffs’ property and/or threatened

to do so, with corrupt intent to retaliate against the Plaintiffs because the Plaintiffs had blown the whistle on public corruption; in particular, because the Plaintiffs had produced records and testimony conclusively evidencing Government corruption and fraud, and information about the commission of Federal offenses by Government Officials. Here, Plaintiff Government crime and corruption victims had the right to be reasonably protected from the Government Offenders and Judges of record, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AND COURT ACCESS 269. Def. Martin conspired with other Defendants and Officials to “restrict Appellant’s ability

to pursue future appeals” for, e.g., criminal and unlawful purposes of concealing: a. Facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-0100001.0000”; b. Falsification of [a recorded “$24.30 judgment” into] an un-recorded“$5,048.60”extortion-and-execution scheme; c. Falsification of a “writ of execution” in the absence of a recorded “$5,048.60” “judgment”; d. Destruction and falsification of official Court records.

67

EXACTION OF MONEY BY THREAT OF, E.G., ARREST AND CIVIL CONTEMPT 270. Def. Martin conspired to exact money from Plaintiffs under color of, e.g., “frivolous

appeal” even though Martin knew that no legal basis for and justification of “frivolity” had ever or could have possibly ever existed. CONSPIRACY TO ASSIST EXTORTION AND BLACKMAIL 271. In particular, Def. Martin conspired and assisted to extort $5,048.60 and property in the

absence of any recorded authentic judgment and justification. Martin caused other Government Officials to falsify, alter, and destroy official records for criminal and illegal purposes of concealing other Defendant Officials’ extortion, coercion, obstruction of justice and other crimes of record. 272. Def. Martin made unlawful communications and threatened Plaintiff public corruption

whistleblowers with obstruction of court access and deliberate deprivations of Plaintiffs’ express fundamental rights to redress Government grievances, own property, and exclude Governments. MISCONDUCT AND EXTENSION OF RECORD CRIMES AND FALSIFIED “WRIT” 273. Under prima facie fraudulent pretenses of “frivolous appeal”, Def. Martin recklessly

extended the record Government crimes, and FIXED and “DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS”. Def. Martin assisted and conspired the reckless perversion and falsification of a recorded “Judgment” and “Bill of Costs” in the amount of $24.30 “issued as mandate on 06/11/2009” for criminal and illegal purposes of extortion, coercion, and retaliation against the Plaintiff corruption whistle blowers. In order for the record fraud under said fake “land parcels” to continue and for illegal purposes of silencing the Plaintiff

68

landowners, Def. Martin “SUSPENDED” and perverted the Rules and caused the Clerk to “discard” more documents. FALSIFICATION OF APPEAL NUMBERS 274. The payment records regarding Plaintiffs’ multiple appeals conclusively proved the

falsifications and fabrications of “Appeal Number 10-10963 and/or 10-10967”. See U.S. District Court payment records and receipts. The U.S. Clerk refused to certify and authenticate the payment record. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 44. 275. Def. Martin pulled “frivolity” out of her ass without any explanation and/or justification

whatsoever. Review of the recorded judgment patently clearly evidenced that the District and Circuit had fabricated “lack of jurisdiction” for illegal purposes of concealment and coverup. Plaintiffs were entitled to defend their unimpeachable, unencumbered, and marketable record title against Government extortion and fraud, which of course had invoked Federal jurisdiction directly under the express guarantees of the Federal and Florida Constitutions. 276. Here with wanton disregard for the law, and including Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540, 1.550, Ch.

55, 56, 71, 73, 74, 95, 712, Fla. Stat., Def. Martin conspired to oppress Plaintiffs with prima facie non-existent and/or illegal orders, judgments, and/or mandates… PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 277. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Martin perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 278. Defendant Martin knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,

Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering:

69

“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2. Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 279. Defendant Crooked Martin injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by

reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Martin’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice. 280. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official Martin extorted money, fees, and property

under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at Brigham Moore. 281. Said Defendant knew that

a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1; b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386;

70

c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record; d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”; e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”; f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired; g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed; h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson. 282. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that “(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).” See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. 18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS 283. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant

Martin’s Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338, 288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5. CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY 284. Defendant Martin acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire control

of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.: 71

a. Exercising various forms of extortion; b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such as, e.g., “$5,048.60”; c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates; d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes. FOR BRIBES DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT 285. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeer Martin concealed and conspired with other

Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent: WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490 (11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959) DEFENDANT MARTIN’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY 286. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Martin has been collecting an unlawful debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie illicit “park” enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision as platted in 1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Martin’s and other Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”, entertainment, and recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of falsified “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an area of Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25. 287. Section 1962(B) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly,

72

any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.” DEFENDANT’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION” 288. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Martin has been collecting an unlawful debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Martin’s and other Officials’ participation in said record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ## “12-44-20-0100000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in Government fraud and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”. 289. Section 1962(c) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.” 290. The Plaintiffs proved 1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce; 2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation” enterprise; 3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 291. As a Judge presiding over Defendants’ prima facie fraudulent defenses, claims,

falsifications, and forgeries, Defendant Martin had a very meaningful connection between the illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of land, money, and fees for the enterprise under color of, e.g., office and authority. 73

292.

Defendant Martin extorted and concealed, and conspired to extort and conceal, that he

procedure on execution did not accord with the procedure of the State of Florida. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 69. Defendant knew that Florida procedure required a recorded and certified judgment, which here had never existed. The Court never had any authority to award “$5,048.60”, and the judgment issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 in the amount of $24.30 had been paid. The prima facie fraudulent “affidavit” by Defendant Racketeer JACK N. PETERSON fraudulently pretended a “07/29/2009” “judgment”, Doc. # 432-2, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, which all Defendants knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal had never existed. See also Ch. 55, 56, Florida Statutes. DEFENDANT CHARLENE E. HONEYWELL RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS 293. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant corrupt U.S. District Judge

Charlene Edwards Honeywell (“Honeywell”), a female Afro-American Judge, in her private individual capacity and official capacity. Defendant Honeywell’s unlawful and criminal acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. FELONIES OUTSIDE ANY “official” CAPACITY 294. Defendant Corrupt Honeywell had knowledge of the actual commission of felonies and

concealed them. Here even though Def. Honeywell had knowledge of, e.g., judicial CoDefendant Chappell’s, Steele’s, Pizzo’s, and Lazzara’s obstruction of justice and fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels”, a falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “$5,048.60 judgment”, Corrupt Honeywell did not make the same known to some judge or person in authority, but covered up for said Offenders in exchange for bribes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4.

74

ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT 295. Defendant Crook Honeywell knew that Defendant principal Offenders Steele, Chappell,

Pizzo, and Lazzara had committed record offenses and assisted said Offenders, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4. See, e.g., Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 50, assistance with facially fraudulent “writ of execution”; see Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. ## 213, 236, assistance with record forgeries. DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS UNDER COLOR OF FAKE “writ” AND “resolution” 296. Defendant Government Whore deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs, e.g., under color of a

fake “writ of execution” and “resolution 569/875”, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242. RECORD RETALIATION UNDER COLOR OF WRIT OF EXECUTION & SANCTIONS 297. With the intent to retaliate, Corrupt Honeywell knowingly took actions harmful to the

Plaintiff public corruption victims, which included interference with Plaintiffs’ livelihood and record land ownership, because the Plaintiff landowners had provided truthful information relating to the commission of Federal offenses to law enforcement, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1513. 298. Knowingly, Honeywell extorted Plaintiffs’ property and/or threatened to do so, with

corrupt intent to retaliate against the Plaintiffs because the Plaintiffs had blown the whistle on public corruption; in particular, because the Plaintiffs had produced records and testimony conclusively evidencing Government corruption and fraud, and information about the commission of Federal offenses by Government Officials. Here, Plaintiff Government crime and corruption victims had the right to be reasonably protected from the Government Offenders and Judges of record, 18 U.S.C. § 3771.

75

RECORD POLICY, CUSTOM, AND CULTURE OF CORRUPTION 299. Customarily, and over and over again, Honeywell coerced the Plaintiffs to refrain from

prosecuting and producing crime evidence. Idiotic lies and threats of “sanctions” have played a central role in Honeywell’s record crimes and concealment. Just like Jews and Government opponents in Nazi Germany, the Plaintiff Government crime victims are running from the anarchy, extortion, and coercion in Honeywell’s court of perversions where un-recorded and non-existent judgments can be perverted into a “lien on property”. BLACKMAIL, EXTORTION, UNLAWFUL COMMUNICATIONS & THREATS 300. In retaliation and exchange for bribes, Defendant Crooked Judge Honeywell made

threatening demands without any justification under color of law, authority, and falsified official records. In particular, Defendant Corrupt Judge threatened, e.g., “monetary sanctions”, “civil contempt”, and/or arrest, merely because the Plaintiff public corruption victims had exposed and blown the whistle on, e.g., Honeywell’s crimes, extortion, coercion, and fraud on the Court. EXACTION OF MONEY BY THREAT OF, E.G., ARREST AND CIVIL CONTEMPT 301. Honeywell exacted, threatened to exact, and/or conspired with other Officials and

Defendants to exact money from Plaintiffs by threat of “monetary sanctions”, “civil contempt”, and/or arrest under color of, e.g., office and falsified official records. In particular, Def. Honeywell conspired to extort $5,048.60” in the absence of any recorded authentic judgment and justification. Honeywell caused other Government Officials to falsify, alter, and destroy official records for criminal and illegal purposes of concealing Honeywell’s extortion, coercion, obstruction of justice and other crimes of record.

76

Honeywell made unlawful communications and threatened Plaintiff public corruption whistleblowers. See, e.g., Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 50, p. 3: “Shortly thereafter, the writ was issued (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 425).” Defendant Government Whore Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that no “writ” had ever been issued and/or could have possibly been issued, because, e.g., no recorded “$5,048.60 judgment” had ever existed. For criminal & illegal purposes of, e.g., extorting and obstructing justice, said Defendant falsely and idiotically pretended lack of “authority” over record extortion under color of a falsified official record by U.S. Defendants, Case No. 2:2010-00089, Doc. # 50, 07/14/10, p. 3: “Because Case No. 2:07-CV-228 was assigned to Judge John Steele, this Court does not have the authority to grant relief from the writ of execution.” 302. Just like a bungling Government idiot, Def. Honeywell contradicted herself in the next

paragraph, in which she cited “Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)”, Doc. # 50, pp. 3-4: “A party may move for relief from a final judgment or order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).” “As such, the matter is closed, except for the issue of sanctions.” “Plaintiffs have given the Court more than enough grounds to impose sanctions for their misconduct.” MISCONDUCT AND EXTENSION OF RECORD CRIMES AND FALSIFIED “writ” 303. Def. Honeywell recklessly extended the record Government crimes and falsified “writ”,

Doc. # 425: “To the extent that Plaintiffs request injunctive relief, the Motions will be denied.” See Doc. # 50, p. 4. 304. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed that sanctions were not any “issue” but

Honeywell’s record crimes and unlawful acts such as, e.g., extortion, concealment, and

77

fraud were. In said organized cover-up, Defendant Honeywell concealed that there had never been any “$5,048.60 judgment” of record and that no “judgment” of record had ever even referenced any “frivolous appeal”. 305. Honeywell promoted the record culture and policy of corruption, anarchy,

lawlessness and perversion of law and facts. With corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits, Honeywell “incomprehensibly” and “disjointedly” copied and pasted together illegal “orders” and judicial trash without ever addressing the complained about legal issues and claims for relief. RECKLESS DEPRIVATIONS AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & COURT ACCESS 306. For criminal and illegal purposes of obstructing justice, extorting, coercing, and

concealing, Defendant Criminal Honeywell obstructed, and caused other Officials and Defendants to obstruct, the filing of, e.g., Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal from “order”, Doc. # 213, Notice of Appeal from “order”, Doc. # 236, Case No. 2-2009-cv-00791: “The Clerk is directed to terminate these motions. 3. The Clerk is further directed to no longer accept ANY filings from Plaintiffs in this case because a judgment has been entered and Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal as to the Court’s Order (Dkt. 213), and this case is CLOSED. 4. Finally, the Clerk is also directed to strike Published Public Notices from the record (Dkt. 220, 221, 223, 225, 226, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, 235).” ILLEGAL DESTRUCTION AND MUTILATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS 307. With corrupt intent to extort, blackmail, coerce, defraud, deprive, and obtain illegal

benefits, Defendant Corrupt Honeywell destroyed, mutilated, caused others to destroy and mutilate, and conspired with, e.g., other Officials to destroy and mutilate official records, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. # 236, 07/02/2010, p. 3: “Plaintiffs have also filed several documents entitled “Published Public Notice” (Dkt. 220, 221, 223, 225, 226, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, and 235). These documents do not relate to any pending motion. Further, they are not motions which request affirmative relief by the Court. They are immaterial to this case, which has been dismissed. 78

Moreover, some of the documents contain scandalous materials. These notices should, therefore, be stricken.” See Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. # 236, pp. 2-3. MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE, CONCEALMENT, AND COVER UP 308. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Government Whore Honeywell obstructed, delayed,

and prevented the communication of judicial and Government corruption information relating to the commission of felonies by, e.g., U.S. Agents J. E. Steele, S. Polster Chappell, M. A. Pizzo, R. A. Lazzara, and Def. record Forger of “land parcels” K. M. Wilkinson, and Crooked Attorney Jack N. Peterson, § 838.022 (1)(c), Fla. Stat. DELIBERATE DERPRIVATIONS AND PERVERSIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS 309. U.S. Defendant Honeywell recklessly perverted express Florida and Federal

Constitutional guarantees of, e.g., the rights to due process, equal protection of the law, to own property, exclude Governments from private property, redress Government grievances, prosecute by jury trial, be free of Government corruption, extortion, coercion, oppression, falsification of records, unlawful seizure of private property under fraudulent pretenses such as, e.g.: a. Idiotically and brazenly, Def. Whore Honeywell manufactured and conspired with other Government Officials to pervert express Constitutional guarantees and concoct that property rights are not fundamental rights; b. Def. Honeywell concocted and conspired to concoct that Plaintiffs could not assert their perfected “state claims” against U.S. Agents in U.S. Courts; c. Def. Honeywell fabricated and conspired to fabricate that Defendant Forger of “land parcels” Wilkinson had filed a non-existent “Rule 38 motion”. Here, Defendant Honeywell falsified and caused others to falsify dockets, docket entries, and official records. See § 838.022 (1)(a), Fla. Stat.;

79

d. Def. Predator Honeywell concealed, covered up, and/or altered official records and documents, § 838.022 (1)(b), Fla. Stat.; e. With corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits for Lee County Officials and to harm the Plaintiff record landowners & corruption victims, Def. Honeywell maliciously fabricated and conspired to fabricate a “regulation” by nameless, un-named, and non-existent “legislators”. See § 838.022 (1), Fla. Stat. OBSTRUCTION OF COURT ACCESS & FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL, DOC. 213 310. On or around 07/16/2010, Defendant Whore Honeywell prevented and conspired with

other Officials such as, e.g., Defendant Clerks Drew Heathcoat and Diane Nipper the filing of Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal from Order, Doc. # 213 …, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, and the communication of information relating to the commission of felonies in the U.S. District Court, Fort Myers, Florida. 311. Recklessly, Honeywell’s illegal and felonious acts deprived the Plaintiffs of their rights

as stated in Doc. # 214, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791. “RULE 38/WRIT OF EXECUTION”-FRAUD-SCHEME, CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT 312. Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39, costs may be taxed against the appellant, if a judgment is

affirmed. Defendant Whore Honeywell knew and concealed that the “costs allowed” and/or taxed were “$24.30”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 365, p. 15; 386-3, p. 15. Def. Honeywell concealed that no costs were ever allowed under purported “Rule 38”. “FRIVOLOUS APPEAL”-FRAUD & EXTORTION-SCHEME 313. “FRAP 38, Frivolous Appeal - Damages and Costs” provides that “if a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.”

80

314.

Defendant Government Whore Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that pursuant

to 11th Cir. R. 38-1, Time for Filing Motions, Motions for damages and costs pursuant to FRAP 38 must be filed no later than the filing of appellee’s brief. Here, Defendant Wilkinson had tendered and/or filed his prima facie fraudulent brief on or around 08/08/2008. See Appellate Case No. 2008-13170-BB, certified Docket sheet. Admittedly, Defendant Wilkinson never filed any “Rule 38 motion” before 08/08/2008. 315. Admittedly, Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any Rule 38 motion. Rule 38 only

provided for damages and costs. Here, Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any such motion and perpetrated fraud on the Court. See certified Docket. Defendant Government Whore Honeywell concealed said “Rule 38 motion”-fraud-scheme and conspiracy to extort. CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL ILLEGALITY & CRIMINALITY OF FAKE “WRIT” 316. On or around 07/14/10, Defendant corrupt U.S. Judge Honeywell conspired with, e.g.,

U.S. Defendants Chappell and Steele to fraudulently conceal the prima facie nullity and illegality of a facially forged “writ of execution” and “July judgment”, Case No. 2:2010-cv00089, Doc. # 48, p. 1: “On February 1, 2010, Magistrate Judge Chappell issued an order granting Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson's Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 424). Shortly thereafter, the writ was issued (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 425).” 317. Defendant crooked Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that

Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any “Rule 38 motion”, Fed.R.App.P. 318. Defendant corrupt U.S. Judge Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to

conceal that Defendant Co-conspirator Chappell had fabricated a mandate and/or judgment, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 424: “On July 28, 2009, the Eleventh Circuit issued a Judgment awarding Wilkinson $5,000.00 in attorney’s fees and double costs in the amount of $48.60, as sanctions for Busse’s pursuit of a frivolous appeal.” 81

319.

Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that admittedly

Defendant Wilkinson had never alleged a “frivolous appeal” and that no mandate or “judgment awarding Wilkinson $5,000.00 in attorneys fees…” had ever existed, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. 320. In the certified record absence of any “Rule 38 motion” by Def. Wilkinson, a fraudulent

“judgment” in the amount of “$24.30” “issued as mandate on June 11 2009”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. 321. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that the mandated

“amount of $24.30” had been paid and was not “outstanding”: “The Judgment to date remains outstanding.” 322. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired with other U.S. Agents to

conceal that a. No such mandated “judgment” existed, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228; b. No mandated “judgment” was ever “recorded in the Public Records of Lee County”; c. The fraudulently alleged “certification” was facially forged; d. “Instrument No. 2009000309384” could not have possibly become any “lien” on any property pursuant to Ch. 55, 56; and 55.10 Florida Statutes; and e. No “writ of execution” legally existed. 323. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired with U.S. Defendants

Chappell, Steele, and other U.S. Agents to conceal that nothing in that or any other Case could have possibly “served as a lien against” any property under Florida and Federal law: “A certified copy of the Judgment was recorded in the Public Records of Lee County, Florida at Instrument No. 2009000309384 and serves as a lien against the property.”

82

324.

Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that

a. Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any “Rule 38 motion”; b. Kenneth M. Wilkinson had never been awarded any mandated “judgment”; c. Def. Wilkinson was not “entitled to tax….”; d. The prima facie fraudulent “Writ” was due to be denied as unlawful and unauthorized. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF JURISDICTION & FRAUD ON THIS COURT 325. On or around 06/23/10, Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed the jurisdiction of

this Court over the unlawful acts of the Defendant U.S. Agents and recklessly deprived the Plaintiffs of any chance of justice and adjudication of their perfected claims, Doc. # 213: “B. Supplemental Jurisdiction The decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state claims rests within the discretion of the district court.” Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (11th Cir. 2004). Once a district court dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). This Court, therefore, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state claims.” 326. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that this Court had jurisdiction of

any and all claims involving the Defendant U.S. Government Officials and including “state claims”. Defendant Honeywell had no “discretion” but was absolutely obligated to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ claims, because United States Agents had perpetrated unlawful and criminal acts of record. 327. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Co-Defendant U.S. Judges Steele and

Chappell themselves had removed Plaintiffs’ State action, 2006-CA-003185, BUSSE v. STATE OF FLORIDA, to Federal Court. See 2:2008-cv-00899. 328. “Declining jurisdiction” over unlawful and criminal U.S. Governmental acts proved

Defendant Honeywell’s fraud on the Courts and required her disqualification.

83

RECKLESS OBSTRUCTION OF COURT ACCESS DISPARATE DENIAL OF COURT ACCESS RIGHTS 329. Recklessly, Defendant Honeywell again obstructed Plaintiffs’ court access on 06/23/10,

Doc. # 213, p. 21: “With its discretionary authority, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state claims.” OBSTRUCTION OF COURT ACCESS UNDER FALSE PRETENSES OF “misconduct” 330. On 07/07/10, Defendant Honeywell again fabricated “misconduct” and/or “loss” of

“electronic filing privileges” in response to Plaintiffs’ “specific” demand for “equal court access and privileges for filing purposes.” See Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 38, p. 1; see Def. Honeywell’s previous fabrications, Case No. 2:09-CV-791, Doc. ## 133, 151. RECORD CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE & ADJUDICATION 331. Defendant Honeywell conspired with other Defendant U.S. Judges and Officials not to

justly and speedily adjudicate Plaintiffs’ conclusively proven “state claims” against Federal Defendants. DENIAL & FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS 332. On or around 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell recklessly and disparately denied the

Plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws under fraudulent pretenses, Doc. # 213, p. 19: “In this case, Plaintiffs claim that they were denied equal protection of the laws by Defendants in relation to Lot 15A. As a general matter, Florida counties may exercise eminent domain over property not owned by the state or federal government. Fla. Stat. § 127.01(1)(a); id. “Since a state landowner would not be subject to eminent domain power but [Plaintiffs], as . . . [alleged] private landowner[s], would be,” Plaintiffs cannot be similarly situated to a state landowner. Busse, 317 Fed. Appx. at 973. Plaintiffs, “therefore cannot rely on [their] disparate eminent domain treatment vis-a-vis state landowners as the basis for an equal protection claim.” Id. Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Equal Protection claim.”

84

333.

In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, Defendant Honeywell fixed and fraudulently

concealed Plaintiffs’ perfected “equal protection claim” and the record absence of any “eminent domain” “exercise”. On 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed that none of the Government Defendants ever had any “eminent domain power” and perpetrated fraud on the Court. CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL U.S. JURISDICTION & OBSTRUCT COURT ACCESS 334. Defendant Honeywell conspired with other Federal Defendants to conceal Federal

jurisdiction and obstruct Plaintiffs’ meaningful court access. 335. In particular, Defendant Honeywell conspired to conceal that of course, the Plaintiffs

rightfully prosecuted 1st, 14th, 4th, 7th and 5th Amendment violations by Federal Defendants in Federal Court. 336. On or around 06/23/10, Defendant U.S. Judge Honeywell fabricated “necessary state

procedures”, Doc. # 213, p. 18: “They have not exhausted the necessary state procedures to address their dispute prior to filing in federal court. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Seventh Amendment claim.” 337. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that Plaintiffs’ prosecution of

Federal Defendants for Seventh Amendment Violations did of course not require “necessary state procedures”. Brazenly and idiotically, Defendant Honeywell concocted “necessary state procedures” on the record. Said reckless fabrications were outside Honeywell’s scope of immunity and official capacity.

85

DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS OF COURT ACCESS UNDER FALSE PRETENSES 338. Without any meritorious “defense” or “claim”, and under facially idiotic pretenses of

“frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, Defendant Honeywell deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of court access. CONCEALMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY AND CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL THAT PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE FUNDAMENTAL 339. Defendant Honeywell conspired to fraudulently conceal that property rights are most

fundamental rights. On or around 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell conspired to brazenly and irrationally concoct, Doc. # 213, p. 20: “Property rights would not be fundamental rights since they are based on state law.” Id. Here, Plaintiffs claim that they have been denied their alleged property rights in Lot 15A. These property rights are defined by state law. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Substantive Due Process Claim.” 340. No halfway intelligent and non-corrupt judge in Defendant Honeywell’s shoes could

have possibly denied that property rights and the right to own property are most fundamental rights. Honeywell’s above assertion was recklessly false and for unlawful and criminal purposes of extorting property and fees and illegally bypassing due process and equal protection of the law. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF PLAINTIFFS’ PREVIOUS “STATE ACTION” 341. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed Plaintiffs’ State action, Case No. 2006-CA-

003185 (Lee County Circuit Court), BUSSE v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Doc. # 213, p. 15: “Although they have been previously told by the Eleventh Circuit that they must proceed in state court prior to bringing suit in federal court for several of their claims, Plaintiffs refuse to do so and continue to re-file their complaints with additional Defendants and claims all surrounding the same property dispute.”

86

342.

Defendant Honeywell conspired with other Officials such as, e.g., Defendants Steele and

Polster Chappell to conceal Plaintiffs’ 2006 State action of record, 2006-CA-003185. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Defendants Steele and Chappell had removed Plaintiffs’ record 2006 State action to Federal Court. See 2:2008-cv-00899. 343. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed Plaintiffs’ fundamental entitlement to sue

Defendant U.S. Agents in Federal Court for any and all claims. 06/23/2010 SLANDER OF RECORD REAL PROPERTY TITLE, DOC. # 213 344. On or around 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell unintelligently slandered Plaintiffs’

record marketable title to riparian Lot 15A, “Cayo Costa”, Doc. # 213, 2:2009-cv-00791: “In a resolution adopted in December 1969 by the Board of Commissioners of Lee County, Florida, Lot 15A, among other property, was claimed as public land (“Resolution 569/875") (Dkt 5, Ex. 3, p. 9). See Prescott, et al., v. State of Florida, et al., 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2009); Busse, et al. v. Lee County, Florida, et al., 317 Fed. Appx. 968, 970 (11th Cir. Mar 5, 2009).” 07/14/2010 FABRICATION OF “WRIT OF EXECUTION” 345. On or around 07/14/2010, Defendant Honeywell irrationally fabricated a “writ of

execution”, Doc. # 48, p. 1, 2:2010-cv-00089: “In the motion, Plaintiffs appear to seek a release of the writ of execution and attachment of a lien to property issued in Busse v. Lee County, Florida, et al., Case No. 2:07-CV-228-FtM-29SPC. That case was before Judge John Steele and Magistrate Judge Sheri Chappell.” 346. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed the record lack of any “writ of execution”

mandated “July 2009 judgment”, and of any ‘Rule 38 motion” by Def. “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228; see Case Docket as certified on 07/16/2010 by Def. Clerk D. Nipper.

87

347.

Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the record 03/05/2009 “judgment” and

paid “amount of $24.30” “issued as mandate on 06/11/2009”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, had ruled out any possibility of a “writ of execution”. 348. Because of her irrational contradictions on record, Defendant Honeywell’s “orders” were

facially arbitrary, capricious, incomprehensible, and idiotic: 349. In particular, no rational, competent, and honest judge in Defendant Honeywell’s shoes

could have possibly reconciled a fake “writ of execution” with a fake “claim”. 350. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that in the hypothetical event of any

involuntary title transfer to Government, no “writ of execution” could have possibly existed. 351. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that in the hypothetical event of a “writ of

execution”, there could not have possibly been any involuntary title transfer to Lee County, Florida. For bribes, Def. Whore Honeywell conspired to extort Plaintiffs’ property under fraudulent pretenses of a non-existent “Rule 38 motion”, fake “judgment”, and fake “writ”. TRESPASS ONTO PRIMA FACIE PRIVATE “CAYO COSTA” SUBDIVISION 352. Defendant Honeywell’s unlawful and criminal acts of record, reckless orders, Case ##

2:2009-cv-00791; and 2:2010-cv-00089, slander of title, fraudulent pretenses and/or fabrications of a non-existent mandated “judgment”, “writ of execution”, “lien” proximately caused unlawful and criminal trespass onto Plaintiffs’ private street and up lands on the Gulf of Mexico in the private undedicated residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision. 353. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that the public had no

Subdivision access, because as a matter of law, the public had no right to use any of the prima facie private street and alley easements as legally conveyed in reference to the 1912 Plat of Survey in PB 3 PG 25.

88

ILLEGAL FIRES AND ARSON 354. Defendant Honeywell’s reckless orders, Case ## 2:2009-cv-00791, and 2:2010-cv-00089,

slander of title, fraudulent pretenses and/or fabrications of a non-existent mandated “judgment”, “writ of execution”, “lien” have been inducing the public to start unlawful fires and perpetrate arson on private “Cayo Costa” Subdivision property, PB 3 PG 25 (1912). CONSPIRACY TO COVER UP FOR GOVERNMENT CROOKS 355. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal the record crimes

and illegal acts of, e.g., U.S. Defendants John E. Steele, Sheri Polster Chappell, Richard A. Lazzara, Mark Allan Pizzo, and to cover up for said Government Crooks. RECORD THREATS AND FABRICATIONS OF “VIOLATION OF ORDER” 356. On or around 07/14/20, Defendant Honeywell again threatened, intimidated, and

coerced the Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecuting Defendant Honeywell, 2:10-cv-00089, Doc. # 49, p. 2: “…Plaintiff Busse has directly violated an order of this Court.” 357. Defendant Government Whore Honeywell has been a named party Defendant, because

she, e.g., accepted Defendants’ bribes, fixed Plaintiff’s Cases under false pretenses of a “regulation”, fabricated a “writ of execution”, perverted the Florida and Federal Constitutional guarantees of the most fundamental rights to own property and exclude Governments, redress Government grievances, be free of Government corruption, oppression, unlawful seizure of property, et al. The Plaintiff corruption victims sued Def. Honeywell in her individual private capacity outside any immunity, because Def. Honeywell maliciously extended, e.g., record Government extortion, corruption, and crimes

89

and unlawful acts. See, e.g., Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. # 213, 236; Case No. 2:2010cv-00089, Doc. ## 48, 49, 50. 358. Under color of office, Defendant Honeywell falsified and/or caused other persons to

falsify official record and documents. See § 838.022, Fla. Stat. RECORD EXTORTION OF FEES AND PROPERTY 359. For unlawful and criminal purposes of extorting fees and Plaintiffs’ record property,

Defendant Honeywell fabricated a “writ of execution”. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF RECORD “06/11/2009 MANDATE” 360. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that a facially fraudulent 03/05/2009

“judgment” “issued as mandate on June 11, 2009” and was received by the U.S. District Court on 06/15/2009. See Doc. # 365; Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF CLOSURE OF CASE 08-17130-BB ON 06/11/2009 361. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th

Circuit had closed Case No. 2008-13170-BB on 06/11/2009. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF “$24.30” MANDATE 362. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th

Circuit had “allowed the amount of $24.30” “issued as mandate on June 11, 2009” 363. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the “amount of $24.30” was not

outstanding. 364. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that no “writ of execution” could have

possibly existed on the record.

90

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF NON-EXISTENCE OF “RULE 38 MOTION” 365. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Defendant crooked Official Kenneth M.

Wilkinson had never filed any Rule 38 motion. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF RECORD COERCION 366. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson expressly

coerced the Plaintiff corruption victims to refrain from prosecution on the record. See Wilkinson’s “Rule 27-4 motion”. COERCION 367. On the record, Defendant Honeywell coerced the Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecution

under color of authority and office. 368. Without any authority or justification, Defendant Honeywell threatened, intimidated,

harassed, and “punished” the Plaintiffs on the record, including the obstruction of court access. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF NON-EXISTENT “LAND PARCELS” 369. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Defendant Forger K. M. Wilkinson had

unlawfully and criminally forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-2101-00001.0000”. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that said forged “parcels” did not appear on the 1912 “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat of Survey in Lee County Plat Book 3 Page 25. 370. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that said non-existent and forged “land

parcels” had never been legally described, platted, and/or conveyed in reference to said Plat of Survey, PB 3 PG 25 (1912) and had never existed.

91

BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION 371. In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, Defendant Honeywell concealed said evident record

forgeries and covered up for Defendant K. M. Wilkinson. 372. Defendant Honeywell accepted Defendants’ bribes and enforced the culture and policy of

corruption in her office even though Honeywell knew that the prima facie fake “writ of execution”, “lien”, “judgment”, and “land parcels” had never existed and could not have possibly existed. DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS & FRAUD ON THE COURT 373. With wanton disregard for Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights to, e.g.

a. Be free of Government racketeering, corruption, extortion, coercion, and threats; b. Be free of unlawful seizure, bribery, and retaliation; c. Redress Government grievances without retaliation, coercion, extortion, and threats; d. Have meaningful and free court access; e. Have due process and equal protection of the law; f. Own property; g. Exclude Defendant Governments from Plaintiffs’ record property. Defendant Honeywell perpetrated fraud on the Court and deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of their express fundamental rights under the Federal and Florida Constitutions. DEF. HONEYWELL’S PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 374. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Honeywell perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.

92

375.

Defendant Honeywell knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,

Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering: “In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2. Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, and fraud. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 376. Defendant Crooked Honeywell injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners

by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Honeywell’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS 377. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant

Honeywell’s Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness

93

requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338, 288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5. CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY 378. Defendant Honeywell acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire

control of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.: a. Exercising various forms of extortion; b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such as, e.g., “$5,048.60”; c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates; d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes. FOR BRIBES DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT 379. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeer Honeywell concealed and conspired with

other Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent: WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490 (11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959) DEFENDANT HONEYWELL’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY 380. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Honeywell has been collecting an unlawful debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie illicit “park” enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision as platted in 1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant

94

Honeywell’s and other Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”, entertainment, and recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of falsified “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an area of Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25. 381. Section 1962(B) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.” DEFENDANT HONEYWELL’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION” 382. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Honeywell has been collecting an unlawful debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Honeywell’s and other Officials’ participation in said record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ## “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in Government fraud and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”. 383. Section 1962(c) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.” 384. The Plaintiffs proved 1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce; 2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation” enterprise;

95

3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 385. As a Judge presiding over Defendants’ prima facie fraudulent defenses, claims,

falsifications, and forgeries, Defendant Honeywell had a very meaningful connection between the illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of land, money, and fees for the enterprise under color of, e.g., office and authority. Defendant Honeywell extorted and concealed, and conspired to extort and conceal, that he procedure on execution did not accord with the procedure of the State of Florida. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 69. Defendant knew that Florida procedure required a recorded and certified judgment, which here had never existed. The Court never had any authority to award “$5,048.60”, and the judgment issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 in the amount of $24.30 had been paid. The prima facie fraudulent “affidavit” by Defendant Racketeer JACK N. PETERSON fraudulently pretended a “07/29/2009” “judgment”, Doc. # 432-2, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, which all Defendants knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal had never existed. See also Ch. 55, 56, Florida Statutes. DEFENDANT GERALD BARD TJOFLAT RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY 386. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant corrupt Gerald Bard Tjoflat

(“Tjoflat”) in his private individual capacity and official capacity as very old U.S. Circuit Judge. Defendant Tjoflat’s unlawful and criminal acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity.

96

387.

Because of record setting very old age, Defendant Tjoflat has no longer been capable to

keep up with the demands of Government work and customary corruption in the 11th Circuit. 388. Due in part to professional deficiencies evident on the record, Defendant Tjoflat

fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that Plaintiffs had fundamental Constitutionally guaranteed rights to, e.g., own property, exclude Government from their property, defend against arbitrarily and capriciously fabricated “land parcels”, redress Government grievances and corruption, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 365, “received” June 15, 2009: “Property rights would not be fundamental rights since they are based on state law. See id. Busse thus could not bring a viable substantive due process claim based on the alleged denial of a state-defined property right. See id. Accordingly, we find that the district court properly dismissed his substantive due process claims.” 389. On or around March 5, 2009, Defendant Tjoflat fixed and conspired to fix Plaintiffs’

perfected “substantive due process claims” by fraudulently concealing, and conspiring with other U.S. Agents to conceal, that Plaintiffs’ “property rights” were most fundamental Constitutionally guaranteed rights. See Florida and Federal Constitutions. 390. U.S. Def. Tjoflat’s “finding” “that the district court properly dismissed” and fixed

Plaintiffs’ perfected “due process claims” were prima facie unlawful and criminal acts of perverting supreme Florida and Federal law. Just like institutional sexual predators in the Catholic Church, judicial predator Tjoflat betrayed the public trust and raped innocent victims who had faith in the Government institution and the reasonable expectation that they would not get fucked. 391. While very old Defendant demented Circuit Judge Tjoflat fixed Plaintiffs’ perfected

claim, and fucked innocent public corruption victims, Defendant “judicial whore” Honeywell

97

further fabricated that Plaintiffs had “failed to state a claim”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 213. 392. Defendant Tjoflat fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that no “regulatory

taking” had ever existed or could have possibly existed, because no “regulation” had ever existed. PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 393. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Tjoflat perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 394. Defendant Tjoflat knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,

Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering: “In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2. Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 395. Defendant Crooked Tjoflat injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by

reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business

98

interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Tjoflat’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice. 396. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official Tjoflat extorted money, fees, and property

under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at Brigham Moore. 397. Said Defendant knew that

a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1; b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386; c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record; d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”; e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”; f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired; g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed; h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson. 398. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that

99

“(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).” See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. 18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS 399. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant

Tjoflat’s Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338, 288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5. CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY 400. Defendant Tjoflat acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire control

of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.: a. Exercising various forms of extortion; b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such as, e.g., “$5,048.60”; c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates; d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes. FOR BRIBES DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT

100

401.

In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeer Tjoflat concealed and conspired with other

Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent: WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490 (11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959) DEFENDANT TJOFLAT’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY 402. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Tjoflat has been collecting an unlawful debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie illicit “park” enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision as platted in 1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Tjoflat’s and other Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”, entertainment, and recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of falsified “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an area of Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25. 403. Section 1962(B) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.” DEFENDANT’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION” 404. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Tjoflat has been collecting an unlawful debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise. Plaintiffs’

101

injuries flowed directly from Defendant Tjoflat’s and other Officials’ participation in said record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ## “12-44-20-0100000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in Government fraud and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”. 405. Section 1962(c) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.” 406. The Plaintiffs proved 1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce; 2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation” enterprise; 3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 407. As a Circuit Judge presiding over Defendants’ prima facie fraudulent defenses, claims,

falsifications, and forgeries, Defendant Tjoflat had a very meaningful connection between the illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of land, money, and fees for the enterprise under color of, e.g., office and authority. 408. Defendant Tjoflat extorted and concealed, and conspired to extort and conceal, that he

procedure on execution did not accord with the procedure of the State of Florida. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 69. Defendant knew that Florida procedure required a recorded and certified judgment, which here had never existed. The Court never had any authority to award “$5,048.60”, and the judgment issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 in the amount of $24.30 had been paid. The prima facie fraudulent “affidavit” by Defendant Racketeer JACK N.

102

PETERSON fraudulently pretended a “07/29/2009” “judgment”, Doc. # 432-2, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, which all Defendants knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal had never existed. See also Ch. 55, 56, Florida Statutes. DEFENDANT SUSAN H. BLACK RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY 409. The Plaintiff Government racketeering and corruption victims are suing Defendant

Corrupt Susan H. Black (“Black”) in her private individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. Circuit Judge, 11th Appellate Circuit. Defendant Black’s unlawful and criminal acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. 410. Irrationally and capriciously, Defendant corrupt U.S. Circuit Judge Black fabricated on

the record: “The Resolution constituted a legislative act since it was a general provision that affected a large number of persons and area, 200 acres in all, rather than being specifically targeted at Busse or his immediate neighbors.” See Case No. 2:2007-cv00228, Doc. # 365, p. 10. 411. No such “resolution”, “legislative act”, and/or “general provision” had ever existed

and/or could be found anywhere. Def. Racketeer Black knew that under the separation-ofGovernment-powers-Doctrine, involuntary Government alienation by any “law” was legally absolutely impossible. Def. Racketeer Black’s orders were facially deceptive, fraudulent, and for extortion and racketeering purposes. 412. Under Ch. 73, 74, Eminent Domain, Fla. Stat., any involuntary title transfer and/or

eminent domain transaction would have “specifically” identified [“targeted”] each and every parcel and each and every corresponding record title holder. Defendant Black made no sense whatsoever.

103

PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 413. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Susan H. Black perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 414. Defendant Susan H. Black knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-

4”, Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering: “In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2. Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 415. Defendant Crooked S. H. Black injured the Plaintiff record property and business

owners by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3); PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant S. H. Black’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice. 416. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official Black extorted money, fees, and property

under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land

104

parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at Brigham Moore. 417. Said Defendant knew that

a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1; b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386; c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record; d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”; e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”; f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired; g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed; h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson. 418. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that “(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).” See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. 18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS 419. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant Black’s

Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud 105

on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338, 288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5. CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY 420. Defendant Black acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire control

of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.: a. Exercising various forms of extortion; b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such as, e.g., “$5,048.60”; c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates; d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes. FOR BRIBES DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT 421. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeer Black concealed and conspired with other

Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent: WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490 (11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959) DEFENDANT BLACK’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY 422. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Black has been collecting an unlawful debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie illicit “park”

106

enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision as platted in 1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Black’s and other Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”, entertainment, and recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of falsified “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an area of Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25. 423. Section 1962(B) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.” DEFENDANT’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION” 424. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Black has been collecting an unlawful debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Black’s and other Officials’ participation in said record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ## “12-44-20-0100000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in Government fraud and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”. 425. Section 1962(c) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.” 426. The Plaintiffs had proven:

107

1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce; 2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation” enterprise; 3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 427. As a Crooked Circuit Judge presiding over Defendants’ Appellees’ prima facie

fraudulent defenses, claims, falsifications, and forgeries, Defendant Black had a very meaningful connection between the illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of land, money, and fees for the enterprise under color of, e.g., office and authority. 428. Defendant Black extorted and concealed, and conspired to extort and conceal, that he

procedure on execution did not accord with the procedure of the State of Florida. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 69. Defendant knew that Florida procedure required a recorded and certified judgment, which here had never existed. The Court never had any authority to award “$5,048.60”, and the judgment issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 in the amount of $24.30 had been paid. The prima facie fraudulent “affidavit” by Defendant Racketeer JACK N. PETERSON fraudulently pretended a “07/29/2009” “judgment”, Doc. # 432-2, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, which all Defendants knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal had never existed. See also Ch. 55, 56, Florida Statutes. PERVERSION OF LAW & RULES FOR RACKETEERING PURPOSES 429. Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39, costs may be taxed against the appellant, if a judgment is

affirmed. Defendant Black knew and concealed that the “costs allowed” and/or taxed were “$24.30”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 365, p. 15; 386-3, p. 15. Def. Black concealed that no costs were ever allowed under purported “Rule 38”.

108

RULE 38 RACKETEERING AND FRAUD SCHEME 430. “FRAP 38, Frivolous Appeal - Damages and Costs” provides that “if a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.” 431. Defendant Black knew and fraudulently concealed that pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 38-1,

Time for Filing Motions, Motions for damages and costs pursuant to FRAP 38 must be filed no later than the filing of appellee’s brief. Here, Defendant Black had tendered and/or filed his prima facie fraudulent brief on 08/08/2008. See Appellate Case No. 2008-13170-BB, certified Docket sheet. Admittedly, Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson never filed any “Rule 38 motion” before 08/08/2008. Admittedly, Defendant “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson had never filed any Rule 38 motion. Rule 38 only provided for “damages” and “costs”. Here, Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any such motion and perpetrated fraud on the Court. See certified Docket. Defendant Black concealed said “Rule 38 motion”-fraud-scheme and conspiracy to extort. DEFENDANT JOEL F. DUBINA RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY 432. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Joel F. Dubina in his private

individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. Circuit and Chief Judge. Defendant Dubina’s unlawful and criminal acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. 433. Defendant crooked U.S. Circuit Chief Judge Joel F. Dubina knew and fraudulently

concealed that Defendant Wilkinson had never filed and signed any “Rule 38 motion” and

109

that no mandated “judgment” under Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. existed. See certified true and correct copy of Docket, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. 434. 435. Defendant Joel F. Dubina fabricated a “Rule 38 motion” “by Defendant Wilkinson”. Defendant Dubina conspired with other Defendants and Officials to fraudulently pretend

that Defendant Wilkinson had filed a “Rule 38 Motion”. 436. Defendant Dubina knew and concealed that no “11th Circuit Rule 27-4 Motion” by

Defendant Wilkinson had ever been entered on said Circuit Court’s Case Docket. PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 437. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Dubina perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 438. Defendant Dubina knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,

Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering: “In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2. Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 439. Defendant Crooked Dubina injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by

reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot

110

15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Dubina’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice. 440. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official Dubina extorted money, fees, and property

under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at Brigham Moore. 441. Said Defendant knew that

a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1; b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386; c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record; d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”; e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”; f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired; g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed; h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson. 442. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that

111

“(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).” See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. 18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS 443. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant

Dubina’s Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338, 288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5. CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY 444. Defendant Dubina acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire control

of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.: a. Exercising various forms of extortion; b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such as, e.g., “$5,048.60”; c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates; d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes. FOR BRIBES DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT 445. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeer Dubina concealed and conspired with

other Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent:

112

WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490 (11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959) DEFENDANT DUBINA’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY 446. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Dubina has been collecting an unlawful debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie illicit “park” enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision as platted in 1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Dubina’s and other Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”, entertainment, and recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of falsified “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an area of Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25. 447. Section 1962(B) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.” DEFENDANT’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION” 448. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Dubina has been collecting an unlawful debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Dubina’s and other Officials’ participation in said record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ## “12-44-20-01-

113

00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in Government fraud and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”. 449. Section 1962(c) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.” 450. The Plaintiffs proved 1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce; 2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation” enterprise; 3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 451. As a Circuit Judge presiding over Defendants’ Appellees’ prima facie fraudulent

defenses, claims, falsifications, and forgeries, Defendant Dubina had a very meaningful connection between the illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of land, money, and fees for the enterprise under color of, e.g., office and authority. 452. Defendant Dubina extorted and concealed, and conspired to extort and conceal, that he

procedure on execution did not accord with the procedure of the State of Florida. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 69. Defendant knew that Florida procedure required a recorded and certified judgment, which here had never existed. The Court never had any authority to award “$5,048.60”, and the judgment issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 in the amount of $24.30 had been paid. The prima facie fraudulent “affidavit” by Defendant Racketeer JACK N. PETERSON fraudulently pretended a “07/29/2009” “judgment”, Doc. # 432-2, Case No.

114

2:2007-cv-00228, which all Defendants knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal had never existed. See also Ch. 55, 56, Florida Statutes. DEFENDANT KENNETH M. WILKINSON RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY 453. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson in his

private individual capacity and his official capacity as Crooked Lee County Property Appraiser. Defendant Wilkinson’s “land parcel” forgeries, unlawful and criminal acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. FALSIFICATION OF “Rule 38 motion” 454. Defendant Crooked Kenneth M. Wilkinson knew and fraudulently concealed that he had

never filed and signed any “Rule 38 motion”. No mandated “judgment” under Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. existed. See certified true and correct copy of Docket, Case No. 2:2007-cv00228. PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 455. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 456. Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson knew that his “motion”, “Rule 27-4”, Fed.R.App.Proc.,

Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering: “In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth

115

M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2. Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 457. Defendant Crooked Kenneth M. Wilkinson injured the Plaintiff record property and

business owners by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice. 458. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official K. M. Wilkinson extorted money, fees, and

property under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at Brigham Moore. 459. Said Defendant knew that

a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1; b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386;

116

c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record; d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”; e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”; f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired; g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed; h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson. 460. Said Defendant K. M. Wilkinson fraudulently concealed that “(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).” See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. 18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS 461. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant

Wilkinson’s Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338, 288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5. CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY

117

462.

Defendant Wilkinson acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire

control of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.: a. Exercising various forms of extortion; b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such as, e.g., “$5,048.60”; c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates; d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes. FOR BRIBES DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT 463. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson concealed and conspired with

other Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent: WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490 (11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959) DEFENDANT WILKINSON’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY 464. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Wilkinson has been collecting an unlawful debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie illicit “park” enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision as platted in 1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Wilkinson’s and other Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”, entertainment, and recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of

118

falsified “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an area of Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25. 465. Section 1962(B) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.” DEFENDANT’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION” 466. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Wilkinson has been collecting an unlawful debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Wilkinson’s and other Officials’ participation in said record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ## “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in Government fraud and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”. 467. Section 1962(c) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.” 468. The Plaintiffs proved 1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce;

119

2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation” enterprise; 3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 469. As Lee County Property Appraiser, Defendant Wilkinson had a very meaningful

connection between the illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of land, money, and fees for the enterprise under color of, e.g., office and authority. 470. Defendant Wilkinson extorted and concealed, and conspired to extort and conceal, that

he procedure on execution did not accord with the procedure of the State of Florida. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 69. Defendant knew that Florida procedure required a recorded and certified judgment, which here had never existed. The Court never had any authority to award “$5,048.60”, and the judgment issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 in the amount of $24.30 had been paid. The prima facie fraudulent “affidavit” by Defendant Racketeer JACK N. PETERSON fraudulently pretended a “07/29/2009” “judgment”, Doc. # 432-2, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, which all Defendants knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal had never existed. See also Ch. 55, 56, Florida Statutes. COERCION 471. On the record, Defendant Wilkinson expressly stated his intent to coerce the Plaintiffs to

refrain from prosecution and extort fees and Plaintiffs’ property:

120

“5. In order to discourage the Appellant from engaging in the same practices in this Court, the Appellee would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 386-2, p. 2. 472. Defendant Wilkinson fraudulently pretended and deceived this Court that he filed a

motion for “sanctions for Busse’s pursuit of a frivolous appeal”, “Rule 38”, Fed.R.App.P. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 386, p. 3. 473. Defendant Wilkinson knew and concealed that there had neither been any “Rule 38

motion” nor any “frivolous appeal” and mandated “judgment”. See Case No. 2:2007-cv00228. 474. Defendant Wilkinson knew and concealed that no “motion pursuant to Eleventh Circuit

Rule 27-4 for an order sanctioning the Appellant for filing a frivolous motion…” had ever appeared on said U.S. Circuit Court’s Case Docket. 475. Defendant Wilkinson fabricated: “8. The judgment remains outstanding and unpaid in its entirety.” Id. No outstanding and unpaid mandated judgment existed. Id. DEFENDANT SHERRI L. JOHNSON BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION 476. Defendant Sherri L. Johnson knew and fraudulently concealed that the Defendants had

bribed Defendant Crooked Judge Sheri Polster Chappell and John E. Steele. 477. Defendant Johnson knew and fraudulently concealed that Defendant Kenneth M.

Wilkinson had forged fake “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-0100001.0000”. See PB 3 PG 25 (1912).

121

CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL PUBLIC CORRUPTION 478. Defendant S. L. Johnson and Defendant Chappell conspired with other Officials and

Defendants to conceal said forgeries. CONSPIRACY TO SLANDER PLAINTIFFS’ RECORD TITLE 479. Defendant Johnson conspired with other Officials and Defendants to slander Plaintiffs’

unimpeachable and unencumbered record title to said riparian Lot 15A. In particular, Defendant Johnson fraudulently concealed that the Plaintiffs perfectly own the platted adjoining riparian street land on the Gulf of Mexico, PB 3 PG 25 (1912). PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 480. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Sherri L. Johnson perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 481. Defendant Sherri L. Johnson knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule

27-4”, Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering: “In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2. Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression.

122

INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 482. Defendant Crooked Attorney S. L. Johnson injured the Plaintiff record property and

business owners by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant S. L. Johnson’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice. 483. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official S. L. Johnson extorted money, fees, and

property under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at Brigham Moore. 484. Said Defendant knew that

a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1; b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386; c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record; d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”; e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”; f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired; g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed;

123

h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson. 485. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that “(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).” See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. 18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS 486. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant

Johnson’s Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338, 288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5. CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY 487. Defendant Johnson acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire

control of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.: a. Exercising various forms of extortion;

124

b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such as, e.g., “$5,048.60”; c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates; d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes. FOR BRIBES DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT 488. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Johnson concealed and conspired with other Officials

and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent: WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490 (11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959) DEFENDANT JOHNSON’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY 489. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Johnson has been collecting an unlawful debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie illicit “park” enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision as platted in 1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Johnson’s and other Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”, entertainment, and recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of falsified “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an area of Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25. 490. Section 1962(B) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.”

125

DEFENDANT’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION” 491. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Johnson has been collecting an unlawful debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Johnson’s and other Officials’ participation in said record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ## “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in Government fraud and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”. 492. Section 1962(c) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.” 493. The Plaintiffs proved 1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce; 2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation” enterprise; 3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 494. As a Judicial Officer and Attorney asserting Defendant Wilkinson’s prima facie

fraudulent defenses, claims, falsifications, and forgeries, Defendant Johnson had a very meaningful connection between the illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of land, money, and fees for the enterprise under color of, e.g., office and authority.

126

495.

Defendant Johnson extorted and concealed, and conspired to extort and conceal, that he

procedure on execution did not accord with the procedure of the State of Florida. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 69. Defendant knew that Florida procedure required a recorded and certified judgment, which here had never existed. The Court never had any authority to award “$5,048.60”, and the judgment issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 in the amount of $24.30 had been paid. The prima facie fraudulent “affidavit” by Defendant Racketeer JACK N. PETERSON fraudulently pretended a “07/29/2009” “judgment”, Doc. # 432-2, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, which all Defendants knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal had never existed. See also Ch. 55, 56, Florida Statutes. RULE 38 EXTORTION AND FRAUD SCHEME OF RECORD 496. Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39, costs may be taxed against the appellant, if a judgment is

affirmed. Defendant Johnson knew and concealed that the “costs allowed” and/or taxed were “$24.30”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 365, p. 15; 386-3, p. 15. Def. Johnson concealed that no costs were ever allowed under purported “Rule 38”. 497. “FRAP 38, Frivolous Appeal - Damages and Costs” provides that “if a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.” 498. Defendant Johnson knew and fraudulently concealed that pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 38-1,

Time for Filing Motions, Motions for damages and costs pursuant to FRAP 38 must be filed no later than the filing of appellee’s brief. Here, Defendant Johnson had tendered and/or filed his prima facie fraudulent brief on 08/08/2008. See Appellate Case No. 2008-13170-BB,

127

certified Docket sheet. Admittedly, Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson never filed any “Rule 38 motion” before 08/08/2008. 499. Admittedly, Defendant “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson had never filed any Rule 38

motion. Rule 38 only provided for “damages” and “costs”. Here, Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any such motion and perpetrated fraud on the Court. See certified Docket. Defendant Johnson concealed said “Rule 38 motion”-fraud-scheme and conspiracy to extort.

128

DEFENDANT EUGENE C. TURNER RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS 500. Dr. Jorg Busse is suing Defendant Eugene C. Turner in his private individual capacity

and official capacity as Circuit Court Judge, 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. Defendant Turner’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 501. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Turner perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 502. Defendant Turner knew and fraudulently concealed that Granada Condominium Homes

Association, Inc. and its Agents extorted money and property, because Def. E. C. Turner held interests in bankrupt bank Orion. 503. Defendant Turner failed to disclose his interests in Granada Condo Association Inc.’s

Agent, bankrupt Orion bank. 504. 505. Defendant Turner obstructed justice, lawful accounting, and audits. Defendant Turner knew and fraudulently concealed that bankrupt Orion Bank had

failed. 506. Defendant Turner knew that said Association’s legal action was for prima facie illegal

and criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering. 507. Dr. Jorg Busse was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion,

racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression.

129

INJURY TO DR. BUSSE’S PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 508. Defendant Turner injured Dr. Jorg Busse, record Naples property and business owner,

by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Dr. Busse is holding legal and beneficial interests in his Naples business and property. See Case No. 2009 02617CC. 509. Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business

interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Turner’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice. 510. Plaintiffs demand full disclosure of Def. Eugene C. Turner’s interests in any and all

agents of Granada Condominium Homes, and in particular in bankrupt Orion Bank. DEFENDANT LEE COUNTY, FL, COMMISSIONERS AND COMMISSION RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS 511. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Corrupt Lee County,

Florida, Commissioners in their private individual capacities and official capacity as Commissioners, Lee County, FL, Commission. Said Defendant Commissioners’ criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. RECORD FALSIFICATIONS, FRAUD, EXTORTION, AND BRIBERY 512. Defendant County Commissioners knew and fraudulently concealed publicly recorded

retaliation, racketeering, and extortion of Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa property under fraudulent pretenses of prima facie falsified “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”.

130

CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT, DEFRAUD, AND DEPRIVE 513. Said Defendant County Commissioners conspired with other Government Officials and

Defendants such as, e.g., JACK N. PETERSON and KENNETH M. WILKINSON, to extort money, fees, and property under facially false pretenses of a falsified and/or forged “regulation”, “O.R. 569/875”, and/or “law”, which all Def. Commissioners knew had never legally existed and had never been legally recorded. CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDED CAYO COSTA “CLOUD REMOVAL” 514. Further record evidence of said Defendants’ fraudulent concealment and the publicly

recorded racketeering and extortion of private land and money were the “removal of any cloud”, as conclusively evidenced by, e.g.: a. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 03-24-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998; b. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090; c. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488; d. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of County Lands. PROSECUTION OF DEF. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS UNDER CIVIL RICO 515. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Commissioners perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 516. Defendant Commissioners knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-

4”, Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering: “In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request

131

that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2. Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 517. Defendant Crooked Commissioners injured the Plaintiff record property and business

owners by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3); PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Commissioners’ extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice. 518. In particular, Defendant Crooked Commissioners extorted money, fees, and property

under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at Brigham Moore. 519. Said Defendant knew that

a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1; b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386; c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record;

132

d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”; e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”; f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired; g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed; h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson. 520. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that “(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).” See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. 18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS 521. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant

Commissioners’ Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338, 288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5. CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY 522. Defendant Commissioners acquired control and conspired with other Officials to

acquire control of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.: 133

a. Exercising various forms of extortion; b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such as, e.g., “$5,048.60”; c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates; d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes. FOR BRIBES DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT 523. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Commissioners concealed and conspired with other

Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent: WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490 (11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959) DEFENDANT COMMISSION’S SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY 524. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Commissioners has been collecting an unlawful debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie illicit “park” enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision as platted in 1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Commission’s and other Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”, entertainment, and recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of falsified “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an area of Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25. 525. Section 1962(B) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly,

134

any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.” DEFENDANT’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION” 526. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Commission has been collecting an unlawful debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Commissioners’ and other Officials’ participation in said record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ## “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in Government fraud and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”. 527. Section 1962(c) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.” 528. The Plaintiffs proved 1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce; 2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation” enterprise; 3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 529. As County Commissioners, Defendants had a most meaningful connection between the

illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of land, money, and fees for the enterprise under color of, e.g., office and authority.

135

530.

Defendant Commissioners extorted and concealed, and conspired to extort and conceal,

that he procedure on execution did not accord with the procedure of the State of Florida. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 69. Defendant knew that Florida procedure required a recorded and certified judgment, which here had never existed. The Court never had any authority to award “$5,048.60”, and the judgment issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 in the amount of $24.30 had been paid. The prima facie fraudulent “affidavit” by Defendant Racketeer JACK N. PETERSON fraudulently pretended a “07/29/2009” “judgment”, Doc. # 432-2, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, which all Defendants knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal had never existed. See also Ch. 55, 56, Florida Statutes. PERVERSION OF LAW & RULES FOR RACKETEERING PURPOSES 531. Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39, costs may be taxed against the appellant, if a judgment is

affirmed. Defendant Commissioners knew and concealed that the “costs allowed” and/or taxed were “$24.30”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 365, p. 15; 386-3, p. 15. Def. Commissioners concealed that no costs were ever allowed under purported “Rule 38”. RULE 38 RACKETEERING AND FRAUD SCHEME 532. “FRAP 38, Frivolous Appeal - Damages and Costs” provides that “if a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.” 533. Defendant Commissioners knew and fraudulently concealed that pursuant to 11th Cir. R.

38-1, Time for Filing Motions, Motions for damages and costs pursuant to FRAP 38 must be filed no later than the filing of appellee’s brief. Here, Defendant had tendered and/or filed his prima facie fraudulent brief on or before 08/08/2008. See Appellate Case No. 2008-13170-

136

BB, certified Docket sheet. Admittedly, Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson never filed any “Rule 38 motion” before 08/08/2008. 534. Admittedly, Defendant “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson had never filed any Rule 38

motion. Rule 38 only provided for “damages” and “costs”. Here, Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any such motion and perpetrated fraud on the Court. See certified Docket. Defendant Commissioners concealed said “Rule 38 motion”-fraud-scheme and conspiracy to extort. DEFENDANT ED CARNES RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS 535. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Crooked Ed Carnes in his

private individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. Circuit Judge, 11th Circuit. Defendant Ed Carnes’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDED CAYO COSTA “CLOUD REMOVAL” 536. Further record evidence of the publicly recorded racketeering and extortion of private

land and money were the “removal of any cloud”, as conclusively evidenced by, e.g.: a. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 324-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998. b. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090; c. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488; d. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of County Lands.

137

PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 537. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Ed Carnes perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 538. Defendant Ed Carnes knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,

Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering: “In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2. Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 539. Defendant Crooked Ed Carnes injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners

by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3); PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Carnes’ extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice. 540. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official Ed Carnes extorted money, fees, and property

under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land

138

parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at Brigham Moore. 541. Said Defendant knew that

a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1; b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386; c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record; d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”; e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”; f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired; g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed; h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson. 542. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that “(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).” See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.

139

18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS 543. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant Carnes’

Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338, 288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5. CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY 544. Defendant Ed Carnes acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire

control of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.: a. Exercising various forms of extortion; b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such as, e.g., “$5,048.60”; c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates; d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes. FOR BRIBES DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BINDING PRECEDENT 545. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeer Ed Carnes concealed and conspired with

other Officials and U.S. Circuit & District Judges to conceal binding precedent: WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490 (11th Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959)

140

DEFENDANT CARNES’ SECTION 1962(B) LIABILITY 546. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Ed Carnes has been collecting an unlawful debt to acquire and maintain an illegal interest in and control of the prima facie illicit “park” enterprise in the private, undedicated, residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision as platted in 1912, PB 3 PG 25. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Carnes’ and other Officials’ maintenance and acquisition of control of the “park”, entertainment, and recreation enterprise, and acquisition and/or maintenance of control of falsified “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” with an area of Hundreds of Acres along the “Gulf of Mexico” and “Charlotte Harbor”, PB 3 PG 25. 547. Section 1962(B) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.” DEFENDANT’S SECTION 1962(C) LIABILITY & “ASSOCIATION” 548. Under color of prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “judgment”, fake

“$5,048.60 debt”, falsified “law”, “legislative act”, “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, falsified “land parcels”, Defendant Ed Carnes has been collecting an unlawful debt and participated in the conduct and affairs of said Government enterprise. See Chapters 56 Final Process, and 51 Summary Procedure, Florida Statutes, and Florida’s express Constitutional Guarantees of the Rights to own property and exclude Government. 549. Plaintiffs’ injuries flowed directly from Defendant Carnes’ and other Officials’

participation in said record Government “land parcel” extortion and fraud scheme, ##

141

“12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, and the participation in Government fraud and extortion schemes of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”. 550. Section 1962(c) provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.” 551. The Plaintiffs proved 1. The existence of Defendant(s)’ entertainment and recreational enterprise affecting interstate commerce; 2. That the Defendants were associated with the “State Park and Recreation” enterprise; 3. That Defendant participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct or the affairs of said entertainment enterprise; and 4. That Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity, which included the allegation of at least two racketeering acts such as, e.g., extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 552. As a Circuit Judge presiding over Defendants’ Appellees’ prima facie fraudulent

defenses, claims, falsifications, and forgeries, Defendant Ed Carnes had a most meaningful connection between the illegal enterprise and the racketeering and extortion of land, money, and fees for the enterprise under color of, e.g., office and authority. 553. Defendant Ed Carnes extorted and concealed, and conspired to extort and conceal, that

he procedure on execution did not accord with the procedure of the State of Florida. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 69. Defendant knew that Florida procedure required a recorded and certified judgment, which here had never existed. The Court never had any authority to award “$5,048.60”, and the judgment issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 in the amount of $24.30 had been paid. The prima facie fraudulent “affidavit” by Defendant Racketeer JACK N. PETERSON fraudulently pretended a “07/29/2009” “judgment”, Doc. # 432-2, Case No.

142

2:2007-cv-00228, which all Defendants knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal had never existed. See also Ch. 55, 56, Florida Statutes. PERVERSION OF LAW & RULES FOR RACKETEERING PURPOSES 554. Def. Carnes knew that pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39, costs may be taxed against the

appellant, if a judgment is affirmed. Defendant Ed Carnes knew and concealed that the “costs allowed” and/or taxed were “$24.30”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 365, p. 15; 386-3, p. 15. Def. Carnes concealed that no costs were ever allowed under purported “Rule 38”. RULE 38 RACKETEERING AND FRAUD SCHEME 555. “FRAP 38, Frivolous Appeal - Damages and Costs” provides that “if a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.” 556. Defendant Carnes knew and fraudulently concealed that pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 38-1,

Time for Filing Motions, Motions for damages and costs pursuant to FRAP 38 must be filed no later than the filing of appellee’s brief. Here, Defendant Carnes had tendered and/or filed his prima facie fraudulent brief on 08/08/2008. See Appellate Case No. 2008-13170-BB, certified Docket sheet. Admittedly, Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson never filed any “Rule 38 motion” before 08/08/2008. 557. Admittedly, Defendant “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson had never filed any Rule 38

motion. Rule 38 only provided for “damages” and “costs”. Here, Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any such motion and perpetrated fraud on the Court. See certified Docket. Defendant Ed Carnes concealed said “Rule 38 motion”-fraud-scheme and conspiracy to extort.

143

DEFENDANT JOHN MANNING RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS 558. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Corrupt John E. Manning in

his private individual capacity and official capacity as Lee County Commissioner, Florida. Defendant Manning’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. Defendant had a criminal record. CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDED CAYO COSTA “CLOUD REMOVAL” 559. Def. John Manning concealed record evidence of the publicly recorded racketeering

and extortion of private land and money and the “removal of any cloud”, as conclusively evidenced by, e.g.: a. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 324-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998. b. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090; c. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488; d. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of County Lands. DEF. MANNING’S PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 560. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer John E. Manning perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 561. Defendant John Manning knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-

4”, Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering:

144

“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2. Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 562. Defendant Crooked John Manning injured the Plaintiff record property and business

owners by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3); PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant John Manning’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice. 563. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official John Manning extorted money, fees, and

property under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at Brigham Moore. 564. Said Defendant knew that

a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1;

145

b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386; c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record; d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”; e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”; f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired; g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed; h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson. DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. AGENTS RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS 565. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Corrupt United States of

America Agents in their private individual capacities and official capacity as U.S. Officials. The deliberate deprivations were criminal and unlawful acts on record and outside any immunity and official capacity. CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDED CAYO COSTA “CLOUD REMOVAL” 566. U.S. Agents fraudulently concealed record evidence of the publicly recorded

racketeering and extortion of private land as legally described in reference to the 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat of Survey in PB 3, PG 25, and of money, and the recorded “removal of any cloud” as conclusively evidenced by, e.g.: a. Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912); b. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 324-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998.

146

c. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090; d. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488; e. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of County Lands. PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 567. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant U.S. Agents perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. RETALIATION OF RECORD 568. In retaliation, Defendant U.S. Agents recklessly and disparately denied Plaintiff Dr.

Busse his immigration privileges and benefits. 569. Dr. Busse was entitled to

a. Complain about the Government corruption, bribery, racketeering, and extortion, and b. Be free of retaliation, and c. Redress his published and recorded Government grievances by jury trial under, e.g., the 7th, 1st, and 14th U.S. Constitutional Amendments. 570. Dr. Busse was entitled to receive equal immigration benefits and privileges and

redress the illegal retaliatory denial. CONCEALMENT AND CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL 571. The U.S. Agents knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal that Defendant K. M.

Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”, Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering:

147

“In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2. Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 572. U.S. Officials injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by reasons of

publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3); PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of U.S. Agents’ extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice. 573. In particular, U.S. Officials extorted money, fees, and property under prima facie false

pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at Brigham Moore. 574. U.S. Agents knew that

a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1; b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386;

148

c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record; d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”; e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”; f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired; g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed; h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson. DEFENDANT HUGH D. HAYES RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS 575. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Corrupt Hugh D. Hayes in

his private individual capacity and official capacity as Circuit Court Judge for the 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. Defendant Hayes’ criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. HAYES’ FRIVOLITY FRAUD SCHEME – FRAUD ON THE COURT FRAUDULENT PRETENSES OF FRIVOLITY 576. Before Plaintiff had even filed his Court ordered Complaint, Hayes deliberately

deprived the Plaintiff of his right to jury trial and obstructed justice under fraudulent pretenses of “frivolity”. CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDED CAYO COSTA “CLOUD REMOVAL” 577. Hayes fabricated frivolity and fraudulently concealed the record evidence of the publicly

recorded racketeering and extortion of private land and money were the “removal of any cloud”, as conclusively evidenced by, e.g.:

149

a. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 324-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998. b. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090; c. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488; d. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of County Lands. PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 578. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Hugh D. Hayes perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 579. Defendant previously recused Judge Hayes knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s

“motion”, “Rule 27-4”, Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering: “In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2. Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 580. Defendant Hugh D. Hayes injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by

reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are

150

holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3). INJURY TO PLAINTIFF’S NAPLES PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 581. Defendant Hugh D. Hayes injured the Plaintiff record property and business owner by

reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiff is holding legal and beneficial interests in her Naples business and property. See Section 1961(3). 582. Def. Hayes knew that Plaintiff failed bank had been bankrupt and that Plaintiff

bankrupt bank’s founder, Alfred Camner, was not any authorized Counsel for Plaintiff bankrupt bank. 583. Def. Hayes knew that admittedly Plaintiff bankrupt bank had lost and/or destroyed

any and all alleged debt evidence and that Plaintiff bankrupt bank’s action by its troubled founder was on its face non-meritorious, fraudulent, and/or frivolous. Because admittedly the bankrupt bank did not know the time and manner of destruction and/or loss, Plaintiff failed bank could not have possibly “reestablished” that which had never existed. DEFENDANT JOHN LEY DESTRUCTION AND ALTERATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS 584. With corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits, Defendant John Ley unlawfully destroyed

and altered official Government records. CONSPIRACY TO DESTROY AND ALTER OFFICIAL COURT DOCUMENTS 585. With corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits, Defendant John Ley conspired to

unlawfully destroyed and alter official records.

151

FALSIFICATIONS OF OFFICIAL COURT RECORDS 586. 587. Def. Ley falsified and/or caused others to falsify official court records. Def. Ley concealed the lack of any “judgment” and “bill of costs” in the amount of

“$5,048.60” by Defendant Appellee Wilkinson. See Plaintiffs’ 07/20/2010 Certified Letter to John Ley. DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS, CASE NO. 2010-10963 588. Def. Ley destroyed and/or caused others to destroy the official records in Case ## 2010-

10963 and 2010-10967. See Exhibits. FALSIFICATION OF “APPEAL” AND “CASE” 589. Def. Ley falsified an appeal as conclusively evidenced by the public records of appeal

fees paid by the Plaintiffs. CONCEALMENT 590. Def. Ley knew and concealed that on or around 08/14/2008, Plaintiff Appellant Dr. Jorg

Busse had filed “Appellant’s motion to strike appellee property appraiser’s motion for damages and costs as frivolous”, because Appellee “land parcel” Forger and Racketeer Wilkinson was extorting money and land under color of prima facie falsified “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”. 591. Def. Ley knew and concealed that on or around 08/18/2008, Plaintiff Appellant Dr. Jorg

Busse had filed “Motion for Sanctions Against Appellees Lee County”, because Appellees Lee County extorted property and money under color of authority and had never owned the falsified and forged land parcels.

152

RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS 592. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant John Ley in his private

individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. Circuit Clerk, 11th Circuit. Defendant Ley’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDED CAYO COSTA “CLOUD REMOVAL” 593. Further record evidence of the publicly recorded racketeering and extortion of private

land and money were the “removal of any cloud”, as conclusively evidenced by, e.g.: a. Lee County PB 3, PG 25 (1912); b. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 324-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998. c. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090; d. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488; e. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of County Lands. PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 594. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Ley perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 595. Defendant Ley knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,

Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering: “In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request

153

that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2. Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 596. Defendant Ley injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by reasons of

publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3); PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Ley’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice. 597. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official Ley extorted money, fees, and property under

prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at Brigham Moore. 598. Said Defendant knew that

a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1; b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386; c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record; d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”;

154

e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”; f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired; g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed; h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson. 599. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that “(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).” See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. 18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS 600. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant Ley’s

Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338, 288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5. CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY 601. Defendant Ley acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire control of

Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.:

155

a. Exercising various forms of extortion; b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such as, e.g., “$5,048.60”; c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates; d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes. DEFENDANT RICHARD JESSUP LACK OF IMMUNITY, PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS & EXTORTION 602. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Richard Jessup in his private

individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. Deputy Marshal (Fort Myers, FL). Defendant Jessup’s criminal and unlawful acts, and in particular, the racketeering and extortion of record under color of a prima facie illegal “writ of execution” on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. See Doc. ## 425, 429, Case No. 2:2007-cv00228. CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDED CAYO COSTA “CLOUD REMOVAL” 603. From direct communications with Plaintiffs, Def. Jessup knew the record evidence of

the publicly recorded racketeering and extortion of private land and money and the “removal of any cloud”, as conclusively evidenced by, e.g.: a. Lee County PB 3, Pg 25 (1912); b. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 324-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998. c. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090; d. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488;

156

e. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of County Lands. PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 604. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Jessup perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 605. Defendant Jessup knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,

Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering: “In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2. Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 606. Defendant Jessup injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by reasons of

publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3); PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Jessup’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice.

157

607.

In particular, Defendant Crooked Official Jessup extorted money, fees, and property

under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at Brigham Moore. 608. Pursuant to the Affidavit served upon Def. Jessup, said Defendant Jessup knew that

a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1; b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386; c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record; d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”; e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”; f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired; g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed; h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson. 609. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that “(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).” See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.

158

18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS 610. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant

Jessup’s Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338, 288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5. CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY 611. Defendant Jessup illegally acquired control, and conspired with other Officials to

acquire control of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g., Doc. # 429, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228: a. Exercising various forms of extortion; b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “writ” [Doc. ## 425, 429], “debt” such as, e.g., “$5,048.60”; c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates; d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes. DEFENDAN DIANE NIPPER RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS 612. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Diane Nipper in her private

individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. District Court Clerk. Defendant Nipper’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity.

159

FALSIFICATION OF “writ of execution” and COVER-UP, DOC. # 425 613. 614. Def. Nipper falsified a “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. On 07/16/2010, Def. Diane Nipper certified and authenticated a copy of the Docket, Case

No. 2:2007-cv-00228, which conclusively evidenced the lack of any record of falsified and fabricated “appeal” “No. 09-13196”. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 44. 615. Def. Nipper knew and concealed that Def. Beverly B. Martin had falsified said “appeal”

for criminal purposes of extorting, racketeering, and retaliating against the Plaintiff corruption victims. CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDED CAYO COSTA “CLOUD REMOVAL” 616. Def. Nipper concealed record evidence of the publicly recorded racketeering and

extortion of private land and money under color of fake “land parcels” [see PB 3, PG 25 (1912)] and the fake “writ” Nipper had purportedly “issued”, Doc. # 425. Nipper concealed to cover-up for other Government Agents: a. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 324-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998. b. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090; c. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488; d. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of County Lands. PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 617. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Nipper perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation.

160

618.

Defendant Nipper knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,

Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering: “In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2. Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 619. Defendant Crooked Clerk D. Nipper injured the Plaintiff record property and business

owners by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3); PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Nipper’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice. 620. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official Nipper extorted money, fees, and property

under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at Brigham Moore.

161

621.

Said Defendant knew that

a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1; b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386; c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record; d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”; e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”; f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired; g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed; h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson. DEFENDANT LYNN GERALD, JR. RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS 622. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Corrupt Lynn Gerald, Jr., in

his private individual capacity and official capacity as Lee County Circuit Court Judge, Case No. 2006-CA-003185 [LATER ILLEGALLY REMOVED BY DEF. JOHN EDWIN STEELE AND S. POLSTER CHAPPELL, WHO DESTROYED THE OFFICIAL RECORDS; see 2:2008-cv-00899]. Defendant Gerald’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity.

162

CONCEALMENT 623. Defendant Lynn Gerald, Jr., concealed publicly recorded extortion and racketeering

scheme “O.R. 569/875”. Def. Gerald knew that Lee County had never owned the prima facie forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”. COVER-UP AND BRIBERY 624. In exchange for bribes, Def. Gerald covered-up for the Lee County Defendants and

concealed the extortion under color of fake “parcels”. BRIBERY AND RACKETEERING 625. Def. Gerald extended the racketeering and extortion of record in exchange for

Defendant Lee County’s bribes. 626. Def. Gerald fraudulently concealed record evidence of the publicly recorded

racketeering and extortion of private land and money were the “removal of any cloud”, as conclusively evidenced by, e.g.: a. Lee County PB 3 PG 25 (1912); b. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 324-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998. c. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090; d. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488; e. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of County Lands.

163

PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 627. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Gerald perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 628. Defendant Gerald knew that Plaintiffs and Dr. Jorg Busse were entitled to defend against

and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 629. Defendant Crooked Gerald injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by

reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3); PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Gerald’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice. DEFENDANT KENNETH L. RYSKAMP RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS 630. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Kenneth L. Ryskamp in his

private individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. District Judge, M.D. of Florida, Palm Beach Division. Defendant Ryskamp’s criminal and/or unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. In particular, Def. Ryskamp knew and fraudulently concealed Defendants’ fraudulent Government ownership claims and forged

164

“land parcels”, which he could not find on the 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25. EXTENSION OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION 631. Def. Ryskamp extended Florida’s culture of Government corruption and racketeering. FRAUD ON THE COURT 632. In particular, Def. Ryskamp could not locate the facially falsified “land parcels” on the

referenced Plat, PB 3 PG (1912), but Defendant kept keeping the Plaintiffs out of Court. CASE FIXING AND DESTRUCTION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS 633. Def. Ryskamp destroyed and/or caused others to destroy about half of Plaintiffs’

Complaint in the Palm Beach Division of the Middle District of Florida. 634. After Ryskamp had destroyed the official Court records, he fixed and closed the

Plaintiffs’ Case and concealed the record “land parcel” falsifications and forgeries for purposes of Government extortion and retaliation. CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDED CAYO COSTA “CLOUD REMOVAL” 635. Ryskamp fraudulently concealed record evidence of the publicly recorded racketeering

and extortion of private land and money and the “removal of any cloud”, as conclusively evidenced by, e.g.: a. Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912); b. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 324-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998. c. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090; d. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488;

165

e. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of County Lands. PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 636. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Ryskamp perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. Plaintiffs were entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 637. Defendant Crooked Ryskamp fixed Plaintiffs’ Case and injured the Plaintiff record

property and business owners by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-0100015.015A. See Section 1961(3); PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Ryskamp’s obstruction of justice, extortion, and racketeering. DEFENDANT CHARLIE CRIST RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS 638. The Plaintiff public corruption and racketeering victims are suing Defendant Charlie

Crist in his private individual capacity and official capacity as Governor of the State of Florida, who petitioned for the 19th Florida Statewide Grand Jury on Public Corruption.

166

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 639. When directly confronted with well-known Government extortion, fraud, and

racketeering scheme “O.R. 569/875” and facially forged “land parcels” which Def. Crist could not find on the Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat, PB 3 PG 25 (1912), Crist concealed the Government crimes and obstructed due process, equal protection, investigation, and prosecution. NO IMMUNITY FOR COVER-UP OF GOVERNMENT CRIMES & EXTORTION 640. Defendant Crist’s criminal and/or unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and

official capacity. In particular, Def. Crist knew and fraudulently concealed Defendants’ fraudulent Government ownership claims of private Cayo Costa land and forged “land parcels”, which Crist could not find on the 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25. EXTENSION OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION 641. Def. Crist extended Florida’s pandemic culture of Government corruption and

racketeering by obstructing justice, investigation, and installing Defendant John E. Manning who had a criminal record related to, e.g., concealment and non-disclosure. FRAUD, DECEPTION, AND TRICKERY 642. In particular, Def. Crist could not locate the facially falsified “land parcels” on the

referenced Plat, PB 3 PG (1912), but Defendant Crist kept obstructing any investigation of the prima facie extortion of land and money and the racketeering under color of fake “land parcels”.

167

CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDED CAYO COSTA “CLOUD REMOVAL” 643. Def. Crist fraudulently concealed record evidence of the publicly recorded racketeering

and extortion of private land and money and the “removal of any cloud”, as conclusively evidenced by, e.g.: a. Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912); b. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 324-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998. c. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090; d. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488; e. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of County Lands. PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 644. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Charlie Crist perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. The Plaintiffs were entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 645. Defendant Crooked Crist injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by

reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3); PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr.

168

21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Crist’s obstruction of justice, extortion, and racketeering. 646. Def. Crist knew and concealed that the extorted private land is worth Hundreds of

Millions of Dollars and that no “State park” had ever existed in the admittedly undedicated private residential Cayo Costa Subdivision as patently clearly proven by said 1912 record Subdivision Plat of Survey in Plat Book 3, Page 25. DEFENDANT CHARLES “BARRY” STEVENS RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS 647. The Plaintiff public corruption and racketeering victims are suing Defendant Charles

“Barry” Stevens in his private individual capacity and official capacity as “Park Ranger”, “Cayo Costa State Park”. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 648. Defendant Stevens could not find prima facie forged “land parcels” on the Cayo Costa

Subdivision Plat, but continued fires and caused others to start fires on extorted land within the private undedicated residential Cayo Costa Subdivision, PB 3 PG 25 (1912). SLANDER OF TITLE 649. Def. Stevens recklessly slandered Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable record title to Lot 15A,

Cayo Costa, even though Def. Stevens knew that Defendants Lee County, FL, had made fraudulent “land ownership” claims and conspired to fraudulently conceal the facially falsified “land parcels” of public record.

169

650.

Stevens knew that public corruption is pandemic in Florida and that the Def. Governor

of the State of Florida, Charlie Crist, had successfully petitioned for the 19th Florida Statewide Grand Jury on Public Corruption. CRIMINAL & CIVIL TRESPASS, AND ARSON 651. Defendant Stevens trespassed and caused others to trespass onto private undedicated

Cayo Costa and concealed Plaintiffs’ private implied street and alley easements, PB 3, PG 25. See Doc. # 429, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. 652. Def. Stevens started and encouraged others to start fires and perpetrate arson in private

Cayo Costa. In 2008, Hundreds of Acres of private Cayo Costa Subdivision land burnt down injuring the Plaintiffs. FRAUD, EXTORTION, DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS 653. Def. Stevens obstructed justice extended Government extortion, fraud, and racketeering

scheme “O.R. 569/875” and facially forged “land parcels” which Defendants Stevens and Crist could not find on the Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat, PB 3 PG 25 (1912). Def. Stevens concealed the publicly recorded Government crimes, and obstructed due process, equal protection, investigation, and prosecution. NO IMMUNITY FOR COVER-UP OF GOVERNMENT CRIMES & EXTORTION 654. Defendant’s criminal and/or unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and

official capacity. In particular, Def. Stevens knew and fraudulently concealed Defendants’ fraudulent Government ownership claims of private Cayo Costa land and forged “land parcels”, which Stevens could not find on the 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25.

170

EXTENSION OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION 655. Def. Stevens extended Florida’s pandemic culture of Government corruption and

racketeering by obstructing justice, investigation, and installing Defendant John E. Manning who had a criminal record related to, e.g., concealment and non-disclosure. FRAUD, DECEPTION, AND TRICKERY 656. In particular, Def. Stevens could not locate the facially falsified “land parcels” on the

referenced Plat, PB 3 PG (1912), but Defendant Stevens kept obstructing any investigation of the prima facie extortion of land and money and the racketeering under color of known fake “land parcels”. CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDED CAYO COSTA “CLOUD REMOVAL” 657. Def. Stevens fraudulently concealed record evidence of the publicly recorded

racketeering and extortion of private land and money and the “removal of any cloud”, as conclusively evidenced by, e.g.: a. Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912); b. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 324-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998. c. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090; d. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488; e. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of County Lands. PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 658. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant “Barry” Stevens perpetrated record RICO predicate

171

acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. The Plaintiffs were entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression. See Doc. # 429, Case No. 2:07-cv-00228. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 659. Defendant Crooked Stevens injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by

reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3); PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Steven’s obstruction of justice, extortion, racketeering, and cover-up. 660. Def. Stevens knew and concealed that the extorted private land is worth Hundreds of

Millions of Dollars and that no “State park” had ever existed in the admittedly undedicated private residential Cayo Costa Subdivision as patently clearly proven by said 1912 record Subdivision Plat of Survey in Plat Book 3, Page 25. DEFENDANT TONY WEST RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS 661. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Tony West in his private

individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. Attorney, Civil Division. Defendant West’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity.

172

CONCEALMENT OF PUBLICLY RECORDS 662. Def. West concealed fake land parcels and record evidence of the publicly recorded

racketeering and extortion of private land and money and the “removal of any cloud”, as conclusively evidenced by, e.g.: a. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 324-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998. b. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090; c. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488; d. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of County Lands. PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 663. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer West perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 664. Defendant West knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,

Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering: “In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2.

173

Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 665. Defendant Crooked West injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by

reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3); PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses, business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice. 666. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official West extorted money, fees, and property

under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at Brigham Moore. 667. Said Defendant knew that

a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1; b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386; c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record; d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”;

174

e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”; f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired; g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed; h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson. 668. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that “(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).” See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. 18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS 669. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant Tony

West’s Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338, 288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5. CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY 670. Defendant West acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire control

of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.:

175

a. Exercising various forms of extortion; b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such as, e.g., “$5,048.60”; c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates; 671. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes. DEFENDANT MARK ALLAN PIZZO RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS 672. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Corrupt Mark Allan Pizzo in

his private individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. Magistrate Judge. Defendant Pizzo’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. CONCEALMENT OF PUBLIC RECORDS AS TO CAYO COSTA 673. Def. Pizzo concealed and conspired to conceal record evidence of the publicly recorded

racketeering and extortion of private land and money and the “removal of any cloud”, as conclusively evidenced by, e.g.: a. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 324-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998. b. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090; c. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488; d. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of County Lands.

176

PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 674. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Pizzo perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 675. Defendant Pizzo knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,

Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering: “In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2. Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 676. Defendant Crooked Pizzo injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners by

reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3); PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses,

177

business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Pizzo’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice. 677. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official Pizzo extorted money, fees, and property

under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at Brigham Moore. 678. Said Defendant knew that

a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1; b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386; c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record; d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”; e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”; f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired; g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed; h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson. 679. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that

178

“(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).” See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. 18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS 680. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of Defendant Pizzo’s

Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338, 288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5. CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY 681. Defendant Pizzo acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire control

of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.: a. Exercising various forms of extortion; b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such as, e.g., “$5,048.60”; c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates; d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes.

179

DEFENDANT JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC. XXX RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS 682. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendants Johnson Engineering, Inc.

and adopt by reference any and all Complaints of Record against said Defendant in this Complaint. 683. Johnson Engineering fraudulently concealed the prima facie criminality and illegality of

said facially forged “land parcels”. DEFENDANT ANNE CONWAY RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS 684. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Corrupt Anne Conway in

her private individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. Chief U.S. District Judge. Defendant Conway’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF PUBLIC RECORDS & CORRUPTION 685. Further record evidence of the publicly recorded racketeering and extortion of private

land and money were the “removal of any cloud”, as conclusively evidenced by, e.g.: a. Lee County Blue Sheet No. 980206, Board of County Commissioners, Meeting Date 324-1998, Received by County Lands Division on 03/26/1998. b. Lee County Official Records 2967 / 1084 through 1090; c. Lee County Official Record 1651 / 2488; d. Lee County fraudulent “Inventory Control File” on record, Lee County Division of County Lands.

180

PROSECUTION UNDER CIVIL RICO 686. The Civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, expressly

authorized civil remedies. Defendant Racketeer Conway perpetrated record RICO predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, obstruction of justice, and retaliation. 687. Defendant Conway knew that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s “motion”, “Rule 27-4”,

Fed.R.App.Proc., Doc. # 386-2, was for prima facie illegal and criminal purposes of extorting money and property, obstructing justice, retaliating, and racketeering: “In order to discourage the Appellant [Dr. Jorg Busse] from engaging in the same practices [of having conclusively proven and exposed Government extortion, racketeering, and corruption] in this Court, the Appellee [Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office] would respectfully request that this Court require the Appellant to pay a monetary penalty into the Court for filing his frivolous motion to strike.” Id., p. 2. Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Jorg Busse, was entitled to defend against and prosecute recorded extortion, racketeering, corruption, fraud, and be free of retaliation and oppression. INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS’ CAYO COSTA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS 688. Defendant Crooked Conway injured the Plaintiff record property and business owners

by reasons of publicly recorded violations of Section 1962. See Section 1964(C). Plaintiffs are holding legal and beneficial interests in their Cayo Costa business and property, riparian Lot 15A “on the Gulf of Mexico”, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A. See Section 1961(3); PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). Plaintiffs demand recovery for both tangible and intangible property losses,

181

business interruptions, and other losses as a direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice. 689. In particular, Defendant Crooked Official Conway extorted money, fees, and property

under prima facie false pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, falsified “land parcels”, and a “writ”, Doc. # 425, while fraudulently concealing that Lee County, FL, had never owned and could not have possibly owned Plaintiffs’ Cayo Costa business and property as a matter of law. See business records on file by eminent domain Attorneys at Brigham Moore. 690. Said Defendant Chief Judge concealed and conspired with the Officials in her Court that

a. The 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit had purportedly DENIED “Appellee WILKERSON’S Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 1; b. The only judgment was for $24.30 under FRAP 39 for “copies”, Doc. ## 365, 386; c. No judgment pursuant to Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. had ever existed on any record; d. No appellee had filed any “Rule 38 motion”; e. No appellee had filed any “motion in pursuit of a frivolous appeal”; f. The deadlines to file any motion had expired; g. No “Appellee “WILKERSON” had existed; h. The fabricated “$5,000 attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5, were never incurred and could not have possibly been incurred by Defendant Racketeer and “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson. 691. Said Defendant fraudulently concealed that

182

“(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that this rule does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).” See Doc. # 386-5, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. 18 U.S.C. § 1962 VIOLATIONS 692. Pursuant to Section 1964(C), Plaintiffs suffered damages by reason of said Defendant’s

Section 1962 violations, which proximately and directly resulted from the publicly recorded commissions of the predicate acts such as, e.g., extortion, retaliation, fraud, fraud on the State and Federal Courts, fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” under color of a fake “writ of execution”, fake “judgment”, fake debt, fake “$5,048.60” debt, fake “ripeness requirements”, et al. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 434, 432, 424, 422, 386, 338, 288, 282, 360, 87, 25, 5. CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPTLY GAIN CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY 693. Defendant Conway acquired control and conspired with other Officials to acquire

control of Plaintiffs’ Lee County property and business through, e.g., organized crime such as, e.g.: a. Exercising various forms of extortion; b. Acquiring interest in Plaintiffs’ property in satisfaction of illegally procured “debt” such as, e.g., “$5,048.60”; c. Charging & collecting Government fees and for fictitious “frivolity” with usurious rates; d. Profiteering from extra-judicial crimes and bribes.

183

DEFENDANT CHARLIE GREEN 694. RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF ILLICIT ACTS The Plaintiff racketeering and public corruption victims are suing Defendant Charlie

Green in his private individual capacity and official capacity as Clerk of Courts, Lee County, Florida. Defendant Green’s criminal and unlawful acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. 695. Defendant Charlie Green, Lee County, FL, Clerk of Court’s Office, fraudulently

concealed the prima facie criminality, illegality, and nullity of “O.R. 569/875”. 696. Defendant Green fraudulently misrepresented “O.R. 569/875” as an “authentic

instrument”. 697. Defendant Green’s conspiracy to conceal and concealment of the facial illegality and

nullity of “O.R. 569/875” extended, e.g., known and recorded racketeering, extortion of money and property, obstruction of justice, and retaliation against the Plaintiffs. Def. Green fraudulently pretended and published that land extortion scheme “O.R. 569/875” was a purported real property conveyance and/or deed while on its very face, “O.R. 569/875” was null and void ab initio and without any color, legal description, execution, witnesses, and legislative signatures. DEFENDANT RICHARD D. DE BOEST, II 698. Defendant Richard D. DeBoest, II, fraudulently pretended outstanding assessments by

and on behalf of Granada Condominium Homes Association, Inc., Naples, FL, for illegal purposes of extorting property and money as evidenced by, e.g., INSTRUMENT 4397277 OR 4539 PG 1977; OR 4539 PG 2033; and INSTR 4285498, OR 4445 PG 1665, Collier County, FL, public records.

184

CONSPIRACY AND FORECLOSURE FRAUD 699. In the absence of any recorded credible evidence of debt or non-payment, Def. De Boest,

II, conspired with other Attorneys to perpetrate foreclosure fraud and extort money and property despite publicly recorded controverting evidence to the contrary. DEFENDANT CHENE M. THOMPSON 700. Defendant Chene M. Thompson fraudulently pretended outstanding assessments by

and on behalf of Granada Condominium Homes Association, Inc., Naples, FL, for illegal purposes of extorting property and money as evidenced by, e.g., INSTRUMENT 4397277 OR 4539 PG 1977; OR 4539 PG 2033; and INSTR 4285498, OR 4445 PG 1665, Collier County, FL, public records. FORECLOSURE FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY 701. In the absence of any recorded credible evidence of debt or non-payment, Defendant

Chene M. Thompson conspired with other Attorneys to perpetrate foreclosure fraud and extort money and property despite publicly recorded controverting evidence to the contrary.

PLAINTIFFS’ DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 702. The Plaintiffs hereby demand jury trial for all claims for which a jury trial is allowed. DEMAND OF $19,000,000.00 IN THIS ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 703. The Plaintiffs hereby expressly demand $19,000,000.00. See Civil Cover Sheet at VIII.

Requested in Complaint. CIVIL COVER SHEET IN THIS ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 704. The Plaintiffs attached a Civil Cover Sheet (Form JS 44): II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION

185

2 U.S. Government Defendants. The first listed Plaintiff is UNITED STATES ex relatione Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott. IV. NATURE OF SUIT 470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 240 Torts to Land 220 Foreclosure 370 Other Fraud (Personal Property) 290 All Other Real Property 440 Other Civil Rights DECLARATORY STATEMENT / AFFIDAVIT 705. The Plaintiffs declare:

a. This Court published at page 25 of its Pro Se Litigant Guide, Jan. 2010: “The party that ultimately wins a lawsuit may be awarded certain costs of litigation … If the plaintiff loses, however, the defendant(s) may file a Bill of Costs against the plaintiff. These costs, which are explained more fully at 28 U.S.C. 1920, include expenses such as deposition costs … A Bill of Costs form must be filed with the clerk within twenty-one (21) days after the time for appeal has expired. A copy must be served on the opposing attorney or pro se party. The Bill of Costs must be supported by a memorandum of law and must be verified by oath stating that the items are correct, the costs claimed are allowable by law, the services have been actually and necessarily performed … An itemization of all costs shall be attached to the Bill of Costs. …” b. Here as a matter of public record, there were (a) NO filing within 21 days after the time for appeal had expired with the Clerk of the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida or any other Clerk; (b) NO Bill of Costs for the extorted “$5,000.00”; (c) NO copy served upon the Plaintiffs; (d) NO supporting “memorandum of law”; (e) NO fraudulently pretended “July 29, 2009, judgment” whatsoever; See INSTRUMENT 4371834, Collier County, FL, Public Records; (f) NO “verification by oath”;

186

(g) NO “itemization” of costs; (h) NO services in the amount of “$5,000.00” ever “actually and necessarily performed”; (i) NO frivolous appeal; c. The prima facie extortion of “$5,000.00” was of course not “allowable by law”. d. $24.30 was the correct item; e. $24.30 was allowable by law; f. $24.30 worth of allowed services were “actually and necessarily performed” as stated under oath by former Attorney for Defendant Appellee Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Defendant Sherri L. Johnson, on 03/17/2009. See Doc. ## 365, 386. g. Pursuant to binding 11th Appellate Circuit precedent, the lower or U.S. District Court must receive a judgment before it could possibly “issue as mandate”. Here, the only mandate issued was in the amount of $24.30 under FRAP 39, Costs, and not under FRAP 38, Fed.R.App.P. Here, no frivolous appeal had ever or could have possibly ever existed. See U.S. District Court and Circuit Court Dockets. $24.30 JUDGMENT AND ISSUED MANDATE OF RECORD 706. Doc. # 365, Case No 2:2007-cv-00228, evidenced the only recorded judgment issued as

mandate in the amount of “$24.30”. The $24.30 mandate issued on June 11, 2009. FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVIT, INSTRUMENT 4371834, COLLIER COUNTY, FL 707. Pursuant to INSTRUMENT 4371834, OR 4517 PG 1914, Collier County, Florida,

Public Records, Defendants KENNETH M. WILKINSON and JACK N. PETERSON fraudulently claimed, pretended, asserted a “July 29, 2009”, “judgment”, which had never existed and had never been recorded anywhere.

187

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Government corruption and racketeering victims demand 1. An Order restraining and preventing the record violations of section 1962 under the RICO civil provisions; 2. An Order declaring the lack of any recorded mandate and/or money judgment other than the $24.30, which was “issued as mandate on June 11, 2009” and recorded on June 15, 2009 pursuant to the certified Docket, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, U.S. District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division; 3. An Order declaring INSTRUMENT 4371834, O.R. 4517 PG 1914, Collier County Public Records, and the equally fraudulent filing in Lee County part of a racketeering, extortion, and fraud scheme 4. An Order restraining any further racketeering by Defendant Government Officials and in particular the illegal forced selling of Plaintiffs’ said riparian Cayo Costa property, Lot 15A, in the absence of any recorded “$5,048.60” “judgment”; 5. An Order dissolving and/or reorganizing the corrupt Government enterprise under, e.g., civil RICO, and 18 U.S.C. 1964(a); 6. An Order removing the publicly recorded corrupting influence and make due provision for said express fundamental rights of innocent persons under the Florida and Federal Constitutions and, e.g., the 14th, 1st, 7th, 4th, 5th, and 11th U.S. Constitutional Amendments; 7. An EMERGENCY Order recusing Defendant Crooked, Objectively Partial, and Unfit Government Racketeer John E. Steele; 8. An Order making the Government enterprise of record subject of injunctive relief, because it is designed to aid the illegal enterprise of, e.g., obstructing justice, retaliating and punishing, and extorting money, Government fees, and property;

188

9. An Order enjoining said U.S. Courts from retaliating against the Plaintiffs because they blew the whistle on Government crimes & corruption, rather than punishing the Defendant Racketeers of record and providing remedies and relief to the Plaintiff racketeering and corruption victims; 10. An EMERGENCY Order recusing Defendant Crooked and Objectively Partial and Unfit Judge C. E. Honeywell; 11. An EMERGENCY Order recusing Defendant Corrupt and Objectively Partial and Unfit Judge S. Polster Chappell; 12. An Order for equitable relief; 13. An Order declaring Plaintiffs’ record title to Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, free & clear and unencumbered; 14. An Order declaring fake “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-0100001.0000” falsified and prima facie forgeries as conclusively evidenced by the 1912 Cayo Costa Plat in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25; 15. An Order for EMERGENCY relief from the publicly recorded public corruption, extortion, coercion, fraud, and concealment in said Courts; 16. An Order for compensatory damages; 17. An Order for triple punitive damages; 18. An Order for triple punitive damages under, e.g., Civil RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 1964(c); 19. An Order for expenses, costs, legal expenses, and fees; 20. An Order enjoining any and all Governments and the Defendants and Officials from any trespass onto the private undedicated “Cayo Costa” “Subdivision” as legally described in reference to said 1912 Plat in PB 3 PG 25;

189

21. An Order declaring the prima facie forgeries of non-existent “land parcels” “12-44-20-0100000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” fraudulent and criminal acts of record; 22. An Order permanently enjoining any and all entries and publications of any “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, “legislative act 569/875”, and non-existent “land parcels” “1244-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” from any and all Government records and publications; 23. An Order permanently enjoining any and all Governments and Defendants from fraudulently “claiming” “asserting” “publishing” Government ownership of the street lands along the Gulf of Mexico as legally described and conveyed in reference to the Plat of the prima facie private “Cayo Costa” Subdivision; 24. An Order enjoining and restraining any extortion of property and money and foreclosure fraud by Defendants Eugene C. Turner, Richard D. DeBoest, II, Chene M. Thompson, and Hugh D. Hayes. ___________________________ /s/Jorg Busse, M.D., M.M., M.B.A. Private Attorney General; Relator; Plaintiff public corruption & racketeering victim 10 Benning ST, # 135 West Lebanon, NH 03784-3402, U.S.A. c/o International Court of Justice Peace Palace The Hague, Netherlands _____________________ /s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott Private Attorney General; Relator; Plaintiff Government racketeering & corruption victim 10 Benning Street, # 135 West Lebanon, NH 03784-3402, U.S.A. c/o International Court of Justice Peace Palace The Hague, Netherlands

190

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-7

Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 6

EXHIBITS SUPPORTING PUBLIC RECORD EVIDENCE EXTOU I Jtifel, FRAUD, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, RETALIATION, B R f f i m K S S A. FACIALLY FRAUDULENT^ AFFIDAVIT [ DI I S\C KTN. PEll-RSON. K. M.

WILKINSON] INSTR 4371834. O.R. 4517 PC 1914, Collier County Public Records B. PRIMA FACIE NULL & VOID "writ of execution", Case No. 2:07-cv-00228 C. PRIMA FACIE NULL & VOID "O.R. 569/875" AND LAND EXTORTION SCHEME D. 07/21/2010 letter b\ Dcf. Racketeer JACK N. PETERSON E. Def. CHARLIE GREEN'S recording instructions

F. RACKETEERING AND EXTORTION record evidence. Doc. # 429, Case 2:07-cv-228 G. Docket as CERTIFIED b\ Dcf. Diane Nipper on 07/16/2010, Case No. 2:07-cv-00228 Conclusively evidencing record absence of fictitious and fabricated appeal "09-13196" H. FALSIFICATION of "appeal no 09-13196" b\ Def. Beverly B. Martin pursuant to and the

CERTIFIED docket at B.. which evidenced the lack ol any such "appear

yr/vo/Z/y^racketeering-and-evtortion-schcnie of record. "JUl 19 2010" CASE FIXING & "DISMISSAL AS FRIVOLOUS" I. DOC. # 434. 07/22/2010. b\ Def. .KM IN I . S fLRI I CASI< NO. 2:2(l07-CV-00228

J. Third Amended Complaint. Case No. 2:2007-cv-()O22,S. Doc. # 288. 282 (I 1 pages), PRIMA FACIE NULL AND VOID "legislalive act" and/or "law '". Lake "O.R. 569/875", FACIALLY FALSIFIED "regulalion" and/or "reso/ulion" attached as Page 9 of 11; ETHICS COMPLAIN 1 against Del. Crooked Lee C oimi\ Official JACK N. PETERSON Attached as Page 10 of I I

191

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-7

Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 6

K. PRIMA FACIE FRAUDULENT and FRIVOLOUS motion by Defendant Racketeer and "land parceT Forger K. M. Wilkinson: "Appellee Properly Appraiser's Motion for

Sanctions for Filing of a frivolous Motion". "Rule 2~-4". Case No. 2:2()07-cv-00228, Doc. # 386-2, pp 1-3. Doc. # 386-3. p. 15 L. BINDING PRECEDENT and RECORD EVIDENCE of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, JUDICIAL RETALIATION, and EXTORTION under color of fake "judgment" & "vwV", WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY. 41 F.3d 1490(11* Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States. 269 F.2d 458 (5"' Cir.1959) M. Lee County. FU INSTRUMENT # 2010000171344. WARRANTY DEED Lot 15A, "Cayo Costa. Lee County Plat Book 3. Page 25 (1912) (2 pages) N. RECORD RACKETEERING EVIDENCE: "Motion for Issuance of writ of execution ...", RECORDED EVIDENCE of EXTORTION. FRAUD & FALSIFICATION of un-recorded judgment. Doc. # 386. Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. by Def. Racketeer Jack N. Peterson; PERVERSION of recorded "S24.30 judgment" into fake ••$5.()4X.60 debt" O. Lee County Tax Collector's Office. Statement of Paid Properly faxes. Lot 15A. Cayo Costa (2 pages) P. DENIAL of "Appellee Wilkerson 's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment", FALSIFICATION of-Rule 3<S motion", record evidence. Doc. # 386-5

FALSIFICATION of "Rule 3<S /udgi/ienf". record c\ idence. Doc. H 386-5 FALSIFICATION of "Rule 3<S bill of costs", record evidence. Doc. # 386-5 FALSIFICATION of unsubstantiated "$5,000 in attorneys fees". Doc. # 386-5

By Defendant Racketeers Dubina. Chief Judge. Tjollat. and Birch. Circuit Judges Facially forged and pasted "certification". Doc. it 386-5. p. 2, right lower corner

192

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-7

Filed 07/29/10 Page 3 of 6

Q. MEMORANDUM OF NO DEDICATION Of 1 HP C \ Y O COS I A ROADS TO PUBLIC, From The Office of Lee Count). Florida. Attorney. Dec. 29. 2000. Joan C. Henry. Esq. R. 1912 Plat of undedieated private "Caxo Costa" Subdivision in Lee County Plat Book 3, P. 25 S. Recorded Survey of riparian I ot I5A. Cayo Costa. PB 3 I'Ci 25 (1912) on the Gulf of Mexico T. Fraudulent Lee County Inventory C 'antral File. FALSIFIED parcel 12-44-20-01 -00000.00A0 O.R. 1651 / 2488, O.R. 2967 / 1084 - 1090, BLUE SHEET 980206, 03/24/1998(6 pages) U. Falsified "Parcel 12-44-20-01-0000(1 00A0" by Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson (2 p) V. Falsified "resolution", "legislalive ael". and/or "law " by Def. Racketeer John Edwin Steele, Doc. ## 288. 282, Case No. 2:2()07-c\ -00228 W. "Judgment Issued as Mandate June 11 2009". in the amount of $24.30. FRAP 39 (1 p) RACKETEERING/EXTORTION EVIDENCE: March 5. 2009 "opinion"', 11th Circuit X. Bill of Costs Issued as Mandate June 11 2009. in the amount of $24.30. FRAP 39 (1 p) Y. Fraudulent "Conclusion" and Case Fixing by Defendant U.S. Circuit Judges, Doc. # 365, Case No. 2:2007-c\-00228: Doe. a 386. Z. STATE Court Docket. Plaintiffs" Case No. 2006-CA-003185. BUSSE v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Defendant Judge CrHRAI I). LYNN. Jr.. Filed 07/3 1/2006. REMOVED to U.S. District Court by Def. Judges John I . Steele and S. Polstcr Chappell AA. EXTORTION & PUBLIC CORRUPTION NO 1 ICE to Def. Drew Heathcoat, U.S.

Clerk (2 pages) BB. CC. Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge. Steven E. Ibison DESTRUCTION of official records as evidenced by search of "2007-00228", 11th

Circuit DD. DESTRUCTION of Docket No. 201010963. U.S. Court of Appeals. 1 l,h Circuit

193

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-7

Filed 07/29/10 Page 4 of 6

EE.CASE FIXING. OBSTRUCTION O F JUSTICE. AND RETALIATION by Def. Judges Black, Carnes. and Martin, dated "JUl 19 2010"" (2 pages) FF.NOTICE O F C O R R U P T I O N \ M ) LETTER DEMANDING AUTHENTICATION,

Def. JOHN LEY, U.S. Circuit Clerk. 1 l"' U.S. Appellate Circuit (2 pages) GG. Motion to Stay Prima Facie Illegal Execution as a Matter of Law. Case No. 2:10-cv00390 (5 pages) HH. Section 838.022, Florida Statutes. OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT Chaptei 838. Fla. Slat.. BRIBERY. MISUSE O F PUBLIC O F F I C E II. Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089. Doc. # 29. pp. 4. 7. Def. U.S. /Mlorney. Tony West, Matthew L. Fesak, affirming U.S. jurisdiction under "c/V/7 RICO" JJ. FACIALLY FALSIFIED "writ of execution". Case No 2:2()07-cv-00228. Doc. # 425 KK. Section 55.10. Florida Statutes. Judgments. Chapter 55 Judgments. Florida Statutes LL. Defendant Racketeer K. M. Wilkinson's Answers to Plaintiffs First Set of .

Interrogatories ,, under oath. 10/22/2007; in particular, asserting under oath the RECORD ABSENCE of "public Cayo Costa easements". Answer 4 24 MM. Florida 19"' Statewide Grand J u r y on Public Corruption (09/30/2009 Petition),

Florida Statewide Prosecution Office. Office of the Attorney General of Florida. NN. FALSIFIED "Plat" of "Cayo Costa Subdivision" as falsified and filed by Defendant

Racketeer K. M. Wilkinson as "Exhibit A", Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228 OO. Publicly recorded Case Fixing and Obstruction of Justice by Defendant Judges Gerald

B. Tjoflat, Susan Birch, and Joel F. Dubina. Chief Judge. U.S. Court of Appeals, 11 th Circuit, Doc. # 365, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228

194

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-7

Filed 07/29/10 Page 5 of 6

PP. Fraudulent Order. Case No. 2:2(K)7-cv-00228. Doc. tf 422. pp. 17-18. by Defendant Racketeer John E. Steele, evidencing extortion, obstruction of justice, obstruction of court access, and retaliation under fraudulent pretenses of. e.g.. "writ of execution", "lack of jurisdiction", and office. QQ. RR. Steele SS.FBI Complaint against Dcf. U.S. Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin. Including "JUL 19 2010" CASE FIXING FOR BRIBES and RACKETEERING TT.Record Evidence of Destruction of Plaintiffs" Appeal Records. ## "10-10963. UU. VV. Steele WW. XX. YY. ZZ. March 08, 2010 Letter by Dcf. John Ley. U.S. Circuit Clerk DESTRUCTION AND ALTERATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. EVIDENCE FRAUDULENT 04/06/2(110 ()rder by Def. ( looked Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin Supreme Court Justice Dav id Souler Communications, including binding precedent of WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY AAA. OTHER; OTHER PUBLIC RECORDS 10-10967' FBI Complaint against Def. Lee County Commissioner John Manning Concealment of fake unl. Doc. # 434. Case No. 2:20()7-ev-00228, by Def. J. E. "ripeness recpnrements". "frivolity", "sanciions". and under color of authority

GOVERNMENTAL FORGERIES. "O.R. 569/875". FORENSIC EVIDENCE Facially Fraudulent Order. Doc. U 338. Case 2:2007-cv-00228. by Def. John E.

195

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-7

Filed 07/29/10 Page 6 of 6

CC:

Federal Bureau of Investigation U.S. Department of Justice Eric Holder, Attorney General Barack Hussein Obama, The White House Florida Department of Law Enforcement The Florida Bar Real Property Probate and I rust Lawyer Section. The Florida Bar

196

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 9:28 07/29/10 *** INSTR 4371834 OR 4517 PG 1914 RECORDED 12/10/2009 FiledAM PAGES 1 Page *** DWIGKT E. BROCK, COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT REC S10.00

1 of 23

»
INSTR n 2009000303382. Pages 1 Doc Type AFF. Recorded 11 • 18.2009 at 10.11 AM. Charlie Green, Lee County CterV of Circuit Court Rec. Fee $10 00 Deputy Clerk DMERC1ER #1

AFFIDAVIT STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF LEE ) ) )

BEFORE ME the undersigned authority, personally appeared JACK N. PETERSON, who being first duly sworn, says: 1. KENNETH M. WILKINSON, as Property Appraiser of Lee County, Florida, is the

holder of a judgment issued by the United StatesjCourt of Appeals in and for the Eleventh Circuit on July 29, 2009 in Docket $5,048.60. 2. The judgment hj Kenneth M. Wi 2480 Thompson1 Fort Myers, FL AFFIANT FURTHER 'irnty, Florida JORG BUSSE in the amount of

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this N. PETERSON, who is personally known to me.

of November, 2009 by JACK '0-.

^nature ot Notafy ruDUc; (Printed Name) My Commission Expires:
IJESUEAJ WCOMMSSIONtDD 589573

EXPIRES: 0*c«rtm», 2010 lenrtllnNotorMfcUUiMlM

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

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8

Document 425

Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 23
Filed 02/02/10

Page 1 of 1

•FH FO
DC 11 Rav. 1/00

's

1

WRIT OF EXECUTION

United States District Court
TO THE MARSHAL OF:

m^«mSfF&Jt1'^
MiuyLtuibiHiurontiwioA F 0 R T MYERS F l 0 R , 0 A
• -

UT. imimtmm

United States District Court, Middle District of Florida

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, that of the goods and chattels, lands and tenements in your district belonging to: NAME

Jorg Busse Building 2, Unit 4 1575 Curlew Avenue Naples. FL 34112-5038

you cause to be made and levied as well a certain debt of:
DOLLAR AMOUNT DOLLAR AMOUNT AND

Five Thousand Forty-Eight

Sixty Cents
, before the

in the United States District Court for the Middle District of P'0"*3 Judge of the said Court by the consideration of the same Judge lately recovered against the said,

Jorg Busse

and also the costs that may accrue under this writ. And that you have above listed moneys that the place and date listed below; and that you bring this writ with you.
PLACE

2115 Second Street, 6th Floor

DISTRICT M

j d d | e

Djstrjct o f

p^^g

CITY

Fort Myers

DATE

Witness the Honorable United States Judge
DATE CLERK 01

StISryl L. Loesch

This writ was received and executed. U.S. MARSHAL (BY) DEPUTY MARSHAL

2-/2 iS

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8

Filed 07/29/10 Page 3 of 23

.VUTO-l

* 559^575

RESOUyTIOK PCRTAIRIiW T O PUBLIC U N M

IN,Sm gglfl^ WHPIviyig
NHOtCAS, there' appears in the Public Records of Lee County, Florida, In Plat Book 3 at page 25 the Second Revised Mat of Cayo Coeta Subdivision: and WHEREAS, there tppeara upon snid plat certain designated lot and block areas aitd other undesignated areas t and WHEREAS, there appears upon said plat certain un-numbered and unlettered areas lying East of tho Easterly tier of Moeka in said subdivision and West of tho Westerly tier of blocks in said subdivision: and TEREAS, tho County claims s t i d lands as public lands together with all accretions thereto. NO*. THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED B THE B A D Of COWTY Y OR COWUMIONERS OF LEE COUNTY. FLORIDA does by this Resolution claim a l l of raid lands and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of the public for public purposes. DONE AND ADOPTED this /? day of Js . ci. ».U-*-U. 1969.

V

3 All

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8

Filed 07/29/10 Page 4 of 23

m LEE COUNTY
iswn. j - r j - r j - r -^ ^, ^ a. ^

533-2236
V y

SOUTHWEST
Vacant District One

FLORIDA

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS July 21, 2010
A. Bnan Bigclow District Two Rayjudah District Three

Facsimile (239)485-2118

S

fcH

^ " Z
coZ'^r
David M. Owen County Attorney Diana M. Parker Examiner

Jorg R. Busse P.O. Box 11124 Naples, Florida 34101 -11124
Re: TELEPHONE/COMMUNICATIONS

Sir: I understand from my administrative assistant, Wendy Wise, that you telephoned yesterday and spoke with her in my absence. I have asked you before to confine any communication to writing. You have chosen to simply ignore my request. Since this last call was nothing more than an opportunity for you to annoy and harass our staff, I again ask you to limit your communication to writing delivered by regular U.S. Mail. I have directed staff to henceforth, if I am not available, to note the time of your call and simply hang up. Sincerely,

county Hearing

JackfN. Peterson Assistant County Attorney

JNP/wlw

P.O. Box 398. Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398 (239) 533-21 I I Internet address http.'V/www.lee-county.com
A N EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE A C T I O N EMPLOYER

<f

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 5 of 23 IN ORDER TO RECORD A DEED IN LEE COUNTY THE FOLLOWING MUST BE MET:

. \J^y

"Prepared by" statement (name and address of the "natural" person preparing the Deed) Grantor(s) (Sellers-Party Giving Title) names legibly printed in the body of the Deed Grantor(s) mailing address Grantee(s) (Buyer-Party Receiving Title) names legibly printed in the body of the Deed Grantee(s) mailing address Signatures of Grantors Names printed under Grantors' signatures 2 witnesses for each signature, the names printed under witnesses' signatures Complete Notary acknowledgment o Names being acknowledged o Date acknowledgment taken o Signature of Notary t/\ 0 Name printed under signature o Commission expiration date o Ink Seal • The consideration, sale price, or outstanding mortgage must be on the document or listed in a cover letter for recording • Three-inch square white space on the top right-hand comer of the first page of each document and a oneinch by three-inch square white space on the top right-hand corner of each subsequent page of the document. These are RECORDING REQUIREMENTS for Deeds (F.S. 695.26). There may be other statutory requirements for making a conveyance valid, which are not within the scope of the recording office to dictate. For example, the Lee County Property Appraiser requires that the legal description be included on the deed document. LEGAL ADVICE CANNOT BE PROVIDED: The Lee County Clerk's Office staff cannot help you complete legal forms or provide legal advice of any type. If you have questions about completing forms or the proper method of transferring property, you should consult an attorney or legal advisor. FLORIDA DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX: Each document transferring an interest in real property may be subject to Florida's Documentary Stamp Tax (documentary stamps on deeds (rounded up to nearest hundred) $0.70 per $100.00) Please contact the Department of Revenue for guidance at (800) 352-3671. Documentary stamps are paid on the total consideration paid, given, or to be paid, for the transfer; see Department of Revenue reference sheet for details.

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8
/

Filed 07/29/10 Page 6 of 23

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC U.S...Department of Justice HJnited States Marshals Service
MJUNTIFF

See Instwctions for "Service of Process by the U.S. Marshal" on the reverse of this form.
COURT CASE NUMBER

Jorg Busse
DEFENDANT

07-00228-CV-Fm-29-SPC
TYPE OF PROCESS

Lee County, Florida* e t c . , et a l .

Writ of ISxecoti&S

SERVE

NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION. ETC.. TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF P R O P E R T Y T ^ E I S D R eOftTCEMft ,

Property to be Seized: serve:

ADDRESS (Street or RFD. Apartment No.. City, State tnd ZIP Code)

AT sH^Ng!ncE_wa^T^cpPYj221^^1^^Ii^l^^^£^SL5l!^L
FJai ack N. Peterson, Esquire
I An. Assistant

Lot 15A,Cayo Casta, Parcel No. 12-44-20-OT-0®15S$J&A. 4 • ^, ~ r ^ u Jorg Busse» Building 2, Unit 4, 1575 Curlew Avenue, NapSaJ, f t 3' 5038
Number of process to be served with this Form - 285 Number of parties to be served in this case Check for service on U.S.A.

- * «/»"!

-rt

il

</>

tf

County Attorney 2115 Second Street, 6th Floor Fort Hyers, FL 33901

-o-

-no._

t*
AMenes, All

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITINO SERVICE (Include Bi Tkkphoae fhmbets. tad Estmutcd Times Available Bar Service): KU

rfo;

Subject property i s located as shown on maps contained in t h ^ f s B s i t a of thejS Lee County Property Appraiser, Parcel No. 12-44-20-01-00015.^i^R(w«g.leepa^g).

I heieby ceitify and return that I D have personally served. D have legal evidence of service.Mhave executed as shown in "Remaiks", the pracess described on the mdividial, company, corporation, etc., at the address shown above or on the individual; company, corporation, etc., shownta the address inseited below D I heieby ceitify and return that I am unable to locale the individual, company, corporation, c i c . named above (See remarks below) Name and title of individual served (if nor shown above) LJ Address (complett only ifdinerent than shown above; A person of suitable age and disaction then residing in the defendant's usual place of abode. Time am pm

Date of Service

4-5-10
Stgnaiuie tftU.S. Marshal or Deputy Service Fee 9D Tbtal Mileage Charges (iochidjm gulcaYors) Jding Forwarding Fee Total Charges Advance Deposits Amount owed to U S . Marsh:

11,5

#50. H

+67,90

REMARKS:

moREDmoNs WSBEVSED

1. CLERK OF THE COURT

n»M usRugs OIK mem

£

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 7 of 23 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida Page 1 of 57

APPEAL U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Internal Use Only

Busse v. Lee County, Florida ct al Assigned to: Judge John E. Steele Referred to: Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell Case in other court: 08-13170B 09-12372-B 09-13517F 09-13519F 09-13522F 09-1428IF 09-14282F 09-14284F 09-14285F 09-162J1F 09-16212F 09-16213F 09-16214F 09-16335F 10-10963-1 10-10967-1 10-11884-1 Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation Plaintiff Jorg Busse

Date Filed'04/10/2007 Date Terminated: 05/06/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

I CERTIFY THE FORB AND CORRECT COP SHERYLLL" UNltEQSTAtfe MIDDLEDlSTr

represented by Jorg Busse P.O.Box 1126 Naples, Fl 34106-1126 239/595-7074 PROSE represented by Kelly Lina Rooth Rooth Law Group, PA Suite 322 4399 35th St N St Petersbsurg, FL 33714 727/824-6212 Fax: 727/822-8048 Email: krooth@roothlawgroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Kenneth M. Roesch, Jr. TERMINATED: 09/21/2007

https://ecf.flmd.circl 1 .dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?737110522490912-L_770_0-1

7/16/2010

J

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8

Filed 07/29/10 Page 8 of 23

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8

Filed 07/29/10 Page 9 of 23

filing fee, the new appeals were to be reviewed and a frivolity determination as to each appeal made. Consistent with that Order, on April 6, 2010, Appellant was ordered to show cause why these appeals should not be dismissed as frivolous. Appellant filed documents with the Court on April 19, 2010, which we construe as his responses to the Order to Show Cause. Our review of these documents establishes that Appellant has failed to show that these appeals are not frivolous. Therefore, on the Court's own motion, these appeals are hereby DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. Given the frivolity of these appeals and the nature of Appellant's responses to the Order to Show Cause, we hereby SUSPEND any rule which would allow Appellant to seek reconsideration of this Order. The Clerk is directed to accept no ftirther filings in this closed appeal. The Clerk may discard any future documents received by Appellant.

•1

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8

Filed 07/29/10 Page 10 of 23

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 11 of 23 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 434 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION JORG BUSSE Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-29SPC

LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; BOARD OF LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER; STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Defendants.

ORDER This matter comes before the Court on review of defendant's Motion for Entry of Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property (Doc. #432) filed on May 21, 2010. No response has been filed and the time to respond has expired. Upon review, the Court desires a response from plaintiff. Recognizing that a Pre-Filing Injunction (Case No. 2:09-cv-791-FTM36SPC, Doc. #245) was issued on July 20, 2010, prohibiting any further filings without leave of Court, the Court will grant plaintiff leave to file a single responsive document to defendant's motion. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:

H

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 12 of 23 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 434 F l d 07/22/10 Page 2 o 2 ie f

Plaintiff may file one response to defendant's Motion for Entry of Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property (Doc. #432) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this Order. If no response is

received, the Court will rule on the motion without the benefit of a response and without further notice. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this July, 2010.
x

22nd

day of

L

m J0| E. STEELE United States District Judge

JIMa.

Copies: Plaintiff Counsel of record

12.

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8

Filed 07/29/10 Page 13 of 23

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 14 of 23 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 11

VENUE
6. Pursuant to Title 28, Part 4, Ch. 87, S. 1391, Plaintiffs claims arise out of acts undertaken and injuries suffered in the Middle District of Florida. Pursuant to the sealed Survey before this Court, Plaintiff owns and possesses the approx. more than 2.5 Acres of lot 15A with an estimated fair market value of more than $2,000,000. JURISDICTION UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS, 42 U.S.C. 1983,28 U.S.C. 1343, CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLES 3 & 4, AMENDMENTS 5 & 14, DUE PROCESS & EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES, AND BILL OF RIGHTS 7. Pursuant to Civil Rights Acts, 42 U.S.C. 1983,28 U.S.C. 1343,1331, this Court has original jurisdiction to redress Defendant State Officials' deprivations of Plaintiffs equal rights secured by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks invalidation and rescission of unconstitutional 'OR 569/875', 'OR 2967/1084-1090', 'Blue Sheet 980206', injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief, compensatory and possibly punitive damages. JURISDICTION UNDER 1899 RIVERS AND HARBORS APPROPRIATION ACT, 33 U.S.C. 403, COMMERCE CLAUSE AND CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLE 3 8. Pursuant to the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act, 33 U.S.C. 403, and Commerce Clause, this Court has jurisdiction over the Army Corps of Engineers' authority over Plaintiffs naturally created lagoon property. Under the Commerce Clause, this Court has jurisdiction over dominant federal interests in navigation and the navigability of Plaintiffs lagoon in interstate and foreign commerce. The Federal Government has power to control navigable waters, and navigable servitude extends to navigable waters. Therefore, the Constitution conferred jurisdiction to this Court over the regulation of commerce on the lagoon of Plaintiffs lot 15A pursuant to Article 3, s. 2. JURISDICTION UNDER THE 1862 HOMESTEAD ACT 9. 14lh Amendment provisions cover all instrumentarities by which Defendant State and Officials act. Defendant County, positioned under State Government, deprived Plaintiff of protected 14th Amendment rights against deprivations by the State under color of 'OR 569/875', 'lot A', and 'block 1'. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction over effect and extent of the 1895 Federal Land Patent grant from the United States to A. C. Roesch and to Plaintiff and the navigable waters along platted shorelines pursuant to the 1862 Homestead Act. JURISDICTION UNDER FEDERAL COMMON LAW DOCTRINE OF ACCRETION AND EROSION 10. Federal common law, settled for centuries, vests title to accretions onto Federally patented oceanfront property in

2

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC

Filed 07/29/10 Page 15 of 23
Filed 01/11/08 Page 3 of 11

Document 288

Plaintiff upland owner of lot 15A. Pursuant to determinate U.S. Supreme Court rulings, Federal law governs title to accretions on Plaintiffsripariangulf front lot. JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO FEDERAL APPRAISAL STANDARDS, UNIFORM STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL APPRAISAL PRACTICE, AND 12 U.S.C. 3331-3351 11. This Court has jurisdiction over deprivations of Plaintiffs civil rights caused by Defendant Property Appraiser's violations of Federal Appraisal Standards in Federallyrelatedproperty transactions under color of State law. JURISDICTION UNDER THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT, 28 U.S.C. 2201 12. Under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, this Court has jurisdiction to declare Plaintiffsrights,legal relations, and boundaries in light of equity principles. In support of his factual allegations, Plaintiff adopts byreferencein this Complaint all evidentiary materials before the Court and alleges: COUNT 1:42 U.S.C. 1983 DEPRIVATIONS UNDER UNCONSTITUTIONAL 'OR 569/875' 13. Under color of alleged resolution draft 'OR 569/875' (Exhibit 'A'), Defendant State, park staff, County, Commissioners, Attorneys, and Appraiser subjected Plaintiff citizen to deprivations of his riparianrights,private easements, disputed accreted property, and privileges secured by the U.S. Constitution. Defendant County and Commissioners had no home rule powers or jurisdiction over the undedicated Cayo Costa Subdivision and accordingly, never signed or executed 'OR 569/875'. Therefore, 'OR 569/875' was unenforceable, and said Defendants violated constitutional Articles 3 & 4(s. 2) and Amendments 5 & 14(s. 1,5) and are liable to Plaintiff. 14. Therefore, under color of unauthorized 'OR 569/875' and 'OR 2967/1084-90', said Defendants confiscated Plaintiffs valuable private accreted property, i.e. more than approx. 2.5 Acres, without compensation in violation of the 5th Amendment Takings Clause and 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. 15. Pursuant to Ch. 177, F.S., alleged lot A and block 1 cannot be legally described or surveyed, because they were not on the referenced Subdivision Plat. Therefore, Defendant Officials temporarily took a total of more than approx. 200 Acres of private accretions onto Cayo Costa under color of 'OR 569/875', 'OR 2967/1084-90', and 'Blue Sheet 980206', without just compensationforwhich Defendant State and County must make restitution.

3

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 16 of 23 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 4 of 11

16. Defendant State Actors claimed riparian rights for lots 38A and 41A (Property I.D. 12-44-20-01-00042.038A), which they denied to Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendant Officials discriminated against and harmed Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitledtothe equal rights of Defendant State owner and invalidation of unconstitutional 'OR 569/875' and lot A. COUNT 2: UNAUTHORIZED UNCONSTITUTIONAL TEMPORARY TAKINGS UNDER COLOR OF 'OR 569/875' 17. In December 1969, Defendant County and Commissioners allegedly drafted a so-called 'resolution' to claim all accretions within the undedicated private Cayo Costa Subdivision. Said preliminary draft, 'OR 569/875' was never signed, executed, or acknowledged and did not meet resolution and recording requirements. Therefore, draft 'OR 569/875' was not entitled to be recorded and must be stricken from the public record. 18. Defendant County Appraiser and Attorney admitted that the Cayo Costa Subdivision was never dedicated to the public and as a result was outside the scope of Defendant County's home rule powers. Therefore, Defendant State and County had no powerstogovern and adopt resolutions or ordinances. In conclusion, draft '569/875' was unenforceable and ineffectual, and Defendant County exercised powers not conferred by law with the intent to capriciously grab the disputed private accreted land and easements. 19. Therefore, Defendant State, County, and Commissioners took Plaintiffs accretions onto riparian gulf front lot ISA and the Subdivision without authority, justification, due process of law, public notice, hearing, vote count, and compensation under color of '569/875', which violated Articles 3 & 4 and Amendments 5 & 14. In conclusion, Defendants' unauthorized unconstitutional takings injured Plaintiff and destroyed his property value. COUNT 3: TRESPASS 20. Since 1969, Defendant State, County, Commissioners, Attorneys, and Appraiser asserted, disseminated, and published that Lee County was the owner of all private Cayo Costa accretions. Therefore pursuant to 810.08 and 810.09, F.S., Defendant Officials induced and caused the public to intrude onto private Cayo Costa beaches, streets, platted designated common use areas, and Plaintiffs property, which injured Plaintiff. 21. Under color of official right and '569/875', Defendant Governmental Officials invited the public to visit the private accreted Subdivision, which Defendant State's Division of Recreation and Parks manages and operates as State park. In summary, Defendant offenders defied Plaintiffs orders to leave and committed misdemeanors of the 1 "

4

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC

Filed 07/29/10 Page 17 of 23
Filed 01/11/08 Page 5 of 11

Document 288

degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 and induced public trespass onto the undedicated Subdivision. 22. Pursuant to Florida Cabinet Meeting Transcripts, Defendant State of Florida, Board of Trustees, D.E.P., and Division of Recreation and Parks, pursued their legislative objective to destroy private Cayo Costa easements and property and ingress/egress for State park purposes. Therefore, Defendant Officials' objective must be stricken as unconstitutional. Defendant State Agents must be enjoined from exercising power within the Subdivision east of the Mean High Water mark [MHW] of the Gulf of Mexico, and west of the MHW of Charlotte Harbor. COUNT 4: CONSPIRACY TO FABRICATE UNPLATTED LOT A, BLOCK 1 & PARK; FRAUD; MALFEASANCE 23. Defendant Property Appraiser claimed and published that draft '569/875' entitled Lee County to claim ownership of un-platted lot A, and block 1. Under oath, Defendant Appraiser admitted that Cayo Costa was unencumbered by public easements and not dedicated. Therefore, Defendant admitted that Lee County was not empowered to adopt said resolution. On its face, 'OR 569/875' did not meetrecordingandresolutionrequirements, and lot A, and block 1 did not exist. Therefore, Defendant Appraiser had a professional duty and burden to verify the validity of sham '569/875' under the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 24. Without title evidence in the public Grantor/Grantee Index, Defendant conspired to concoct un-platted lot A (Property I.D. 12-44-20-01-O000O.00A0), block 1 (Property I.D. 07-44-21-01-00001.0000), and park. With malicious purpose, Defendant assisted the plan to deceive with materially altered plat, maps, and records to obtain benefits for State and County. Said acts and omissions were in willful disregard of property. Defendant denied agricultural classification of Plaintiffs accreted lot, all of which had had been formed by accretions since approx. 1910. Therefore, Defendant destroyed most of Plaintiffs property value, deprived him of private easements without compensation, and denied equal protection of the laws in a land grab scheme pursuant to Ch. 768. 25. A reasonable appraiser, surveyor or title agent cannot locate lot A or block 1 on the Plat and must presume invalidity of 'OR 569/875', lot A, and block 1 as a matter of established real property law, standards, and tenets. Therefore, Defendant's agreement to assist the unconstitutional confiscation of the disputed accretions could reasonably be inferred, because Defendant contradicted the recorded historic legal precedents since 1910. 26. Defendant asserted that the general public and professional realty communities rely on Defendant Appraiser's

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC

Filed 07/29/10 Page 18 of 23
Filed 01/11/08 Page 6 of 11

Document 288

data. Therefore, Defendant couldreasonablyexpect harm from his incompetent valuationreports.Comparable sales data controverted Defendant Appraiser's valuations. However, Defendant did not cease and desist his deceptive publications and slander of Plaintiffs perfect title. As aresult,Plaintiff received purchase offersforbelow market value. Defendant violated Federal Appraisal Standards and deprived the public of taxrevenuesfrom the accreted lands and easements in controversy. Therefore, Defendant Appraiser is liable and his malfeasance and abuse of position under State Government harmed Plaintiff, who is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and cost. 27. Federal jurisdiction arose e.g. from Appraiser's denial of equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment Defendant assertedriparianrightsforDefendant State's lots 38A and 41 A, but denied equalrightsto Plaintiff. Under color of 'OR 569/875', lot A, block 1, and 'OR 2967/1084-1090', a 'wild' so-called 'County Deed', Defendant conspired to fabricate valuationreportsand unjustly discriminated against Plaintiff and lot owners to benefit others and/or himself. Therefore, Defendant Appraiser damaged Plaintiff, who is entitled to compensation. COUNT 5: CONSPIRACY TO MATERIALLY MISREPRESENT AND DEFRAUD 28. Federal conveyances of lots 4 and 5 in Section 12 and lot 1 in Section 13 to A. 0 Roesch and subsequent grantees were described inreferenceto Cayo Costa Plats of Survey. Lot A and block 1 could not be located on the Subdivision Plats and ground. Therefore, Defendant County was not the legal owner of lot A and block 1, and Defendant Officials'representationsof lot A and block 1 were unwarranted under law and feci 29. All disputed accretions were within boundaries described by original surveys, plats, and Subdivision and lot descriptions contained in Federal, State, and/or County public records. All grants, grantors, and grantees are published in the public Grantor/Grantee Index, and Lee County is neither the published record owner of the disputed accretions nor riparian upland owner. However, quit claim deed 'OR 1651/2488' alleged the grant of accretions to Lee County. Therefore, Lee County did not hold title to the disputed accretions onto Cayo Costa and Plaintiffs lot 15A, because there was no voluntary and no involuntary alienation such as eminent domain or adverse possession. In conclusion, Lee County's alleged controversial ownership claims of private Cayo Costa accretions were not supported by the unauthorized and improperly recorded resolution draft '569/875' and

6

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC

Filed 07/29/10 Page 19 of 23
Filed 01/11/08 Page 7 of 11

Document 288

therefore unconstitutional under the S* Amendment Takings Clause. Following multiple notifications by the public, Defendant Officials conspired to continue to deceive, defraud, and deprive the public under color of State law. Therefore, Defendant Government Officials deprived the public of tax revenues from the disputed private accretions and easements. 30. Article 7, s. 10, Fla. Const. Prohibits the use of public fends for private purposes, by precluding the State and County from using its taxing power or credit to aid private individuals or interests, such as legal defense of unauthorized wrongs in violation of the constitution. 31. Platted meander lines and monuments evidenced ownership of the disputed accretions by the record upland owners in the Grantor/Grantee Index. Therefore, Defendant State Officials, Lee County, Commissioners, Attorney, and J. N. Peterson conspired to misrepresent that Plaintiff did not own to the MHW mark of the Gulf of Mexico. 32. Defendant Officials conspired to misrepresent the extent of the Army Corps of Engineers' authority over Plaintiffs lagoon under the Commerce Clause and 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act, 33 U.S.C. 403. COUNT 6: OPPRESSION AND SUNDER OF TITLE 33. Defendant Peterson failed to challenge the presumptive validity of the Federal Patent and invalidity of 'OR 569/875', lot A, and block 1. In fact, Peterson himself questioned theresolution'svalidity. Therefore, Peterson, who carried the State's badge oppressed and unduly burdened Plaintiff. Defendant Peterson violated the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees, Part 3, Ch. 112, F.S. Plaintiff complained with the Florida Commission on Ethics (Exhibit 'B'). Peterson was required to disclose the material facts and the truth, but harassed Plaintiff. The alleged public records and facts gave rise to Plaintiffs bases for suing Defendant State Actors. Therefore, publicrecordsand factual allegations entitled Plaintiff to obtain invalidation of'OR 569/875', '2967/1084-90', lot A, block 1, 'Blue Sheet 980206', and compensatory damages, and injunctive relief. 34. During pretrial procedures, Peterson and Lee County did not setforthany grounds on which Defendants' claims or defenses could possibly rest There has been noreasonableindication that discovery can reveal any relevant evidence to destroy the presumptive invalidity of 'OR 569/875, lot A, and block 1. Defendant State Actorsfelledto prove validity of 'OR 569/875', lot A, or block 1. Plaintiff is entitled to relief and/or a peremptory ruling, because

7

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC

Filed 07/29/10 Page 20 of 23
Filed 0 1 / 1 1 / 0 8

Document 2 8 8

P a g e 8 of 11

unauthorized and unconstitutional 'OR 569/875' was never adopted and contained no compensation mechanism. 35. All Defendants received fair notice that 'OR 569/875', lot A, and block 1 were immaterial and insufficient claims and defenses. Presentations such as e.g. in doc. # 5 shall be deterred pursuant to F.R.C.P. 11 and 12. During the 11/07/2007 Court hearing, Plaintiff asserted the factual impossibility of Defendant's claims and defenses before the Honorable Magistrate Judge. Therefore, Plaintiffs entitlement to relief is most plausible. The heft of Plaintiffs factual allegations evidenced why Plaintiff is entitled to relief under Federal law and the Constitution.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffrespectfullydemands judgment granting thefollowingrelief 1. Anorder setting aside and striking 'OR 569/875" and'2967/1084-90'from publicrecords(Counts 1-6); 2. An order invalidating/nullifying lot A, block 1, Blue Sheet 980206, and declaring all land between the meander lines of the Gulf and Charlotte Harbor privately owned Subdivision lands pursuant to PB 3/PG 25 (Counts 1-3); 3. An award of compensatory damages for deprivations, leases, and uncompensated temporary takings of private accreted property and easements for State park purposes in an amount to be set at trial (Counts 1-6); 4. An award of punitive damages and cost to be set at trial (Counts 1 -6); 5. An order declaring the extent of the Army Corps of Engineers' authority over Plaintiffs lagoon (Counts 1 -2); 6. An order declaring Plaintiff the owner of all accretions onto his riparian lot 15A pursuant to 1862 Homestead Act and 1895 Certificate # 11887 (Counts 1 -6) and declaringtitlethereto in Plaintiff (Counts 1 -3); and 7. An order enjoining all Defendant Governmental Officials from claiming ownership of Plaintiffs accretions, lot A and block 1 and operating a park in the private Cayo Costa Subdivision and on lot ISA (Counts 1-3).

Respectfully submitted, IslJora&ffimfcMM, M.BA, Plaintiff; Tel: 239-595-7074; e-mail: irbuOaol.com. MailWg Mdress: P.O.B. 1126, Naples, FL 34106-1126.

EXHIBIT 'A': Unconstitutional and unauthorized 'OR 569/875'. EXHIBIT 'B': Ethics Complaint against Defendant Peterson.

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 21 of 23 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 9 of 11

«•

[>^7M

*" W 9 ^ «S
RSfObVTIOKratTAlBIrtCTO MmUC UMDf IN CMQ COST* *Ummfm WRBimSi there' appears in the Public Records of Lee

County, Florida, in Plat Book ) at page 25 the Second teviaed W*t Of Cayo COftU Subdivision: and WHEREAS, there appears upon snid plat certain designated lot and Mock areas and other undesignated aroMf and WHEREAS, there appears upon said plat certain un-nnmbere and mrtoWorod aron lying East of tho Easterly tier of Mocks in said tnbdiviftion and West of tho Westerly tier of blocks in said subdivision: and "PCftgAff, tho County clfllnt s i i d land* aa puhlic Iwtdt together with e&l accretions thereto. H W THEREFORE, bE IT RESOLVED W THE BOWP Of C U T O , OUT COMMISflONCftS OF LEE COUNDT, FLORIDA does by this Resolution claim a l l of raid lands and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of the public for public purposos. DONE A D ADOPTED this / f M day of A . <^ *U~<.\^. 1969.

-200-

9

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC

Filed 07/29/10 Page 22 of 23
Filed 01/11/08 Page 10 of 11

Document 288

EXHIBIT 'B': Ethics Complaint against Defendant Peterson
A. Defendant County Attorney Jack N. Peterson contended that more research was necessary to determine if 'OR 569/875' was valid. However in a 2000 Memo by Joan C. Henry, Peterson's Office asserted before the Law. State of Florida court that there was no dedication of Cayo Costa to the public. As a result, the Lay court ruled against Defendant State. Said court determined that Defendant County had no powers, rights-of-way, or interests In the private easements 'as a matter of established real property law. Therefore, Peterson arbitrarily contradicted his own Office in order to obtain benefits for Defendant County, State or himself and undermined ongoing judicial proceedings in State and Federal Court. B. In summary, Peterson's claims and defenses were precluded, because the Lay court's judgment had binding effect and foreclosed Peterson's frivolous contentions. Therefore, Peterson harassed and oppressed Plaintiff and undermined the judicial process with foreclosed claims. C. In February 1999, Peterson's Office wrote to Cayo Costa riparian lot owner T. Pamell that 'Defendant Lee County attorney's Office researched the history of the Second Revised Plat of the Cayo Costa Subdivision and governing case law on accretion and reliction' in response to correspondence to Defendant Attorney. Said Plat conclusively evidenced that the record owners pubfished in the Grantor/Grantee Index, including Plaintiff, own private easements, beaches, and their abutting platted designated common use areas in the undedicated Subdivisionfeesimple. Therefore, Peterson concealed the 1999 and 2000 research by his own Office and oppressed Plaintiff, because he unjustly exercised power never conferred upon him. In conclusion, Peterson abused his public position to improperly transfer property for State park purposes thereby depriving and injuring Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages, and expenses. D. Peterson contended that Plaintiff's lot 15A did not touch the water. Plainb'frs Warranty Deed conveyed lot 15A in refierence to said Plat, all calling for the Gulf of Mexico. Said Plat of Survey described Plaintiff's lot ISA as a riparian lot abutting the natural monument of the Gulf. Public policy demands that all land shall have an owner, and all owners of the accretions in controversy were recorded in Defendants' Grantor/Grantee Index. The public Index evidenced that all accretions onto the Subdivision belonged to A. C. Roesch, who subdivided and conveyed them, and all accretions onto lot 15A belonged to Plaintiff. In addition, Peterson was notified that unauthorized unconstitutional draft 'OR 569/875' had multiple errors, violated Defendant's home rule powers law, and was unenforceable. With particularity, Peterson was ordered to cease false claims. However, Peterson defied the order and continued slandering Plaintiffs paramount title. In summary, Plaintiff Is entitled to cancellation of 'OR 569/875', 'OR 2967/1084-90', and 'Agenda Item Summary 980206'. E. Plaintiff ttleholder was entitled to the statutory presumption that the 1895 Federal Patent and mesne conveyances were valid. Therefore, the burden was on Defendant challenger to prove invalidity, and Defendant Officials' averments and claims of 'OR 569/875', lot A, and block 1 were in bad faith and impeded justice. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitledtoinvalidation and nullification of 'OR 569/875', lot A, and block 1, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive and declaratory relief.

10

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC

Filed 07/29/10 Page 23 of 23
Filed 01/11/08 Page 11 of 11

Document 288

Below signaturereflectsaffirmation that the attorney reviewed the Third Amended Complaint:

Attorney

Date: 12/21/2007

11

41 F.3d 1490

Page 1 of 4

« up
This is Google's cache of http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/41/41.F3d.1490.934449.93-4104.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Mar 24, 2009 15:42:24 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more These search terms are highlighted: united states v 16.33 acres Text-only version

41 F.3d 1490 WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO., Absolute, Inc., Marion H. Cooper, for Estate of Alfred R. Cooper, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, Carol A. Roberts, Chair of Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County, Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 93-4104, 93-4449.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Jan. 10, 1995.
Patti A. Velasquez, Asst. County Atty., West Palm Beach, FL, Robert S. Hackleman, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for appellants in No. 93-4104. Sharon M. Pitts, Patti A. Velasquez, Asst. County Atty., West Palm Beach, FL, Robert S. Hackleman, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for appellants in No. 93-4449. Jeffrey A. Aman, Smith, Williams & Bowles, P.A., Tampa, FL, Joan E. O'Dell, Gregory L. Williams, Smith, Williams & Bowles, P.A., Washington, DC, for appellees in both cases. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Before HATCHETT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, MELTON* , Senior District Judge. PER CURIAM:

1

After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants raise several arguments, hoping mainly to void concessions made in district court in the joint pretrial stipulation. The district court is affirmed. The controversy concerns the ownership of strip parcels (roads and ditches) offered by Palm Beach Farms for dedication to Palm Beach County in 1912. A 1976 instrument entitled "Notice of Withdrawal of Platted Roads, Streets, and Other Unexercised Rights" revoked the offer of dedication. In 1986, pursuant to local Ordinance No. 86-18 (the "Ordinance"), defendant Palm Beach County (the

2

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009

41 F.3d 1490

Page 2 of 4

"County"), began a practice of selling easement and right of way interests in property originally acquired through dedication. In return for a "privilege fee," the County issued an abandonment resolution, which, when recorded, transferred ownership of the parcel to the payor of the fee. This dispute began when the County attempted to collect fees in exchange for abandonment resolutions for parcels that, according to plaintiffs, had never been accepted by the County. 3 Plaintiffs, claiming that they were successors in interest to Palm Beach Farms (and thus owners of the strip parcels), challenged the County's practice as an unconstitutional taking--under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments--of their property.1 The County conceded that it never expressly accepted the dedication; but, at trial, the County attempted to show that it had impliedly accepted the dedication by using the strip parcels. The jury found for plaintiffs, deciding that the County had not accepted the 1912 offer of dedication within a reasonable time. The district court entered judgment for plaintiffs: plaintiffs were judged the fee simple owners of the pertinent strip parcels; defendants were enjoined from applying the Ordinance to plaintiffs' property; and plaintiffs were awarded attorney's fees. Defendants appeal. The County now contests plaintiffs' standing, arguing that plaintiffs could not possibly own the strip parcels (and thus have no interest at stake). But given plaintiffs' allegations and the County's stipulations in the district court, the record supports both standing and jurisdiction. A "case or controversy" exists in this case because the parties genuinely disputed ownership of the strip parcels in the district court. The County stipulated to plaintiffs' chain of title, agreeing that plaintiffs were successors in interest to Palm Beach Farms. The controversy was thus limited to a decision about whether the offer of dedication was accepted.2 Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the application of the Ordinance to what they assert is their property. But the County insists that adjoining landowners own the strip parcels, citing Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959), as an alternative to 16.33 Acres. This decision is not about standing: what the County is really arguing is that plaintiffs failed to join indispensable parties. Amicus Boywic Farms agrees, arguing that it was harmed by the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Because the district court could only determine who, as between plaintiffs and the County, had the better claim to the strip parcels, amicus is not bound by the district court's order. It was no abuse of discretion for the district court to refuse to dismiss this case for failure to join indispensable parties. The County, as movant, had the burden "to show the nature of the unprotected interests of the absent parties," 5A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 1359; yet, the County's citation to the record reveals only that it established the existence of adjoining landowners (not the nature of allegedly unprotected interests). And, plaintiffs' "arbitrary and capricious" due process claim is ripe.3 Plaintiffs accused the County of applying an arbitrary and capricious action (asserting ownership to the strip parcels and recording abandonment resolutions which transferred title) to their property. Plaintiffs' claim was ripe as soon as the County applied the ordinance and the petition process (including a $400 nonrefundable application fee) to the undedicated strip parcels. See Eide v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 724 n. 13 (11th Cir.1990). The County argues that no subject matter jurisdiction exists because plaintiffs' claims are so frivolous. But the course of litigation and stance of the County in

4

5

6

7

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009

41 F.3d 1490

Page 3 of 4

district court undercuts its claim of frivolousness. We also note that the pretrial stipulation plainly reads that "[n]either party contests subject matter ... jurisdiction."4 If the County actually thought plaintiffs' claims were frivolous, it should not have so willingly conceded facts giving rise to jurisdiction in the stipulation. Because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' federal claims, the court did not err by including plaintiffs' state claims for declaratory relief--pendent jurisdiction was proper. 8 The County also argues that the district court erred by interpreting the stipulation as a "winner-take-all" proposition. That is, the County says it reserved a right to make several arguments, after the jury's fact finding, by referring to "undisposed of motions" in the stipulation. We disagree. The parties agreed that the jury's conclusion would "be outcome determinative of all of the federal and state claims." The County does not argue that it was unfairly duped into signing the stipulation. And, we owe great deference to the trial judge's interpretation and enforcement of pretrial stipulations. See Morrison v. Genuine Parts Co., 828 F.2d 708 (11th Cir.1987); Hill v. Nelson, 676 F.2d 1371, 1373 n. 8 (11th Cir.1982). In the light of the stipulations, the district court did not err when it refused to entertain the County's post-verdict motions. Defendants raise other arguments, none of which present grounds for reversal. The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
*

9

Honorable Howell W. Melton, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation
1

Application of the Ordinance, according to plaintiffs, put a "cloud" on plaintiffs' title because title to the strip parcels was transferred to the payor of the privilege fee. Plaintiffs' property was, in other words, not transferable so long as the County continued to demand fees for the "abandonment" of property it never owned
2

"[S]tanding cannot be waived and may be asserted at any stage of litigation." Harris v. Evans, 20 F.3d 1118, 1121 n. 4 (11th Cir.1994) (en banc). We disagree with the County's argument that plaintiffs' ownership claim is so obviously frivolous that standing could not possibly exist, regardless of stipulated facts pointing to standing. In support of this claim, the County cites the allegedly "remarkably similar" case of United States v. 16.33 Acres of Land, 342 So.2d 476 (Fla.1977), as binding precedent denying plaintiffs' ownership claim. But 16.33 Acres is distinguishable because in that case the government expressly accepted the offer of dedication. Id. at 479
3

Because we conclude that plaintiffs' arbitrary and capricious due process claim was ripe, we say nothing about whether plaintiffs' additional constitutional claims were ripe. We do note, however, that plaintiffs were not granted relief pursuant to a specific claim. Instead, the County stipulated that plaintiffs would be entitled to the remedies requested if plaintiffs prevailed on any of the disputed fact issues
4

Parties may not stipulate jurisdiction. Bush v. United States, 703 F.2d 491, 494 (11th Cir.1983). And we do not say that jurisdiction was proper because jurisdiction was stipulated. Instead, we look to the record; we affirm the district court's conclusion that

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009

41 F.3d 1490

Page 4 of 4

the stipulated facts give rise to jurisdiction. For example, the County argues frivolousness by pointing to purported transfers--by plaintiffs' predecessors in interest-that the County says are null and void. But the County stipulated to plaintiffs' chain of title; and, the County agreed that it was undisputed that "plaintiffs are the successors in interest to the Palm Beach Farms Company." The record was set in district court
CC∅ | TRANSFORMED BY PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

PS

USE CODE

ADDRESS

WETLANDS SITE INSPECTION

REMARKS

ACQUISITION DATE AGENDA DATE GRANTOR BLUE SHEET

ITEM

CCMB INSTRUMENT LEGAL DESC SEARCH TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE PURCHASE PRICE 1 AGENDA DATE 2 AGENDA DATE 3

PRICE/ACRE PRIOR STRAP PCL

BLUE SHEET 2

BLUE SHEET 3

ITEM 2

ITEM 3

PURCHASE PRICE 2 ASSESSEDVALUE VALUE DATE CCMB 2

PURCHASE PRICE 3

CCMB 3

LEE COUNTY DIVISION OF COUNTY LANDS

i
. REoUESTEDMOTIOl'J

's~ornmrBo~~~Cu~C~~S AGENDAITEMSUMMARY

BLUESHEETNO:~~O~M

ACTIONREOUESTED~ Ap rove conveyance of any interest in land, \?rhich has accreted to ro erty of rivate landowner on Cayo Costa Island, ancfnow bein purchased by the State of Florida for preservation. KutRorize CRairnxm to execute County Deed; authorrze County Lan%s Division to handle and complete conveyance. WHY ACTION IS NECESSARY: To clear title on land which has accreted to property owned by private landowner, which is being conveyed to the State of Florida. WHAT
ACTION

AcCOMPLISHE!$ ,Clears potential cloud on title to property. 17 1 5.REOUIREMENT/PURPOSE in/ /7 3. MEETJNGD-3c;ll+ya a

LDE A TMENTALCATEGORY: COp~ISSIONDISTRIcT#: bAGENDA
Y_CONSENT

,ADMlNlsmTlvE
_ APPEALS -PUBLIC -=REQuIRED:-

.? .

_ ADMIN. CODE

7. BACKGROUND:

I

The State of Florida, Board of Trustees of the Internal Im rovement Trust Fund, is in the recess of purchasing land on A list of %e properties being purchased is Cay0 Costa Island from a private landowner through the 8tate CARL Pro eter&ned that Lee County ma have an interest in ’ attached. From the title search and title commitment issued, it has been r land which has accreted to the lots being conveyed to the State of Florida by Alice MS. Robinson. A 1J69 Resolutron b ook the Board of County Commissioners pertaining to ublic lands in Cayo Costa Subdivision, recorded m Official Record J 569 Pa e 875 created a claim to all accretions to P lyin within the area of the Subdivision now bemg conveyed. As a ots resdlt ofthis Resolution, the State of Florida is requesting &ee County to convey any interest it may have m these accreted , R~~a~ore private property owner, Ahce l$.S. Robmson, m order to clear trtle for its purchase of the propertres from Ms. . Due to the ongoin of ac uisition on Cayo Costa Island by the State of Florida and Lee+Countythrpugh the CARL Matching Funds tI!YTF an8 the ongoing cooperation of the State and County to accomphsh acquisrtron of land on the . .P. elect, Island, staff recommends approval of the requested motion. County funds are not needed to complete this transaction.

8,MANAGEMENTRECOMMENDATIONS:
.

COUNTY LANDS
9. RECOMMENDEDAPPROVAL i .

*
i@\OFFICEELS\CAYCOSTA.LWC’~sf

'.

-

e.

'

*

'&is ?nstruntent Prepared by: PUBLIC WORKS/COUNTY LAND8 DIVISION Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398 iSO&
iFobos

Docuentrrr -Qt
b

Tax

30 P6.

$

4400351

Intcmqtbtc far Pd. fcovm PutY Clwk

,' I:

-2; " TXIS DEED, executed this 21th day of Warch , A.D., 1998, by z: Ltt COtlNTY, PLORZDA, A POLITNAL SWBDIVISIOU OF THE STATB OF FLORIDA, ._ whose address is Post Office Box 398, Fort Myers, Florida 3300.?-0398 first party, LO -Alice M.S. Robinson, whose address is 4&l North z p Seminole Avenue, No. 2516, Tampa, Florida 33601, second party. NITNESSETII : That the said first party, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten~(510.00) Dollars to it in hand paid by the said second party, receipt.whereof is hereby acknowledged, ha@ granted, bargained and sold to the said second party, its heirs and assigns forever, the following fsbac~~lbed land, lying and being in Lee County, Florida: SEE
ATTACRED

BXBZBIT "A* ; '$

This grant conveys only the interest of the Count; and its Board :,s df County Commissioners in the property herein described, and shali not be deemed to warrant the title or to represent any state of facts g concerning the same. I; "\ EN WITNESS NBERBOI the said first party has caused these presents to be executed in its name by its Board of County Commissioners acting by the Chairman or Vi.ce Chairman of said Board, the day and year aforesaid.

(OFFICIAL SEAL) '. ATTEST: CHARLIE GREEN,'GLERK By: LEE
COUNTY, FLORIDA,

BY

ITS

: -'

APPROVED

AS TO

LEGAL FORM:

&,[$' ;.',I $;&,y,,: Office/of' County Attorneys

‘~ ., -. E x h i b i t HAp’

Eage 1 of 2 A l l af t h e f i r s t p a r t y ’ s i n t e r e s t , i f any, i n thOS@ c e r t a i n l a n d s w h i c h ‘ h a v e accreted t o t h e followinq d e s c r i b e d lots6 said l o t s being located Office of the Clerk Of the Circuit Court of Lee County, Florida, in plat Book 3, Page 25, P u b l i c R e c o r d s ,of L e e C o u n t y , F l o r i d a , t o wit:
wifthi~n that Certain Suk$iv.ision knowi as .%cond Rev-is& play of Cay0 Cwta, accordinq t o t h e - - m a p o r p l a t t h e r e o f f i l e d apd r e c o r d e d i n t h e

Tax ID# 12-44-20-01-00013.0020 Lot 2, Block 131 CAY0 COSTA SUBDIVISION, according to ths! map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee County, Florida. Tax ID# 12-44-20-O I-000 13.0030 Lot 3, Block 13, CAY0 COSTA SUl3DIVISION, according to the map or plat thereof as

recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee County, Florida Tax IDH 12-44~20-01-00014.0010 Lot I, Block 14, CAY0 COSTA SUBDlVlSION, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee County, Florida. Tax ID# 12-44-20-01-00014.0070 Lot 7, Block 14, CAY0 COSTA SUBDIVISION, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, Pa;ge 25, Public Records of Lee County, Florida. Tax ID# 12.44-20-Ol-Q0014.014~ Lot 14, Block 14, CAYU COSTA SUBDlVISION, accordiny lo the map or plal thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee County, Florida. Tax IDD# 12-44-20-o l-000 15.0060 Lots 6,7,&p, IO, 1 I, 12, & 14, CAY0 COSTA SUBDIVISION, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plaf Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee County. Florida. Tax ID# 12.44-20-OI-0OOl5.0lOk Lot iOA, CAYO,COSTA SUBDIVISION, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee County, Florida. Tax ID# 12-44-20-01-00015.0160 Lots 16 and 17, Block 15, CAY0 COSTA SUBDIVISION, according lo the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee County, Florida. Tax ID# 12-44-20-01-00015.0180 Lot 18, Block IS. CAY0 COSTA SUBDIVISION, according lo the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee County, Florida. Tax IDIt 12.44.20-Oi-00015,OlSA Lot 184 CAYU COSTA SIJBDI~ISION, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee County, Ftor*da. Tax IDS 12-44-20-01-00015.0220 Lot 22, Block 15, CAY0 COSTA SUBDIVISION, according Io the map or plrt thereof
as recorded in Plal Book 3, Pege 2$, Public Records of Lee Cow&y, PlorIda, Tax ID# 12-44.20.Ol-00015.034A . Lots 34A and 354 Block IS, CAY0 COSTA WBDIVISION, according to the map or _ plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee Count); Florida.

% s: cm 4 2 -z CJl

-

Tax iD# 12-44~20-OJ-OOO16.0030 LOO 3 and 6, Block 16, CAY0 COSTA SUBDIVISION, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee County, Florida, Tax ?D# J Z-44-20-0 I-000 16.0070 Lots 7,8 sod Jo, Block 16, CAY0 COSTA SUJ3DIVISlON, according to the map or pJat thereof at recorded in PJat Book 3, Page 25, P&Iii Records of Lee County, Florida. II >2, “-Z‘.
;. F.

Tax I‘D# 12-M-20-01~oroO16.0120 Lots 12,13,15 and 16, Block 16, CAY0 CUSTA SUBDJVISION, according to the map or pfat thereof as worded is PJat Book 3, Page 2S, Public Records of Lee Cwnty, Florida. Tax IDI 12-44-20-01~OOQ16.0140 Lot 14, Block 16, CAY0 COSTA SUBDIVISION, according to the map or piat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lea County, Florida. Tut IDar t2-44.20-01.06016.0178 Lots 17 and 20, Hock 16, CAY0 COSTA WElDIVISIDN, according to the map or pfat thcweof as recorded in Plat Book 3, P%gs 25, PubJlc Records of Lee County, FIorJda, Tax ID# f2-44-20-01-00016.02~0 Lots 2 1 and 24, Block 16, CASO COSTA SUBDIViSION, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records oFLee County, Florida. Tax ID# 1%44*20-01=00016.022Q ,Lot 22, Bfock It?, CAYU COSTA SUBDIVISION, according to the map or pJat thereof as recorded ia Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of Lee County, Florida. Tax ID# 12-44-2f!-O1-00042.03$A Lots 38A and 4 J A, CAY0 COSTA SUBDIVISJON, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3. Paac 211. Pubtic Records of Lee Countv. Flnridr m
0 W

‘..‘ : .‘>’ ‘!j B.,.1 5” *j;
‘_

$‘,,~ : i” ;,y .’ ” :;; i ‘.

sit

.:i!j I! 3 -si

66

67

68

69

70

71

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION JORG BUSSE Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-29SPC

LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; BOARD OF LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; KENNETH M. WILKINSON; LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER’S OFFICE; STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD OF [PAST & PRESENT] TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, AND DIVISION OF RECREATION AND PARKS; LEE COUNTY ATTORNEY; JACK N. PETERSON, Defendants. ___________________________________

OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the following motions: (1) defendant Property Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss and Close File (Doc. #285), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #302); (2) defendants State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees) and Florida Department of

Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Cause of Action (Doc. #291), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #316); (3)

defendant The Lee County Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of

Jurisdiction (Doc. #303), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #317); and (4) defendant Board of Lee County Commissioners’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #304), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #318). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his pleadings are

held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by an attorney and will be liberally construed. 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003). I. On December 10, 1969, the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County, Florida adopted the “Resolution Pertaining to Public Lands in Cayo Costa Subdivision”, Book 569, page 875 (the Resolution). The Resolution stated that the Second Revised Plat of the Cayo Costa Subdivision contained certain designated lot and block areas and other undesignated areas. The Resolution further noted that Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d

the plat contained certain un-numbered and unlettered areas lying East of the Easterly tier of blocks in the subdivision and lying West of the Westerly tier of blocks in the subdivision. The

Resolution stated that Lee County claimed the lands to the east and west of the tier of blocks as “public lands together with all accretions thereto” and “does by this Resolution claim all of said lands and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of the public for public purposes.” (Doc. #288, p. 9.)

Plaintiff Jorg Busse (plaintiff or Dr. Busse) asserts he is the current owner of Lot 15A of the Cayo Costa Subdivision and

-2-

accretions thereto. (Doc. #288, ¶¶ 1, 2.)

Plaintiff describes Lot

15A as being more than approximately 2.5 acres fronting the Gulf of Mexico with an estimated fair market value of more than $2 million. (Id. at ¶6.) Plaintiff asserts that the Resolution violates his

property rights in Lot 15A, which includes accretions, under both federal and state law. Count 1 sets forth a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff

alleges that the Resolution deprived him of his riparian rights, private easements, accreted property and privileges secured by the United States Constitution. Specifically, plaintiff asserts that

Lee County had no home rule powers or jurisdiction over the undedicated Cayo Costa Subdivision, and therefore the Resolution was unenforceable and in violation of the United States

Constitution. (Doc. #288, ¶13.) Plaintiff asserts that defendants confiscated more than 2.5 acres of his accreted property without compensation in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Id. at ¶14.) Plaintiff asserts that defendants also illegally took more

than 200 acres of private accretions onto Cayo Costa pursuant to the Resolution, all without compensation. (Id. at ¶15.) Further,

plaintiff asserts that “Defendant State Actors” claimed riparian rights to Lots 38A and 41A which they denied to plaintiff, thereby unlawfully discriminating against plaintiff because he is entitled to equal rights as the State property owner.
-3-

(Id. at ¶¶ 16, 27.)

Count 2 alleges an unconstitutional temporary taking under color of the Resolution. Plaintiff asserts that the Resolution was never signed, executed or acknowledged and did not meet resolution and recording requirements, and was therefore not entitled to be recorded and must be stricken from the public record. ¶17.) (Id. at

Plaintiff further alleges that the Cayo Costa Subdivision

was outside of Lee County’s home rule powers, and therefore the State and County had no powers to adopt resolutions or ordinances, and therefore the Resolution is unenforceable and ineffectual and the County capriciously (Id. at ¶18.) onto the grabbed private accreted land and

easements. his

Plaintiff asserts that defendants took riparian due gulf front of law, Lot 15A without notice,

accretions

authority,

justification,

process

public

hearing, vote count, or compensation, and that this unauthorized unconstitutional property value. taking injured plaintiff and destroyed his

(Id. at ¶19.) Plaintiff

Count 3 sets forth a state law claim for trespass.

alleges that since the 1969 Resolution the defendants have asserted that Lee County is the owner of the Cayo Costa accretions and have induced and caused the public to intrude onto the private beaches and other areas on Cayo Costa, injuring plaintiff’s property. (Id. at ¶¶ 20-21.) Plaintiff asserts that the State cannot exercise

power within the Subdivision east of the mean high water mark of the Gulf of Mexico and west of the mean high water mark of Charlotte Harbor. (Id. at ¶22.)
-4-

Count malfeasance.

4

alleges

a

conspiracy

to

fabricate,

fraud

and

Plaintiff asserts that the Lee County Property

Appraiser claimed that the Resolution entitled Lee County to ownership of the accreted property, but the County Appraiser has admitted that Lee County was not empowered to adopt the Resolution. (Id. at ¶23.) Plaintiff asserts that the Resolution on its face

did not meet recording or resolution requirements, and that the County Appraiser had a professional duty to verify the validity of the sham Resolution under the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that without evidence of title, defendants conspired to concoct an un-plated lot, block and park for the benefit of the State and County. Plaintiff also asserts that defendant (Id.) denied (Id. at ¶24.) agricultural

classification to his accreted lot.

Plaintiff asserts that

defendants destroyed most of his property value, deprived him of private easements without compensation, and denied equal protection in a land grab scheme. being to assist the (Id.) Plaintiff describes the agreement as confiscation of the

unconstitutional

accretions. Appraiser

(Id. at ¶25.) made

Plaintiff also asserts that the County valuation reports which were

incompetent

controverted by other comparable sales data and done in violation of Federal Appraisal Standards, but defendant continued to slander plaintiff’s perfect title. (Id. at ¶26.) As a result, plaintiff

received purchase offers far below market value and the County Appraiser has committed malfeasance and abuse of position.
-5-

(Id.)

Count 5 alleges a conspiracy to materially misrepresent and defraud. Plaintiff asserts that Lee County does not hold title to

the accreted property pursuant to the Resolution, and there has been no proceedings such as eminent domain or adverse possession. (Id. at ¶29.) Plaintiff asserts that Lee County’s claims of

ownership of the accretions therefore violated the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, and therefore defendants deprived the public of tax revenues which could have been received from the private accretions and easements. to (Id.) the Plaintiff asserts that defendants conspired extent of the Army Corps of Engineers’

misrepresent

authority over his lagoon.

(Id. at ¶32.)

Count 6 alleges oppression and slander of title by defendant Peterson for failing to challenge the invalidity of the Resolution despite his questions about its validity. (Id. at ¶¶ 33-35.)

The Third Amended Complaint asserts the Court has jurisdiction based on the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983), 28 U.S.C. § 1343, Articles 3 and 4 of the United States Constitution, and Amendments 4 and 5 of the United States Constitution (Doc. #288, ¶7), the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act (33 U.S.C. § 403)(id. at ¶8), the 1862 Homestead Act (id. at ¶9), the federal common law Doctrine of Accretion and Erosion (id. at ¶10), the Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (12 U.S.C. §§ 3331-3351), and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201)(id. at ¶12).
-6-

III. The Court will first address the federal claims, since these claims are necessary to provide subject matter jurisdiction. Given plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court reviews the Third Amended Complaint liberally. A. Takings Clause Claims: A consistent theme which runs through several of plaintiff’s counts is that the Resolution constitutes an unconstitutional taking of his property rights in his subdivision Lot 15A on Cayo Costa island.1 The legal principles are well-settled, and preclude

plaintiff’s takings claim. Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which states in pertinent part “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U.S. CONST. amend. V. The Fifth Amendment is applied to the States Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New (1978). The Third Amended

through the Fourteenth Amendment. York City, 438 U.S. 104, 121-23

Complaint may also be read to allege a conspiracy to violate the Takings Clause. State law defines the parameters of a plaintiff’s property interest, and whether state law has created a property interest is a legal question for the court to decide. Morley’s Auto Body, Inc.

See Lee County v. Morales, 557 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) for a description of Cayo Costa island and the Lee County zoning history of the island since 1978.
-7-

1

v. Hunter, 70 F.3d 1209, 1212 (11th Cir. 1996).

Under Florida law

a riparian or littoral owner owns to the line of the ordinary high water mark on navigable waters, and the riparian or littoral property rights include the vested right to receive accretions to the property. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust

Fund v. Sand Key Assocs., Ltd., 512 So. 2d 934, 936-37 (Fla. 1987); Brannon v. Boldt, 958 So. 2d 367, 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). These

rights constitute property, and cannot be taken or destroyed by the government without just compensation to the owners. Sand Key

Assoc., 512 So. 2d at 936; Lee County v. Kiesel, 705 So. 2d 1013, 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). “By now it is beyond question that a

permanent physical occupation of private property by the state constitutes a taking for which a landowner must be compensated.” New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe County, 95 F.3d 1084, 1088 (11th Cir. 1996)(citing Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1015 (1992) and Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 434 (1982)). Thus while plaintiff has adequately alleged a taking of his property, “a property owner has not suffered a violation of the Just Compensation to Clause just until the owner has unsuccessfully the procedures

attempted

obtain

compensation

through

provided by the State for obtaining such compensation . . .” Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 195 (1972). “Williamson County boils down to the rule

that state courts always have a first shot at adjudicating a
-8-

takings dispute because a federal constitutional claim is not ripe until the state has denied the would-be plaintiff’s compensation for a putative taking, including by unfavorable judgment in a state court proceeding.” F.3d Agripost, LLC v. Miami-Dade County, Fla., Without having

, 2008 WL 1790434 (11th Cir. 2008).

pursued such available state court remedies, a plaintiff’s Takings Clause claim is not ripe and therefore a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. Williamson County, 473 U.S. at

195; Watson Constr. Co. v. City of Gainsville, 244 Fed. Appx. 274, 277 (11th Cir. 2007); Garbo, Inc. v. City of Key West, Fla., 162 Fed. Appx. 905 (11th Cir. 2006). It has been clear since at least

1990 that Florida law provides a remedy of an inverse or reverse condemnation suit. Joint Ventures, Inc. v. Department of Transp.,

563 So. 2d 622, 624 (Fla. 1990); Tari v. Collier County, 56 F.3d 1533, 1537 n.12 (11th Cir. 1995); Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412, 1417 (11th Cir. 1994). Additionally, plaintiff could have

pursued an state action for declaratory judgment under FLA . STAT . § 86.011, a suit to quiet title, Trustees of Internal Imp. Fund of State of Florida v. Toffel, 145 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962), or a suit in ejectment if the matter is viewed as a boundary dispute. Petryni v. Denton, 807 So. 2d 697, 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The Third Amended Complaint does not allege that plaintiff pursued any state relief. Indeed, plaintiff has never suggested

that he has taken any action in state court to quiet title or receive damages under an inverse or reverse condemnation claim.
-9-

Since there is no showing of federal jurisdiction as to the Takings Clause claim, the Taking Clause claims and any conspiracy to violate the Takings Clause in any count will be dismissed without prejudice. B. Substantive Due Process Claim: A liberal reading of the Third Amended Complaint might suggest that plaintiff also frames the alleged taking of his property rights as a substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit has held, however, that there is

no independent substantive due process taking cause of action. Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610, 612-14 (11th Cir. 1997). Additionally, substantive due process protects

only fundamental rights, that is, those rights which are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Such rights are created by the Greenbriar

Constitution, and do not include property rights.

Village, LLC v. Mountain Brook City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2003). Merely asserting that the government’s actions were

arbitrary and irrational does not bring the matter within the protection of the substantive due process provision. Village, 345 F.3d at 1263-64. in the Third due Amended process Greenbriar

Therefore, those portions of counts which claim attempt or to assert will a be

Complaint takings

substantive dismissed.

conspiracy

-10-

C.

Procedural Due Process Claim: Plaintiff’s counts may also attempt to state a procedural due

process claim.

For example, plaintiff asserts that Lee County had

no home rule powers or jurisdiction over the undedicated Cayo Costa subdivision (Doc. #288, ¶¶ 13, 18, 23), that the Resolution was never signed, executed or acknowledged and did not meet resolution and recording requirements (id. at ¶¶ 17, 23), and that the taking was without authority, justification, due process, public notice, hearing, vote count, or compensation (id. at ¶19). “Procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before any government deprivation of a property interest.” Zipperer v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995). Not all government actions, however, are subject to a procedural due process claim. The County’s action in passing the Resolution

constituted a legislative act, and therefore plaintiff cannot state a procedural due process claim. 75 Acres, LLC v. Miami-Dade Plaintiff

County, Fla., 338 F.3d 1288, 1294 (11th Cir. 2003).

asserted that the Resolution effecting the taking of more than 200 acres other than his 2.5 acres. a legislative act. Equalization, 239 This is sufficient to constitute

See, e.g., Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of U.S. 441, 445 (1915)(noting that it is

impractical to give every one a voice when a legislative act applies to more than a few people). Additionally, even if not a

legislative act, a procedural due process claims does not exist

-11-

merely because state mandated procedures were not followed.

First

Assembly of God of Naples, Florida, Inc. v. Collier County, Fla., 20 F.3d 419, 422 (11th Cir. 1994). In this regard, some of the

allegations in the Third Amended Complaint are contradicted by the Resolution which is attached to it. The copy of the Resolution

attached to the Third Amended Complaint establishes that it was signed, executed, and duly recorded in the public records, and plaintiff will not be allowed to assert otherwise. The remaining

claimed defects are arguments concerning state law which do not arise to a constitutional level. Finally, plaintiff fails to state a procedural due process claim because he has failed to allege that Florida law provided him with an inadequate post-deprivation

remedy, Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378, 382 (11th Cir. 1996), and as discussed above it is clear that Florida does provide adequate post-deprivation remedies. Therefore, any claim founded on

procedural due process will be dismissed. D. Equal Protection Claim: Plaintiff also alleges that the Resolution violated his equal protection rights. “To properly plead an equal protection claim,

a plaintiff need only allege that through state action, similarly situated persons have been treated disparately.” Boyd v. Peet, 249 Fed. Appx. 155, 158 (11th Cir. 2007)(citation omitted). See also

Executive 100, Inc. v. Martin County, 922 F.2d 1536, 1552 (11th Cir. 1991). The Third Amended Complaint does not identify any

similarly situated person with whom plaintiff can be compared. The
-12-

Third Amended Complaint states that defendants have taken over 200 acres pursuant to the Resolution, far in excess of his 2.5 acres. The only assertion of disparate treatment is for those lots owned by government, which plaintiff alleges did not have their rights taken. However, a private owner such as plaintiff can not be Therefore,

compared to a public owner such as a government unit.

no equal protection claim is stated, and such claims will be dismissed without prejudice. E. Other Bases of Federal Jurisdiction: Having found no federal claim set forth in the Third Amended Complaint, the Court now examines the other purported bases of federal jurisdiction. Article III of the Constitution sets the outer boundaries of the federal court jurisdiction, but vests Congress with the

discretion to determine whether and to what extent that power may be exercised by lower federal courts. Therefore, lower federal

courts are empowered to hear only cases for which there has been a congressional grant of jurisdiction. Morrison v. Allstate Therefore

Indemnity Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2000).

Article III does not provide any additional basis of federal jurisdiction. Additionally, plaintiff’s reliance on Article IV of

the Constitution is misplaced because Article IV does not address the jurisdiction of a federal court. Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. § 1343 as a basis for federal jurisdiction. Section 1343 sets forth the jurisdiction of district
-13-

courts for certain civil rights actions, but does not itself create a private right of action. Albra v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 232 Since none of plaintiff’s

Fed. Appx. 885, 892 (11th Cir. 2007).

federal civil rights claims are properly before the court, § 1343 is not a basis for jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Plaintiff’s reliance on the 1899 Rivers and Harbors

Appropriation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 403 is misplaced. relates to the creation of an obstruction not

Section 403 authorized by

Congress, and simply not relevant to any of the claims in this case. The 1862 Homestead Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 161-64, cannot form Assuming

basis for jurisdiction because it was repealed in 1976.

there is a federal common law Doctrine of Accretion and Erosion, it cannot provide a jurisdictional basis in federal court. The

Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 12 U.S.C. § 3331-3351, also do not create federal jurisdiction. appraisals utilized 12 this These standards relate to real estate in § connection 1331, and with no federally related was

transactions, involved in

U.S.C. case.

such in

transaction the

Additionally,

Florida

county

property appraiser is a constitutionally created office whose appraisals are carried out pursuant to state statute, FLA . STAT . § 193.011 as well as professional appraisal standards established by the International Association of Assessing Officers and the

-14-

Appraisal Institute. (11th Cir. 1996). Therefore, the

Parrish v. Nikolits, 86 F.3d 1088, 1091 n.2

Court

finds

no

other

basis

of

federal

jurisdiction has been plead in the Third Amended Complaint. F. Remaining State Law Claims: The remaining possible claims in the Third Amended Complaint are all state law claims. Complaint may be read to Read liberally, the Third Amended allege a claim to invalidate the

Resolution for alleged state-law procedural defects, a state law claim of trespass, a state law claim of conspiracy to misrepresent, a state law claim of fraud, state law claims of malfeasance, a state law claim of oppression, and a state law claim of slander of title. Even assuming these are properly pled, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) the Court would exercise its discretion and decline claims. to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state

Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (11th

Cir. 2004)(encouraging district courts to dismiss state claims where all claims which provided original jurisdiction have been dismissed.) prejudice. Having The dismissal of the state claims will be without Crosby v. Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339, 1352 (11th Cir. 1999). found that this Court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction, and will not retain supplemental jurisdiction, the Court need not address the issues raised in the remaining

defendants’ motions to dismiss. Accordingly, it is now
-15-

ORDERED: 1. Defendant Property Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (Doc. #303) is GRANTED to the extent set forth in paragraph 5 below. 2. Defendant Property Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss and

Close File (Doc. #285) is DENIED as moot. 3. State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection

and Division of Recreation and Parks, State of Florida, and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund’s Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Cause of Action (Doc. #291) is GRANTED to the extent set forth in paragraph 5 below. 4. Defendants Lee County, Florida, Board of Lee County

Commissioners, Lee County Attorney, Jack N. Peterson’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #304) is GRANTED to the extent set forth in paragraph 5 below. 5. The Third Amended Complaint is dismissed without

prejudice as to all defendants and all claims.

The Clerk shall

enter judgment accordingly, terminate all pending motions as moot, and close the case. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this May, 2008. 5th day of

Copies: Parties of record

-16-

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE, Plaintiffs, versus Case # 2:10-cv-00390-JES-AEP

CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL; SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL; JOHN EDWIN STEELE; JENNIFER WAUGH CORINIS; A. BRIAN ALBRITTON, Defendants. INDEPENDENT ACTION FOR RELIEF FROM GOVERNMENT CRIMES, CORRUPTION, AND FACIALLY FRAUDULENT WRIT OF EXECUTION ____________________________________________________________________________/ MOTION TO STAY PRIMA FACIE ILLEGAL ‘EXECUTION’ AS A MATTER OF LAW PUBLISHED NOTICE OF ILLEGAL EXECUTION UNDER FLORIDA LAW 1. The purported “execution” issued illegally. See § 56.15, Fla. Stat.; Case No. 2:2007-cv00228. NO $5,048.60 JUDGMENT WAS EVER RECORDED 2. “No execution or other final process shall issue until the judgment on which it is based has been recorded nor within the time for serving a motion for new trial or rehearing.… Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.550. Here, no “judgment in the amount of $5,048.60” was ever “recorded”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. Here, no evidence of any such judgment ever existed or could have possibly existed as a matter of law.

DEFENDANT CLERKS’ FALSIFICATIONS OF OFFICIAL RECORDS 3. On 07/16/2010, Defendant U.S. District Clerks Drew Heathcoat and Diane Nipper again falsified and altered official documents and records for criminal and unlawful purposes of obstructing justice and Plaintiffs’ court access. 4. In particular, the Clerk obstructed, and conspired with other Defendants to obstruct, electronic court access, court access, and the filing of Plaintiffs’ pleadings, Case No. 2:2007cv-00791; 2:2009-cv-00791. In particular, Defendants Nipper and Heathcoat deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of their express fundamental rights to redress Government grievances, and file their Motions for new trial and rehearing, and Notices of Appeal. DIRECT INDEPENDENT ATTACKS OF CRIMINAL & ILLEGAL “EXECUTION” 5. Here on the record, the Plaintiffs have been directly attacking the prima facie criminality, illegality, and nullity of the fraudulently procured “execution”, which issued illegally. See § 56.15, Fla. Stat.; Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228; 2:2010-cv-00089; 2:2010-cv-00791. PRIMA FACIE LACK OF RECORD, FED.R.CIV.P. 44 6. On 07/16/2010, Defendant Corrupt U.S. District Clerk Drew Heathcoat obstructed to issue “a written statement that a diligent search of the designated records in Case No. 2:2007-cv00228 revealed no “writ of execution” and no “judgment” awarding “$5,048.60” to Defendant K. M. Wilkinson.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 44. PRIMA FACIE ORGANIZED PUBLIC CORRUPTION 7. The fake “writ of execution”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, is another publicly recorded element of organized Government and judicial corruption with corrupt intent to extort fess and property from the Plaintiff corruption whistleblowers. PRIMA FACIE GROUNDS TO STAY ILLEGAL “EXECUTION” OF RECORD

8. Repeatedly, the Plaintiff public corruption victims stated several grounds as good cause to stay the illegal execution. Grounds for the motion appeared on the face. Here, e.g., no judgment had existed. See Docket Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. The purported basis for the non-existent judgment had never existed, because Def. Forger Wilkinson had never filed any “Rule 38 motion”. See Docket for Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. RECORD EXTORTION AND FORGERIES BY DEF. APPRAISER WILKINSON 9. Because, e.g., Def. Forger Wilkinson had criminally and illegally forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-0000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, Plaintiffs’ Appellants’ Appeal had been highly meritorious, and no “frivolous appeal” could have possibly existed. RECORD FABRICATION OF “FRIVOLITY” AND “JUDGMENT” 10. No “frivolity” was ever determined in the “judgment”, Doc. # 365, Case ## 2:2007-cv-00228; 2008-13170-BB. Here, no monetary penalty had ever been awarded to Defendant Government Crook Wilkinson. PUBLICLY RECORDED FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS 11. For criminal and unlawful purposes of obstructing justice and court access and perpetrating fraud on the Courts, Defendants John E. Steele, Sheri Polster Chappell, Charlene E. Honeywell, Mark A. Pizzo, and Richard A. Lazzara falsified and altered, and conspired to falsify and alter, public records. 12. Said judicial Crooks knew and fraudulently concealed that no “regulation”, “resolution”, “resolution 569/875”, “law”, “legislative act” had ever existed, and that as a matter of supreme Florida and Federal law, no “law” could have possibly divested the Plaintiffs’ of their unimpeachable record title to Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A, PB 3, PG 25 (1912).

13. Doc. # 386-2, Case No. # 2:2007-cv-00228, evidenced an illegal “motion” filed on 08/20/2008 under fraudulent pretenses. Here, the deadline for any hypothetical “Rule 38 motion” had terminated on or around 08/08/2008, and Def. Wilkinson had never filed anything prior to said deadline to justify any judgment or monetary punishment. Therefore here, no lawful basis could have possibly existed, and the illegal “execution” has been fraudulent on its face. PRIMA FACIE ILLEGAL “writ of execution” - AFFIDAVIT 14. Here, no lawful writ of execution had ever been issued. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs made an Affidavit that the “execution” is illegal and stated as grounds, e.g., the lack of any supporting judgment, the lack of any falsely alleged “Rule 38 motion” by Defendant K. M. Wilkinson. PLAINTIFFS’ COMMUNICATIONS OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION AND FELONIES 15. Plaintiffs again contacted Defendant Crooked Attorney Jack N. Peterson for Def. Forger Kenneth M. Wilkinson and reported said publicly recorded public corruption, extortion, coercion, and fraud, Tel. 239-533-2236. 07/19/10 COMMUNICATIONS TO FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 16. On 07/19/2010, Plaintiff public corruption victim Jennifer Franklin Prescott updated the Federal Bureau of Investigation about the public corruption, extortion, fraud, and fraudulent “writ”. PRIMA FACIE FRAUD ON THE COURT AND EXTORTION 17. Furthermore, the Plaintiff corruption victims move this Court to “set aside“ the non-existent judgment and “writ” in accordance with, e.g., Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b), 1.500, and/or 1.540(a).

18. In the prima facie record absence of any recorded judgment, any writ of execution, and any “Rule 38 motion”, Defendants illegally and fraudulently procured an illegal “writ”. 19. Furthermore here, there were other pending actions affecting the subject matter and conclusively evidencing the prima facie illegality of the fake “writ”, direct attacks upon its criminality, as well as fraud, extortion, and corruption. See also Daytona Enterprises, Inc. v. Wagner, 91 So.2d 171 (Fla. 1956); Childs v. Boats, 112 Fla. 282, 152 So. 214 (1933); McGee v. Ancrum, 33 Fla. 499, 15 So. 231 (1894); Fair v. Tampa Electric Company, 158 Fla. 15, 27 So.2d 514 (1946); Viggio v. Wood, 101 So.2d 922 (3 D.C.A. 1958). WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand 1. An Order enjoining the publicly recorded illegal “execution”-scheme under Florida law; 2. An Order granting the Plaintiffs summary remedies against the record public corruption and non-existent “writ of execution”, and non-existent “Rule 38 motion”; 3. An Order staying the illegal and null & void “writ of execution” and any “execution”; 4. An Order enjoining any further public corruption and the record falsification of “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”; 5. An Order enjoining Defendant Forger K. M. Wilkinson from forging and falsifying official records and documents for criminal and unlawful purposes of, e.g., extorting unrecorded fees and property under facially false pretenses of a non-existent “5,048.60 judgment” and fictitious “writ of execution”. __________________________________ /S/JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT Governmental Corruption & Fraud Victim, Plaintiff, pro se P.O. BOX 845, Palm Beach, FL 33480; T: 561-400-3295 ____________________________________ /S/JORG BUSSE, M.D., M.M., M.B.A., C.P.M. Judicial Corruption & Crime Victim; Plaintiff, pro se State Cert. Res. Appraiser, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Mortgage Broker, Appraisal Instructor

7/17/2010

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…

Select Year:

2009

Go

The 2009 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 838 BRIBERY; MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE View Entire Chapter

838.022 Official misconduct.-(1) It is unlawful for a public servant, with corrupt intent to obtain a benefit for any person or to cause harm to another, to: (a) Falsify, or cause another person to falsify, any official record or official document; (b) Conceal, cover up, destroy, mutilate, or alter any official record or official document or cause another person to perform such an act; or (c) Obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to the commission of a felony that directly involves or affects the public agency or public entity served by the public servant. (2) For the purposes of this section: (a) The term "public servant" does not include a candidate who does not otherwise qualify as a public servant. (b) An official record or official document includes only public records. (3) Any person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.--s. 5, ch. 2003-158.

Copyright © 1995-2010 The Florida Legislature • Privacy Statement • Contact Us

www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm…

1/1

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 29

Filed 06/30/10 Page 4 of 8

B.

Plaintiffs yet again fail to articulate a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted. As this Court noted in the sound and cogent analysis of the

Busse litigation contained in its June 23, 2010, Order [Busse VII, DE-213, at pp. 20-21], Plaintiffs’ allegations, to the extent any sense can be made of them, are essentially criminal in nature. In that same Order, the Court has already analyzed and

explained why Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief under the various constitutional provisions upon which they rely. The only

other vehicle for charging essentially criminal conduct in a civil forum is a suit under the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“civil RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).1 Complaints asserting civil RICO claims “must comply not only with the plausibility criteria articulated in Twombly and Iqbal but also with Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard.” American Dental Ass’n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, As the Court previously noted, Plaintiffs’

--- (11th Cir. 2010).

repetitious and voluminous pleadings are “convoluted and incomprehensible,” “contain[] incoherent and rambling claims of alleged wrongdoing,” and consist of “conclusory” statements

The case of Davis v. Kvalheim, 261 Fed. Appx. 231 (11th Cir. 2008), a matter to which the Busse cases have frequently been analogized [see, e.g., Busse V, DE-17], was a civil RICO case filed against every judge and other governmental official (totaling 129 defendants) that plaintiff “imagine[d to] have done him wrong.” Id. at 235. 4

1

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 29

Filed 06/30/10 Page 7 of 8

to the performance of his duty to serve Busse with the writ of execution. [Busse I, DE-429.] Accordingly, Deputy Jessup would

be entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, and the claim arising out of his acts should likewise be dismissed. WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. Date: June 30, 2010 Respectfully submitted, TONY WEST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

By:

/s/ Matthew L. Fesak MATTHEW L. FESAK Special Attorney and Assistant United States Attorney Civil Division 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 800 Raleigh, NC 27601-1461 Telephone: (919) 856-4530 Facsimile: (919) 856-4821 E-Mail: matthew.fesak@usdoj.gov N.C. Bar No. 35276

7

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 425

Filed 02/02/10 Page 1 of 1

7/14/2010

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…

Select Year:

2009

Go

The 2009 Florida Statutes
Title VI CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Chapter 55 JUDGMENTS View Entire Chapter

55.10 Judgments, orders, and decrees; lien of all, generally; extension of liens; transfer of liens to other security.-(1) A judgment, order, or decree becomes a lien on real property in any county when a certified copy of it is recorded in the official records or judgment lien record of the county, whichever is maintained at the time of recordation, provided that the judgment, order, or decree contains the address of the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree or a separate affidavit is recorded simultaneously with the judgment, order, or decree stating the address of the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree. A judgment, order, or decree does not become a lien on real property unless the address of the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree is contained in the judgment, order, or decree or an affidavit with such address is simultaneously recorded with the judgment, order, or decree. If the certified copy was first recorded in a county in accordance with this subsection between July 1, 1987, and June 30, 1994, then the judgment, order, or decree shall be a lien in that county for an initial period of 7 years from the date of the recording. If the certified copy is first recorded in accordance with this subsection on or after July 1, 1994, then the judgment, order, or decree shall be a lien in that county for an initial period of 10 years from the date of the recording. (2) The lien provided for in subsection (1) or an extension of that lien as provided by this subsection may be extended for an additional period of 10 years, subject to the limitation in subsection (3), by rerecording a certified copy of the judgment, order, or decree prior to the expiration of the lien or the expiration of the extended lien and by simultaneously recording an affidavit with the current address of the person who has a lien as a result of the judgment, order, or decree. The extension shall be effective from the date the certified copy of the judgment, order, or decree is rerecorded. The lien or extended lien will not be extended unless the affidavit with the current address is simultaneously recorded. (3) In no event shall the lien upon real property created by this section be extended beyond the period provided for in s. 55.081 or beyond the point at which the lien is satisfied, whichever occurs first. (4) This act shall apply to all judgments, orders, and decrees of record which constitute a lien on real property; except that any judgment, order, or decree recorded prior to July 1, 1987, shall remain a lien on real property until the period provided for in s. 55.081 expires or until the lien is satisfied, whichever occurs first. (5) Any lien claimed under this section may be transferred, by any person having an interest in the real property upon which the lien is imposed or the contract under which the lien is claimed, from such real property to other security by either depositing in the clerk's office a sum of money or filing in the clerk's office a bond executed as surety by a surety insurer licensed to do business in this state. Such deposit or bond shall
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 1/2

7/14/2010

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes… be in an amount equal to the amount demanded in such claim of lien plus interest thereon at the legal rate for

3 years plus $500 to apply on any court costs which may be taxed in any proceeding to enforce said lien. Such deposit or bond shall be conditioned to pay any judgment, order, or decree which may be rendered for the satisfaction of the lien for which such claim of lien was recorded and costs plus $500 for court costs. Upon such deposit being made or such bond being filed, the clerk shall make and record a certificate showing the transfer of the lien from the real property to the security and mail a copy thereof by registered or certified mail to the lienor named in the claim of lien so transferred, at the address stated therein. Upon the filing of the certificate of transfer, the real property shall thereupon be released from the lien claimed, and such lien shall be transferred to said security. The clerk shall be entitled to a service charge of up to $15 for making and serving the certificate. If the transaction involves the transfer of multiple liens, an additional service charge of up to $7.50 for each additional lien shall be charged. Any number of liens may be transferred to one such security. (6) Any excess of the security over the aggregate amount of any judgments, orders, or decrees rendered, plus costs actually taxed, shall be repaid to the party filing the security or his or her successor in interest. Any deposit of money shall be considered as paid into court and shall be subject to the provisions of law relative to payments of money into court and the disposition of these payments. (7) Any party having an interest in such security or the property from which the lien was transferred may at any time, and any number of times, file a complaint in chancery in the circuit court of the county where such security is deposited for an order: (a) To require additional security; (b) To require reduction of security; (c) To require change or substitution of sureties; (d) To require payment or discharge thereof; or (e) Relating to any other matter affecting said security.
History.--s. 1, ch. 10166, 1925; s. 1, ch. 14749, 1931; ss. 1-3, ch. 17998, 1937; s. 2, ch. 19270, 1939; C GL 1940 Supp. 4865(3); s. 9, ch. 67-254; s. 1, ch. 71-56; s. 1, ch. 77-462; s. 2, ch. 87-67; s. 7, ch. 87-145; s. 12, ch. 91-45; s. 10, ch. 93-250; s. 15, ch. 94-348; s. 1357, ch. 95-147; s. 7, ch. 2000-258; s. 1, ch. 2001-130; s. 68, ch. 2003-402; s. 47, ch. 2004-265.

Copyright © 1995-2010 The Florida Legislature • Privacy Statement • Contact Us

www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm…

2/2

7/23/2010

Statewide Grand Jury on Public Corrup…

Home

FAQs

The Law

Press Releases

Additional Resources

Annual Reports

Search:
The links below provide information regarding the Grand Jury. Supreme Court Order Previous Grand Jury Reports Grand Jury Handbook

This Site

Web Enter search criteria

Report Corruption

On November 30, 2009, Governor Charlie Crist filed a petition requesting that a Statewide Grand Jury be convened in order to “examine and evaluate public policy issues regarding public corruption and develop specific recommendations regarding improving current laws.” On December 2, 2009, the Florida Supreme Court issued an Order to convene the Nineteenth Statewide Grand Jury for the purpose of investigating crimes, returning indictments, and making presentments. In Florida, the responsibility to conduct statewide grand juries is given to the Statewide Prosecutor. The Statewide Prosecutor designates Assistant Statewide Prosecutors to ensure a statewide grand jury is selected and that a grand jury is presented with testimony and evidence. Starting in February of 2010, the Nineteenth Grand Jury will be convened in Ft. Lauderdale and shall initially run for twelve months. The Grand Jury’s investigation of public corruption is not limited to any particular region of the State, however, any criminal offenses investigated shall be multi-circuit in nature. The Office of Statewide Prosecution has established a public corruption hotline for anyone who believes they have information concerning a criminal offense involving public corruption or wishes to suggest issues the Statewide Grand Jury should investigate regarding public corruption. A link to the Petition for a Statewide Grand Jury and the Florida Supreme Court Order Directing Impanelment of a Statewide Grand Jury has also been provided under the section titled The Grand Jury.

Please report information to help in the fight against public coruption.

File a Complaint On-line Press Releases
February 1, 2010 Attorney General: Statewide Grand Jury will Help Restore Trust in Government December 2, 2009 Statement from Attorney General on Supreme Court's Order to Convene a Statewide Grand Jury October 14, 2009 Attorney General’s Statement on Call for Statewide Grand Jury

address: Statewide Prosecution Office The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, FL 32399 phone: 1-800-646-0444 website: www.myfloridalegal.com news: Weekly Newsletter

© 2009 Office of the Attorney General of Florida

Privacy Policy

myfloridalegal.com/19thstatewidegran…

1/1

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 422

Filed 01/26/10 Page 17 of 18

(Doc. #418) on January 11, 2010.

The one page document is

essentially a Notice of Filing and will be construed as such and denied. The attached Motion has the case number 2:09-cv-791-FTM-

36SPC, which case is currently pending in the Fort Myers Division. Any motions seeking relief in that case should be filed in that case only. (31) Plaintiff filed a virtually identical one page document as Document #418 which attaches a filing for case number 2:09-cv791-FTM-36SPC. (Doc. #419.) Any motions seeking relief in that This document is construed

case should be filed in that case only. as a Notice of Filing and denied.

(32) Plaintiff filed a virtually identical one page document as Documents #418 and #419 which attaches a filing for case number 2:09-cv-791-FTM-36SPC. (Doc. #420.) Any motions seeking relief in that case should be filed in that case only. construed as a Notice of Filing and denied. It is accordingly FURTHER ORDERED: 1. Until further Order, the Clerk shall no longer accept any This document is

further filings, related or unrelated to this specific case, by Ms. Prescott or Mr. Busse, for filing in this closed case, except for a single Notice of Appeal from this Order. 2. The Emergency Motions for Relief From Extrinsic Fraud,

Fraud on Courts, and Fraudulent Judgment & Execution Emergency

-17-

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 422

Filed 01/26/10 Page 18 of 18

Motion to Enjoin Fraudulent Judgments and Execution of Fraudulent Judgments Pursuant to Independent Action(s) for Relief Such as Case 9:09-cv-82359-KLR, FLSD Notice of No Authority to Enforce

Fraudulent Judgment” (Doc. #389) is construed as response to the pending Motion for Writ of Execution. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this January, 2010. 26th day of

Copies: Parties of record

-18-

7/23/2010

Statewide Grand Jury on Public Corrup…

Home

FAQs

The Law

Press Releases

Additional Resources

Annual Reports

Search:
The links below provide information regarding the Grand Jury. Supreme Court Order Previous Grand Jury Reports Grand Jury Handbook

This Site

Web Enter search criteria

Report Corruption

On November 30, 2009, Governor Charlie Crist filed a petition requesting that a Statewide Grand Jury be convened in order to “examine and evaluate public policy issues regarding public corruption and develop specific recommendations regarding improving current laws.” On December 2, 2009, the Florida Supreme Court issued an Order to convene the Nineteenth Statewide Grand Jury for the purpose of investigating crimes, returning indictments, and making presentments. In Florida, the responsibility to conduct statewide grand juries is given to the Statewide Prosecutor. The Statewide Prosecutor designates Assistant Statewide Prosecutors to ensure a statewide grand jury is selected and that a grand jury is presented with testimony and evidence. Starting in February of 2010, the Nineteenth Grand Jury will be convened in Ft. Lauderdale and shall initially run for twelve months. The Grand Jury’s investigation of public corruption is not limited to any particular region of the State, however, any criminal offenses investigated shall be multi-circuit in nature. The Office of Statewide Prosecution has established a public corruption hotline for anyone who believes they have information concerning a criminal offense involving public corruption or wishes to suggest issues the Statewide Grand Jury should investigate regarding public corruption. A link to the Petition for a Statewide Grand Jury and the Florida Supreme Court Order Directing Impanelment of a Statewide Grand Jury has also been provided under the section titled The Grand Jury.

Please report information to help in the fight against public coruption.

File a Complaint On-line Press Releases
February 1, 2010 Attorney General: Statewide Grand Jury will Help Restore Trust in Government December 2, 2009 Statement from Attorney General on Supreme Court's Order to Convene a Statewide Grand Jury October 14, 2009 Attorney General’s Statement on Call for Statewide Grand Jury

address: Statewide Prosecution Office The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, FL 32399 phone: 1-800-646-0444 website: www.myfloridalegal.com news: Weekly Newsletter

© 2009 Office of the Attorney General of Florida

Privacy Policy

myfloridalegal.com/19thstatewidegran…

1/1

LEE COUNTY COMMISSION – PUBLIC CORRUPTION DEFENDANT JOHN E. MANNING

DEF. LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONER JOHN E. MANNING

LEE COUNTY PUBLIC CORRUPTION

“SIX COMMISSIONERS FACED CRIMINAL CHARGES” NEWS-PRESS, July 9, 2010, www.news-press.com By Gabriella Souza, gsouza@news-press.com “Manning comes with …”

“At the time, the board [of Lee County Commissioners] was in turmoil. Commissioners and county staff came under fire for illegal dealings and between 1983 and 2000; six commissioners faced criminal charges. "It was a revolving door of county commissioners and county managers," Manning said. Manning, who had decided not to run for re-election, was prosecuted in 2000. He said he wanted to end his time as a commissioner so he could go back to the private sector.” LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONER JOHN E. MANNING CHARGED IN RECORDS CASE
NEWS-PRESS, May 11, 2000, www.news-press.com Failure to disclose meetings alleged …

By Lee Melsek

“Prosecutors filed criminal charges against Lee County Commissioner John Manning on Wednesday for failing to disclose years of private meetings with lobbyists seeking such things as land-use changes, roads and multimilliondollar county contracts. Manning, who voted to approve the county law he's accused of violating, claims he misinterpreted the law. He is charged with a second-degree misdemeanor …” LEE COUNTY COMMISSION – PUBLIC CORRUPTION
NEWS-PRESS, LETTERS TO THE EDITOR July 10, 2010, www.news-press.com

“The News-Press exposed his failure to obey that law, local prosecutors then charged him with violating the disclosure law and the courts fined him after he pleaded no contest.”

LEE MELSEK Fort Myers Beach

LEE COUNTY PUBLIC CORRUPTION

LEE COUNTY PUBLIC CORRUPTION

LEE COUNTY COMMISSION – PUBLIC CORRUPTION

14

15

DEFENDANT CORRUPT LEE COUNTY COMMISSION
NEWS-PRESS, LETTERS TO THE EDITOR July 10, 2010, www.news-press.com

Recall Past Actions “Don’t you just love the integrity of politics? John Manning back as commissioner because he has experience? John Manning is the commissioner who wrote an ordinance, then broke his own ordinance, and his attorney then called Manning’s ordinance a stinky little law or something to that effect. I wonder if Charlie Crist was aware of this when he appointed Manning back to the Lee County Commission?”

RON SMILEY Fort Myers

LEE COUNTY COMMISSION – PUBLIC CORRUPTION
NEWS-PRESS, July 13, 2010, www.news-press.com

TRANSPARENCY ABOVE ALL ELSE: EDITORIAL “We expect our elected officials to be law-abiding citizens who seek to uphold the rules they create. When they don’t, we question their integrity and ability to serve. Recently, criticism has surfaced about newly appointed interim Lee County Commissioner John Manning’s decade-old no contest plea and $1,000 fine for violating the county’s lobbyist disclosure ordinance. He had a been a three-term county commissioner at that point and helped craft the ordinance. That no contest plea has come back to haunt him in letters to the editor, for example, as he was appointed to the post and is seeking election to it. At least one of his opponents, former Cape Coral Economic Development Director Mike Jackson, sees it as old news, and after 10 years, it likely is. Manning’s also facing former Cape Coral Councilman Chris Berardi and former Lee County School Board Member Bob Chilmonik. This issue should still matter, however. Voters have a right to take into consideration the whole record of a candidate. In a questionnaire for The News-Press Editorial Board, Manning affirmed his support for the Sunshine Law — open records and open meetings laws — opposing exemptions to it and looking to expand it further. That’s a good sign, and redemption certainly is an American value. Manning has a chance to correct his past

error by striving to be the most transparent public official in our community. Anything less than that should be grounds to vote for one of his opponents in the Aug. 24 primary election.” Sunshine Dimmed “Re: “Manning comes with polished reputation,” July 9. Only a single sentence in an otherwise fawning profile of Manning hinted that something was not quite right during his earlier time on the commission. Alas, there was no attempt whatsoever to detail to readers and voters the betrayal of the public trust Mr. Manning committed while a commissioner in the late ‘90s. Only this vague reference to the fact “he pleaded no contest for not following the county’s lobbyist disclosure law and paid $1,000 in fines and court costs.” The law, which Manning voted to adopt in the early ‘90s, is an important Lee County addendum to the state’s open government requirements. The Lee County law requires commissioners to keep logs of their private meetings with lobbyists. They must disclose the names of the lobbyists, the dates of the meetings, the issues they discussed and the people and companies those lobbyists represent. It’s a noble attempt to prevent government in the shadows much like other counties have adopted. It lets the public know who is influencing, or attempting to influence, our elected commission behind closed doors. While the other four commissioners were dutifully obeying that law and filing their disclosure logs every three months with the Clerk’s Office Minutes Department, John Manning chose to ignore it for the entire four years of his last term

in office. He chose government in the shadows as he met with companies and their high-priced lawyers and lobbyists seeking votes and favors in the privacy of his office or theirs.”

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 434

Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION JORG BUSSE Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-29SPC

LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; BOARD OF LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER; STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Defendants. ___________________________________ ORDER This matter comes before the Court on review of defendant’s Motion for Entry of Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property (Doc. #432) filed on May 21, 2010. the time to respond has expired. Upon review, the Court desires a response from plaintiff. Recognizing that a Pre-Filing Injunction (Case No. 2:09-cv-791-FTM36SPC, Doc. #245) was issued on July 20, 2010, prohibiting any further filings without leave of Court, the Court will grant plaintiff leave to file a single responsive document to defendant’s motion. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: No response has been filed and

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 434

Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 2

Plaintiff may file one response to defendant’s Motion for Entry of Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property (Doc. #432) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this Order. If no response is

received, the Court will rule on the motion without the benefit of a response and without further notice. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this July, 2010. 22nd day of

Copies: Plaintiff Counsel of record

-2-

PUBLIC CORRUPTION COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT BEVERLY B. MARTIN CORRUPT U.S. CIRCUIT JUDGE CERTIFIED DELIVERY Federal Bureau of Investigation 5525 West Gray Street Tampa, FL 33609 Phone: (813) 253-1000 DEFENDANT BEVERLY B. MARTIN RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS 1. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant Beverly B. Martin (“Martin”) in her private individual capacity and official capacity as U.S. Circuit Judge. Defendant Martin’s unlawful and criminal acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. FELONIES OUTSIDE ANY “official” CAPACITY 2. Under color of undocketed and/or falsified Cases ## 2010-10963 and 2010-10967, Def. Martin falsified official records and documents and caused others to falsify for criminal and illegal purposes of extorting money and property under fraudulent pretenses of “frivolity”. 3. Def. Martin knew and concealed that the only paid judgment of record had been in the amount of $24.30. When the Plaintiffs conclusively proved the prima facie criminality, illegality, and nullity of a falsified “$5,048.60 judgment”, which could nowhere be found, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Def. Martin retaliated with further case fixing on “Jul 19 2010”. COERCION, EXTORTION UNDER FALSE PRETENSES, AND COVER-UP 4. Def. Martin coerced the Plaintiff corruption victims to refrain from redressing their grievances of a facially falsified and un-recorded “$5,048.60 judgment”, fake “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, and forged “land parcels”. No court had ever reviewed the record forgeries of said fake “land parcels”, and Def. Martin conspired with other Offenders to keep it that way and keep Plaintiffs out of Court. Just like a Government whore, Def. Martin procured her order through brazen fraud on the Court, Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540; see also 1.550. CONTEMPT OF FLORIDA LAW, CHAPTERS 55, 56, 71, 73, 74, 95, 712, FLA. STAT. 5. Def. Martin concealed that here nothing could have possibly become a lien on Plaintiffs’ property under Ch. 55, 56, 71, Fla. Stat. MARTIN’S KNOWLEDGE OF CRIMES AND UNLAWFUL ACTS 6. Defendant Corrupt Martin had knowledge of the actual commission of felonies such as, e.g., the falsifications of a. a “$5,048.60 judgment”; b. an appeal [see Case ## 2010-10967, and/or 2010-10963]; c. a “writ of execution” [Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 425]; d. “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”; e. a “regulation”, “resolution 569/875”, “legislative act”, and/or “O.R. 569/875”. However, Def. Martin concealed and conspired to conceal said record falsifications. Here even though Def. Martin had knowledge of, e.g., judicial Co-Defendant Polster Chappell’s,

Steele’s, Pizzo’s, and Lazzara’s obstruction of justice and fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels”, a falsified “writ of execution”, falsified “$5,048.60 judgment”, Corrupt Martin did not make the same known to some judge or person in authority, but covered up for said Offenders in exchange for bribes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4. ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT 7. Defendant Crook Martin knew that Defendant principal Offenders Steele, Chappell, Pizzo, and Lazzara had committed record offenses and assisted said Offenders, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4. In particular, Martin assisted said Offenders with a facially fraudulent “writ of execution” and the falsification and/or destruction of official records. DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS UNDER COLOR OF FAKE “writ” AND “resolution” 8. Defendant Martin deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs, e.g., under color of a fake “writ of execution”, “resolution 569/875”, and “frivolous appeal”, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242. RECORD RETALIATION UNDER COLOR OF WRIT OF EXECUTION & SANCTIONS 9. With the intent to retaliate, Corrupt Martin knowingly took actions harmful to the Plaintiff public corruption victims, which included interference with Plaintiffs’ livelihood and record land ownership, because the Plaintiff landowners had provided truthful information relating to the commission of Federal offenses to law enforcement, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1513. EXTORTION ASSISTANCE UNDER COLOR OF “FRIVOLOUS APPEAL” 10. Knowingly, Def. Martin assisted the extortion of Plaintiffs’ property and/or threatened to do so, with corrupt intent to retaliate against the Plaintiffs because the Plaintiffs had blown the whistle on public corruption; in particular, because the Plaintiffs had produced records and testimony conclusively evidencing Government corruption and fraud, and information about the commission of Federal offenses by Government Officials. Here, Plaintiff Government crime and corruption victims had the right to be reasonably protected from the Government Offenders and Judges of record, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AND COURT ACCESS 11. Def. Martin conspired with other Defendants and Officials to “restrict Appellant’s ability to pursue future appeals” for, e.g., criminal and unlawful purposes of concealing: a. Facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-0100001.0000”; b. Falsification of [a recorded “$24.30 judgment” into] an un-recorded“$5,048.60”extortion-and-execution scheme; c. Falsification of a “writ of execution” in the absence of a recorded “$5,048.60” “judgment”; d. Destruction and falsification of official Court records. EXACTION OF MONEY BY THREAT OF, E.G., ARREST AND CIVIL CONTEMPT 12. Def. Martin conspired to exact money from Plaintiffs under color of, e.g., “frivolous appeal” even though Martin knew that no legal basis for and justification of “frivolity” had ever or could have possibly ever existed. CONSPIRACY TO ASSIST EXTORTION AND BLACKMAIL 13. In particular, Def. Martin conspired and assisted to extort $5,048.60 and property in the absence of any recorded authentic judgment and justification. Martin caused other Government Officials to falsify, alter, and destroy official records for criminal and illegal purposes of concealing other Defendant Officials’ extortion, coercion, obstruction of justice and other crimes of record.

2

14. Def. Martin made unlawful communications and threatened Plaintiff public corruption whistleblowers with obstruction of court access and deliberate deprivations of Plaintiffs’ express fundamental rights to redress Government grievances, own property, and exclude Governments. MISCONDUCT AND EXTENSION OF RECORD CRIMES AND FALSIFIED “WRIT” 15. Under prima facie fraudulent pretenses of “frivolous appeal”, Def. Martin recklessly extended the record Government crimes, and FIXED and “DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS”. Def. Martin assisted and conspired the reckless perversion and falsification of a recorded “Judgment” and “Bill of Costs” in the amount of $24.30 “issued as mandate on 06/11/2009” for criminal and illegal purposes of extortion, coercion, and retaliation against the Plaintiff corruption whistle blowers. In order for the record fraud under said fake “land parcels” to continue and for illegal purposes of silencing the Plaintiff landowners, Def. Martin “SUSPENDED” and perverted the Rules and caused the Clerk to “discard” more documents. FALSIFICATION OF APPEAL NUMBERS 16. The payment records regarding Plaintiffs’ multiple appeals conclusively proved the falsifications and fabrications of “Appeal Number 10-10963 and/or 10-10967”. See U.S. District Court payment records and receipts. The U.S. Clerk refused to certify and authenticate the payment record. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 44. 17. Def. Martin pulled “frivolity” out of her ass without any explanation and/or justification whatsoever. Review of the recorded judgment patently clearly evidenced that the District and Circuit had fabricated “lack of jurisdiction” for illegal purposes of concealment and coverup. Plaintiffs were entitled to defend their unimpeachable, unencumbered, and marketable record title against Government extortion and fraud, which of course had invoked Federal jurisdiction directly under the express guarantees of the Federal and Florida Constitutions. 18. Here with wanton disregard for the law, and including Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540, 1.550, Ch. 55, 56, 71, 73, 74, 95, 712, Fla. Stat., Def. Martin conspired to oppress Plaintiffs with prima facie non-existent and/or illegal orders, judgments, and/or mandates… /s/Jorg Busse, M.D., M.M., M.B.A. c/o International Court of Justice Peace Palace The Hague, Netherlands /s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott c/o International Court of Justice Peace Palace The Hague, Netherlands CC Florida Department of Law Enforcement U.S. Department of Justice The Florida Bar Real Property Probate and Trust Lawyer Section, The Florida Bar Barack Hussein Obama Eric Holder

3

17

Page 1 of 4

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
56 Forsyth Street, NW Atlanta, GA 30303 (404) 335-6100

Cases for Jorg Busse, Dr.
Docket Number 09-16202 09-16201 09-14715 09-14714 09-14713 09-14712 09-14326 09-14325 09-14324 09-14323 09-14321 09-14320 09-14319 09-14318 09-14317 09-14316 09-14315 09-14314 09-14313 09-14312 09-14310 09-14309 09-14308 09-14307 09-14306 Short Style Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of Florida Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of Florida Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of Florida Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of Florida Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Party Type Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Date Withdrawn From Case

http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/srchPtyCase.fwx?ID=610101050

7/14/2010

Page 2 of 4

09-14305 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Appellant 09-14304 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Appellant

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
56 Forsyth Street, NW Atlanta, GA 30303 (404) 335-6100

Cases for Jorg Busse, Dr.
Docket Number 09-14303 09-14302 09-14301 09-14300 09-14299 09-14298 09-14297 09-14296 09-14295 09-14294 09-14293 09-14292 09-14291 09-14290 09-14289 09-14288 09-14285 09-14284 09-14282 09-14281 09-13525 09-13523 Short Style Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of FL Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of FL Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of FL Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of FL Jorg Busse v. Lee County, Florida Jorg Busse v. Lee County, Florida Jorg Busse v. Lee County, Florida Jorg Busse v. Lee County, Florida Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of Florida Party Type Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Date Withdrawn From Case

http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/srchPtyCase.fwx?ID=610101050

7/14/2010

Page 3 of 4

09-13522 09-13519 09-13517 09-13378 09-13376

Jorg Busse v. Lee County, Florida Jorg Busse v. Lee County, Florida Jorg Busse v. Lee County, Florida Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of Florida Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida

Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
56 Forsyth Street, NW Atlanta, GA 30303 (404) 335-6100

Cases for Jorg Busse, Dr.
Docket Number 09-13308 09-13189 09-13188 09-13187 09-13186 09-12372 09-12329 09-12224 09-11305 09-10752 09-10747 09-10746 09-10745 09-10464 08-15140 08-14846 08-13170 Short Style Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Jorg Busse v. Lee County, Florida Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazarra Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of Florida Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of Florida Jorg Busse v. Lee County Florida Party Type Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellee Appellant Appellant Date Withdrawn From Case

PACER Service Center

http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/srchPtyCase.fwx?ID=610101050

7/14/2010

Page 4 of 4

Transaction Receipt
07/14/2010 22:12:10 PACER Login: Description: we0083 List cases for party Client Code: Search Criteria: Cost: Party=Jorg Busse, Dr. 0.24

Billable Pages: 3

Send Comment

Change Client Code

View Billing History

Search

http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/srchPtyCase.fwx?ID=610101050

7/14/2010

Page 1 of 1

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
56 Forsyth Street, NW Atlanta, GA 30303 (404) 335-6100

Cases for Jorg Busse
Docket Number 09-16215 09-16209 09-16208 09-16207 09-16206 09-16205 09-16204 09-16203 Short Style Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Susan H. Black Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of Florida Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Roger Alejo Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Roger Alejo Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Roger Alejo Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Roger Alejo Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Roger Alejo Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Roger Alejo Party Type Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant Date Withdrawn From Case

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
07/14/2010 22:11:55 PACER Login: Description: we0083 List cases for party Client Code: Search Criteria: Cost: Party=Jorg Busse 0.08

Billable Pages: 1

Send Comment

Change Client Code

View Billing History

Search

http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/srchPtyCase.fwx?ID=610101052

7/14/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE CORRUPT ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ____________________________ No. 10-10963-I ____________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:07-00228-CV-FtM-JES-SPC DR. JORG BUSSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, KENNETH M. ROESCH, J.R., et al., Plaintiffs, versus LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, BOARD OF LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, KIENNETH M. WILKINSON, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ___________________________________ Not Docketed in Violation of Law Nazi-style Mock U.S. Proceedings Without any Due Process ___________________________________ APPELLANT(S)’ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM VEXATIOUS NAZI STYLE 04/06/10 “ORDER” (April 14, 2009)

PETITION FOR AND JURISDICTION ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI 1. Hereby, Plaintiff(s)-Appellant(s) petition for a Writ of Certiorari and supervisory review of the fraud on the Court by U.S. Judges since 2007 on the record(s). 2. “A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court. See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e); Rule 11, Certiorari to a United States Court of Appeals before Judgment. NAZI STYLE JUDICIAL CRIMES ON THE RECORD 3. Here, the Nazi-style crimes by U.S. District and Circuit Judges and their fraudulent concealment of Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were shown and conclusively proven to be “of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination” in the U.S. Supreme Court. In particular, the (extra)judicial crimes in these Case(s) & Appeal(s) destabilized real property ownership in America and any confidence in the American judicial system, where on the record, Federal Judges corruptly fabricated that Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were purportedly “law” and/or “authorized” Government to criminally seize and confiscate private property without any due process and equal protection of the law. Here just like Nazi Officials, U.S. Judges extended record facial forgeries “O.R. 569/875” and facially forged “land” “parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, which never legally existed, Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912). COMPELLING REASONS SUCH AS MASSIVE JUDICIAL CORRUPTION 4. Here, said U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, entered facially idiotic decisions in conflict with its own decisions, other U.S. Appellate Court, and Supreme Court decisions on the same important matters. Here, judicially fabricated condemnation, eminent domain, and/or involuntary alienation by forged “resolution”, “legislative act”, “legislative” “claim” and/or Governmental forgeries such as, e.g., “O.R. 569/875” were criminal acts prohibited by law and violative of Constitutional checks and balances. Here, U.S. Judges criminally retaliated and conspired to criminally “deter”, “sanction”, and “punish” pro se Plaintiff(s) with an illegal “writ of execution” and criminal seizure of Plaintiff(s) riparian Gulf-front property, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A”, Accreted Gulffront Lot 15A, as legally described in reference to the 1912 “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat of Survey in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25. CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION OF MEANINGFUL “JUDICIAL REVIEW” 5. Just like Nazi Government Officials, the corrupt Judges in the Eleventh Circuit obstructed justice and court access by fabricating a “resolution”:
2

“On 10 December 1969, the Board of Commissioners of Lee County, Florida (“the Board”) adopted a resolution claiming certain lands in the Cayo Costa subdivision as public lands (“the Resolution”). R10-288 at 9.” See corrupt March 5, 2009 Appellate “Opinion”, No. 08-13170, District Court Docket No. 07-00228-CV-FTM-29-SPC, p. 2. RECORD JUDICIAL CRIMES & FRAUD ON THE COURT(S) 6. Here, U.S. Judges perpetrated fraud on the Court(s), procured another unlawful “order” through trickery & malice, and fabricated a “resolution”. Here, no evidentiary support of a “resolution” had ever existed, and the Governmental concoctions of condemnation by Governmental facial forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were record crimes. RECORD PSYCHOPATHOLOGICAL LIES OF “RESOLUTION” & “CLAIM” 7. Here, no “resolution” had ever legally existed, and Defendant “Board” never “adopted” Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”. Here, no name of any “Board” member appeared on Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”. Here, no “resolution” had ever been legally recorded. Here, no original of any “resolution” ever existed. Here, there was rampant judicial corruption and fraud on the Court. Therefore, any and all Federal “opinions” and “orders” since 2006 were null and void from the outset. PERVERSIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS OF “CLAIM” 8. Florida and Federal Constitutions expressly prohibited confiscating and/or “claiming” “land” by “adoption” of a “resolution” and/or any “law”. Here, the Nazi-style Judges in the 11th Court lied and criminally perverted said Constitutions’ checks and balances. Here, the law did not recognize criminal confiscation and seizure by any “resolution”, “law”, and/or Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”. 9. Here, said outlaw Judges were out of control when they brazenly concocted a “resolution” and/or “legislative act” and then punished the pro se Plaintiff(s) merely for “redressing their Governmental grievances” and opposing the psychopathological judicial lies and Governmental crimes on the record. 10. Just like Nazi Judges fabricated that Nazi Government could “claim” the property of Jews and Nazi opponents, here criminal Judges idiotically concocted that Defendant Governments could “claim” Plaintiff(s) “raid lands” Nazi style and by criminal means of forged “O.R. 569/875”. THE JUDICIAL CROOKS COULD NOT ANSWER PLAIN QUESTIONS: 11. When asked plain and short: Who adopted what, where, when, and how, the criminal Judges in this corrupt Court imposed” “sanctions” just like Nazi Judges did when asked why Jews and Nazi opponents were murdered in Nazi concentration camps. THE NAZI STYLE CRIMES OF “SICK” FEDERAL JUDGES
3

12. When the pro se Plaintiffs demanded to see the original of the forged “resolution” and/or authenticated copies, the crooked Judges “deterred”, “sanctioned”, and “punished” the Plaintiff(s) just like Nazi Judges “deterred” Nazi opponents in death camps and pedophile priests “punished” raped children when they reported the priests’ rape. PREMEDITATED JUDICIAL FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD 13. Here, U.S. Judges fraudulently concealed that Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were “paste-ups”. Here, the illegible fake “recording” stamp(s) on said Governmental forgeries were pasted by Governmental con men. Here for years, U.S. Judges conspired with the Defendants to fraudulently conceal the criminality of Nazi style forged “claims” of “raid lands”, Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”. FRAUDULENT JUDICIAL PRETENSES OF “REVIEW” & “FRIVOLITY” 14. Here in the absence of a docket, criminal Judges “faked” “judicial review” and “frivolity”: “these appeals have been reviewed and determined to be frivolous.” See fraudulent “04/06/2010” 11th Circuit “order”. Here, the Case Docket(s) disappeared just like Nazi court records disappeared at the hands of Nazi judges. Here, sick Judges criminally concocted a “resolution” and “frivolity”. NAZI-STYLE “RESTRICTIONS” ON JUSTICE & FRAUD ON THE COURT 15. In their criminal “order”, post stamped “04/06/2010”, the objectively corrupt and partial Judge(s) in this Court again “imposed” Nazi-style “restrictions”: “As part of its Order, the Court imposed restrictions on Appellant’s ability…” POLICY & CUSTOM OF NAZI-STYLE “RESTRICTIONS” & TERROR 16. Just like Nazi Government Officials maliciously “restricted” the “abilities” of Jews and Nazi opponents, the crooked Judge(s) in this Court premeditated obstruction of justice, “deterrence”, “punishment”, and “judicial concentration camp” for the pro se Plaintiff(s), because the pro se Plaintiff(s) opposed, e.g., Governmental forgeries and scam “O.R. 569/875” and forged “Lee County” “land” “parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”, and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & FRAUD ON THE COURTS, DOC. # 338 17. Here for years, the vexatious U.S. judicial policy and custom on the record was obstruction of justice of the adjudication of the pro se Plaintiff(s)’ “claims”: “The copy of the Resolution [Governmental Forgeries “O.R. 569/875”] attached to the Third Amended Complaint establishes that it was signed, executed, and duly recorded in the public records, and plaintiff will not be allowed to assert otherwise.” See vexatious and facially fraudulent “Opinion and Order”, Doc. # 338, p. 12, Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-JES-SPC, by crooked District Judge John Edwin Steele.
4

NAZI-STYLE ANARCHY INSTEAD OF ADJUDICATION 18. Even though the Defendants had ADMITTED that Lee County, Florida, and/or its Commissioners had never “signed” and/or “executed” Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” as conclusively evidenced by the true and correct copies of said fake “claims” on record, the Federal Judges conspired to uphold lawlessness and judicial corruption. JUDICIAL FAILURE TO “SHOW CAUSE” – FRIVOLITY FRAUD SCHEME 19. Here, the conspiring U.S. Judges in this Court never “showed any cause” for the “punishment” and “sanctions” of the pro se Plaintiff(s) under fraudulent pretenses of “frivolity” just like Nazi Official never “showed any cause” why they murdered Jews and Nazi opponents. 20. Just like Nazi Officials made the crime records of Nazi killings disappear, here the criminal Judges in this Court made dockets and records of oppression disappear. See Case Dockets. Here, crooked U.S. Judges covered up for other outlaw Judges in said U.S. Judicial Gang just like Nazis covered up for Nazis, and Catholic bishops for priests. NO AUTHENTICATION OF JUDICIALLY FABRICATED “RESOLUTION” 21. Even though the vexatious Judges in this Nazi-style Appellate Court had been “unable” to authenticate any “resolution”, “legislative act”, “land use regulation”, and/or “law”, they criminally continued to fraudulently pretend a “resolution” and torture, terrorize, punish, and oppress the pro se Plaintiffs just like Nazi Officials terrorized and oppressed Jews and Nazi opponents. 22. Just like Nazi Officials used forged papers to confiscate property of Jews in concentration camps, here U.S. Judges used prima facie forgeries “O.R. 569/875” to criminally confiscate pro se Plaintiff(s)’ riparian property. FACIALLY IDIOTIC JUDICIAL “ARGUMENTS” ON THE RECORD 23. Here, prima facie Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were not any “resolution”, because no “lawmaker” had ever “signed” and/or “executed” said scam. Just like Nazi Government Officials seized the property of Jews and Nazi opponents by criminal means of forged Nazi “claims”, here U.S. Judges fabricated a “resolution” and/or “legislative act”. Here, District and Circuit Judges agreed and conspired to “cover up” for crooked Judge Steele and conceal the idiotic criminal fabrication that Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were purportedly “law”. The law did not recognize said Nazi-style “claim”. SCIENCE & FORENSICS CONTROVERTED OUTLAW JUDGES: FORENSICS vs. NAZI-STYLE “FRIVOLITY” “CLAIM” 24. Here on the record, the Defendants themselves had CONTROVERTED the outlaw Judges’ fabrications of a “legislative act” and/or “resolution”. Furthermore, forensic examinations had conclusively proven that Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were not any “legislative act” and/or “resolution”. Here, U.S. Judges
5

kept lying, concealing, and covering up for crooked Judge Steele, his oppressive Nazi style, Doc. # 338, and judicial crimes. VEXATIOUS JUDICIAL FARCE & MOCKERY OF “ORDER” (“04/06/2010”) 25. Here, said 04/06/2010 “order to show cause” was a facial farce and mockery. On their faces, Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” patently clearly portrayed the facts and evidence of Governmental fraud, extortion, and crimes. Here, the law expressly prohibited Governmental scam “claim all of raid lands”. 26. Here, only Nazi-style Judges needed “cause shown”. Just like Nazi Judges did not comprehend the criminality of murdering Nazi opponents in concentration camps, here these Nazi-type Judges did not “get” the patently clear criminality of Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”, but needed “cause shown”. Just like the Pope needed “cause shown” for the prosecution of rapist priests, the Nazi-type Judges in the Eleventh Circuit needed “cause shown” why “disallowing” the pro se Plaintiffs to “assert” Governmental fraud & corruption and concealing the criminality of said Governmental forgeries was not criminal. 27. Just like Nazi Judges staged fake “proceedings” for Jews and Nazi opponents, and were utterly unable to “show” any Nazi wrongdoing and/or “cause” for prosecution for murder of innocent Nazi opponents in concentration camps, this “order” is a criminal charade. TIME FOR “NUREMBERG TRIALS” OF “JUDICIAL TERRORISTS” 28. Here, the time for “Nuremberg Trials” has come. Here under public policy, said “judicial terrorists” in Atlanta are on trial for fraudulently concealing Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”, fraud, and eminent domain extortion…

6

CROOKED U.S. JUDGES CONTROVERTED BY SCIENCE WORLDWIDE PUBLICATIONS OF U.S. JUDICIAL CORRUPTION U.S. GOVERNMENTAL FORGERIES “O.R. 569/875”: IDIOTIC GOVERNMENTAL FABRICATIONS OF “LAW”

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

531 Documents 11 Subscribers 43,962 Reads 183 Downloads
mail@handwritingexpert.org.uk, pnina555@bezeqint.net, kim@kimwasley.com, forgeryhelp@sandrabasyefde.com, nadepres@handwriting-examiner.com, send2lorrie@yahoo.com, teresa@teresadeberry.com, forgeryhelp@sandrabasyefde.com, sheila@sheilalowe.com,

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Fraudulent alterations of words and letters in more than one forgery Writing in more than one font type Writing in more than one font size Writing in more than one writing style Misspelled words Misaligned typing Uneven spacing in the writing Missing portions of writing and/or printing Fraudulent paste-ups Incorrect vertical, horizontal and/or margin spacing Unclear and illegible fake stamp Smudged and illegible time stamp No signatures by any “lawmaker” No name(s) of any “lawmaker” Illegible and unclear fake handwriting Smeared and smudged imaging Inconsistent “trash marks” Different ink densities ….

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION JORG BUSSE Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-29SPC

LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; BOARD OF LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; KENNETH M. WILKINSON; LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER’S OFFICE; STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD OF [PAST & PRESENT] TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, AND DIVISION OF RECREATION AND PARKS; LEE COUNTY ATTORNEY; JACK N. PETERSON, Defendants. ___________________________________

OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the following motions: (1) defendant Property Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss and Close File (Doc. #285), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #302); (2) defendants State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees) and Florida Department of

Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Cause of Action (Doc. #291), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #316); (3)

defendant The Lee County Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of

Jurisdiction (Doc. #303), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #317); and (4) defendant Board of Lee County Commissioners’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #304), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #318). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his pleadings are

held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by an attorney and will be liberally construed. 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003). I. On December 10, 1969, the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County, Florida adopted the “Resolution Pertaining to Public Lands in Cayo Costa Subdivision”, Book 569, page 875 (the Resolution). The Resolution stated that the Second Revised Plat of the Cayo Costa Subdivision contained certain designated lot and block areas and other undesignated areas. The Resolution further noted that Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d

the plat contained certain un-numbered and unlettered areas lying East of the Easterly tier of blocks in the subdivision and lying West of the Westerly tier of blocks in the subdivision. The

Resolution stated that Lee County claimed the lands to the east and west of the tier of blocks as “public lands together with all accretions thereto” and “does by this Resolution claim all of said lands and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of the public for public purposes.” (Doc. #288, p. 9.)

Plaintiff Jorg Busse (plaintiff or Dr. Busse) asserts he is the current owner of Lot 15A of the Cayo Costa Subdivision and

-2-

accretions thereto. (Doc. #288, ¶¶ 1, 2.)

Plaintiff describes Lot

15A as being more than approximately 2.5 acres fronting the Gulf of Mexico with an estimated fair market value of more than $2 million. (Id. at ¶6.) Plaintiff asserts that the Resolution violates his

property rights in Lot 15A, which includes accretions, under both federal and state law. Count 1 sets forth a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff

alleges that the Resolution deprived him of his riparian rights, private easements, accreted property and privileges secured by the United States Constitution. Specifically, plaintiff asserts that

Lee County had no home rule powers or jurisdiction over the undedicated Cayo Costa Subdivision, and therefore the Resolution was unenforceable and in violation of the United States

Constitution. (Doc. #288, ¶13.) Plaintiff asserts that defendants confiscated more than 2.5 acres of his accreted property without compensation in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Id. at ¶14.) Plaintiff asserts that defendants also illegally took more

than 200 acres of private accretions onto Cayo Costa pursuant to the Resolution, all without compensation. (Id. at ¶15.) Further,

plaintiff asserts that “Defendant State Actors” claimed riparian rights to Lots 38A and 41A which they denied to plaintiff, thereby unlawfully discriminating against plaintiff because he is entitled to equal rights as the State property owner.
-3-

(Id. at ¶¶ 16, 27.)

Count 2 alleges an unconstitutional temporary taking under color of the Resolution. Plaintiff asserts that the Resolution was never signed, executed or acknowledged and did not meet resolution and recording requirements, and was therefore not entitled to be recorded and must be stricken from the public record. ¶17.) (Id. at

Plaintiff further alleges that the Cayo Costa Subdivision

was outside of Lee County’s home rule powers, and therefore the State and County had no powers to adopt resolutions or ordinances, and therefore the Resolution is unenforceable and ineffectual and the County capriciously (Id. at ¶18.) onto the grabbed private accreted land and

easements. his

Plaintiff asserts that defendants took riparian due gulf front of law, Lot 15A without notice,

accretions

authority,

justification,

process

public

hearing, vote count, or compensation, and that this unauthorized unconstitutional property value. taking injured plaintiff and destroyed his

(Id. at ¶19.) Plaintiff

Count 3 sets forth a state law claim for trespass.

alleges that since the 1969 Resolution the defendants have asserted that Lee County is the owner of the Cayo Costa accretions and have induced and caused the public to intrude onto the private beaches and other areas on Cayo Costa, injuring plaintiff’s property. (Id. at ¶¶ 20-21.) Plaintiff asserts that the State cannot exercise

power within the Subdivision east of the mean high water mark of the Gulf of Mexico and west of the mean high water mark of Charlotte Harbor. (Id. at ¶22.)
-4-

Count malfeasance.

4

alleges

a

conspiracy

to

fabricate,

fraud

and

Plaintiff asserts that the Lee County Property

Appraiser claimed that the Resolution entitled Lee County to ownership of the accreted property, but the County Appraiser has admitted that Lee County was not empowered to adopt the Resolution. (Id. at ¶23.) Plaintiff asserts that the Resolution on its face

did not meet recording or resolution requirements, and that the County Appraiser had a professional duty to verify the validity of the sham Resolution under the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that without evidence of title, defendants conspired to concoct an un-plated lot, block and park for the benefit of the State and County. Plaintiff also asserts that defendant (Id.) denied (Id. at ¶24.) agricultural

classification to his accreted lot.

Plaintiff asserts that

defendants destroyed most of his property value, deprived him of private easements without compensation, and denied equal protection in a land grab scheme. being to assist the (Id.) Plaintiff describes the agreement as confiscation of the

unconstitutional

accretions. Appraiser

(Id. at ¶25.) made

Plaintiff also asserts that the County valuation reports which were

incompetent

controverted by other comparable sales data and done in violation of Federal Appraisal Standards, but defendant continued to slander plaintiff’s perfect title. (Id. at ¶26.) As a result, plaintiff

received purchase offers far below market value and the County Appraiser has committed malfeasance and abuse of position.
-5-

(Id.)

Count 5 alleges a conspiracy to materially misrepresent and defraud. Plaintiff asserts that Lee County does not hold title to

the accreted property pursuant to the Resolution, and there has been no proceedings such as eminent domain or adverse possession. (Id. at ¶29.) Plaintiff asserts that Lee County’s claims of

ownership of the accretions therefore violated the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, and therefore defendants deprived the public of tax revenues which could have been received from the private accretions and easements. to (Id.) the Plaintiff asserts that defendants conspired extent of the Army Corps of Engineers’

misrepresent

authority over his lagoon.

(Id. at ¶32.)

Count 6 alleges oppression and slander of title by defendant Peterson for failing to challenge the invalidity of the Resolution despite his questions about its validity. (Id. at ¶¶ 33-35.)

The Third Amended Complaint asserts the Court has jurisdiction based on the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983), 28 U.S.C. § 1343, Articles 3 and 4 of the United States Constitution, and Amendments 4 and 5 of the United States Constitution (Doc. #288, ¶7), the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act (33 U.S.C. § 403)(id. at ¶8), the 1862 Homestead Act (id. at ¶9), the federal common law Doctrine of Accretion and Erosion (id. at ¶10), the Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (12 U.S.C. §§ 3331-3351), and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201)(id. at ¶12).
-6-

III. The Court will first address the federal claims, since these claims are necessary to provide subject matter jurisdiction. Given plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court reviews the Third Amended Complaint liberally. A. Takings Clause Claims: A consistent theme which runs through several of plaintiff’s counts is that the Resolution constitutes an unconstitutional taking of his property rights in his subdivision Lot 15A on Cayo Costa island.1 The legal principles are well-settled, and preclude

plaintiff’s takings claim. Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which states in pertinent part “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U.S. CONST. amend. V. The Fifth Amendment is applied to the States Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New (1978). The Third Amended

through the Fourteenth Amendment. York City, 438 U.S. 104, 121-23

Complaint may also be read to allege a conspiracy to violate the Takings Clause. State law defines the parameters of a plaintiff’s property interest, and whether state law has created a property interest is a legal question for the court to decide. Morley’s Auto Body, Inc.

See Lee County v. Morales, 557 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) for a description of Cayo Costa island and the Lee County zoning history of the island since 1978.
-7-

1

v. Hunter, 70 F.3d 1209, 1212 (11th Cir. 1996).

Under Florida law

a riparian or littoral owner owns to the line of the ordinary high water mark on navigable waters, and the riparian or littoral property rights include the vested right to receive accretions to the property. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust

Fund v. Sand Key Assocs., Ltd., 512 So. 2d 934, 936-37 (Fla. 1987); Brannon v. Boldt, 958 So. 2d 367, 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). These

rights constitute property, and cannot be taken or destroyed by the government without just compensation to the owners. Sand Key

Assoc., 512 So. 2d at 936; Lee County v. Kiesel, 705 So. 2d 1013, 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). “By now it is beyond question that a

permanent physical occupation of private property by the state constitutes a taking for which a landowner must be compensated.” New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe County, 95 F.3d 1084, 1088 (11th Cir. 1996)(citing Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1015 (1992) and Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 434 (1982)). Thus while plaintiff has adequately alleged a taking of his property, “a property owner has not suffered a violation of the Just Compensation to Clause just until the owner has unsuccessfully the procedures

attempted

obtain

compensation

through

provided by the State for obtaining such compensation . . .” Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 195 (1972). “Williamson County boils down to the rule

that state courts always have a first shot at adjudicating a
-8-

takings dispute because a federal constitutional claim is not ripe until the state has denied the would-be plaintiff’s compensation for a putative taking, including by unfavorable judgment in a state court proceeding.” F.3d Agripost, LLC v. Miami-Dade County, Fla., Without having

, 2008 WL 1790434 (11th Cir. 2008).

pursued such available state court remedies, a plaintiff’s Takings Clause claim is not ripe and therefore a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. Williamson County, 473 U.S. at

195; Watson Constr. Co. v. City of Gainsville, 244 Fed. Appx. 274, 277 (11th Cir. 2007); Garbo, Inc. v. City of Key West, Fla., 162 Fed. Appx. 905 (11th Cir. 2006). It has been clear since at least

1990 that Florida law provides a remedy of an inverse or reverse condemnation suit. Joint Ventures, Inc. v. Department of Transp.,

563 So. 2d 622, 624 (Fla. 1990); Tari v. Collier County, 56 F.3d 1533, 1537 n.12 (11th Cir. 1995); Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412, 1417 (11th Cir. 1994). Additionally, plaintiff could have

pursued an state action for declaratory judgment under FLA . STAT . § 86.011, a suit to quiet title, Trustees of Internal Imp. Fund of State of Florida v. Toffel, 145 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962), or a suit in ejectment if the matter is viewed as a boundary dispute. Petryni v. Denton, 807 So. 2d 697, 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The Third Amended Complaint does not allege that plaintiff pursued any state relief. Indeed, plaintiff has never suggested

that he has taken any action in state court to quiet title or receive damages under an inverse or reverse condemnation claim.
-9-

Since there is no showing of federal jurisdiction as to the Takings Clause claim, the Taking Clause claims and any conspiracy to violate the Takings Clause in any count will be dismissed without prejudice. B. Substantive Due Process Claim: A liberal reading of the Third Amended Complaint might suggest that plaintiff also frames the alleged taking of his property rights as a substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit has held, however, that there is

no independent substantive due process taking cause of action. Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610, 612-14 (11th Cir. 1997). Additionally, substantive due process protects

only fundamental rights, that is, those rights which are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Such rights are created by the Greenbriar

Constitution, and do not include property rights.

Village, LLC v. Mountain Brook City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2003). Merely asserting that the government’s actions were

arbitrary and irrational does not bring the matter within the protection of the substantive due process provision. Village, 345 F.3d at 1263-64. in the Third due Amended process Greenbriar

Therefore, those portions of counts which claim attempt or to assert will a be

Complaint takings

substantive dismissed.

conspiracy

-10-

C.

Procedural Due Process Claim: Plaintiff’s counts may also attempt to state a procedural due

process claim.

For example, plaintiff asserts that Lee County had

no home rule powers or jurisdiction over the undedicated Cayo Costa subdivision (Doc. #288, ¶¶ 13, 18, 23), that the Resolution was never signed, executed or acknowledged and did not meet resolution and recording requirements (id. at ¶¶ 17, 23), and that the taking was without authority, justification, due process, public notice, hearing, vote count, or compensation (id. at ¶19). “Procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before any government deprivation of a property interest.” Zipperer v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995). Not all government actions, however, are subject to a procedural due process claim. The County’s action in passing the Resolution

constituted a legislative act, and therefore plaintiff cannot state a procedural due process claim. 75 Acres, LLC v. Miami-Dade Plaintiff

County, Fla., 338 F.3d 1288, 1294 (11th Cir. 2003).

asserted that the Resolution effecting the taking of more than 200 acres other than his 2.5 acres. a legislative act. Equalization, 239 This is sufficient to constitute

See, e.g., Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of U.S. 441, 445 (1915)(noting that it is

impractical to give every one a voice when a legislative act applies to more than a few people). Additionally, even if not a

legislative act, a procedural due process claims does not exist

-11-

merely because state mandated procedures were not followed.

First

Assembly of God of Naples, Florida, Inc. v. Collier County, Fla., 20 F.3d 419, 422 (11th Cir. 1994). In this regard, some of the

allegations in the Third Amended Complaint are contradicted by the Resolution which is attached to it. The copy of the Resolution

attached to the Third Amended Complaint establishes that it was signed, executed, and duly recorded in the public records, and plaintiff will not be allowed to assert otherwise. The remaining

claimed defects are arguments concerning state law which do not arise to a constitutional level. Finally, plaintiff fails to state a procedural due process claim because he has failed to allege that Florida law provided him with an inadequate post-deprivation

remedy, Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378, 382 (11th Cir. 1996), and as discussed above it is clear that Florida does provide adequate post-deprivation remedies. Therefore, any claim founded on

procedural due process will be dismissed. D. Equal Protection Claim: Plaintiff also alleges that the Resolution violated his equal protection rights. “To properly plead an equal protection claim,

a plaintiff need only allege that through state action, similarly situated persons have been treated disparately.” Boyd v. Peet, 249 Fed. Appx. 155, 158 (11th Cir. 2007)(citation omitted). See also

Executive 100, Inc. v. Martin County, 922 F.2d 1536, 1552 (11th Cir. 1991). The Third Amended Complaint does not identify any

similarly situated person with whom plaintiff can be compared. The
-12-

Third Amended Complaint states that defendants have taken over 200 acres pursuant to the Resolution, far in excess of his 2.5 acres. The only assertion of disparate treatment is for those lots owned by government, which plaintiff alleges did not have their rights taken. However, a private owner such as plaintiff can not be Therefore,

compared to a public owner such as a government unit.

no equal protection claim is stated, and such claims will be dismissed without prejudice. E. Other Bases of Federal Jurisdiction: Having found no federal claim set forth in the Third Amended Complaint, the Court now examines the other purported bases of federal jurisdiction. Article III of the Constitution sets the outer boundaries of the federal court jurisdiction, but vests Congress with the

discretion to determine whether and to what extent that power may be exercised by lower federal courts. Therefore, lower federal

courts are empowered to hear only cases for which there has been a congressional grant of jurisdiction. Morrison v. Allstate Therefore

Indemnity Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2000).

Article III does not provide any additional basis of federal jurisdiction. Additionally, plaintiff’s reliance on Article IV of

the Constitution is misplaced because Article IV does not address the jurisdiction of a federal court. Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. § 1343 as a basis for federal jurisdiction. Section 1343 sets forth the jurisdiction of district
-13-

courts for certain civil rights actions, but does not itself create a private right of action. Albra v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 232 Since none of plaintiff’s

Fed. Appx. 885, 892 (11th Cir. 2007).

federal civil rights claims are properly before the court, § 1343 is not a basis for jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Plaintiff’s reliance on the 1899 Rivers and Harbors

Appropriation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 403 is misplaced. relates to the creation of an obstruction not

Section 403 authorized by

Congress, and simply not relevant to any of the claims in this case. The 1862 Homestead Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 161-64, cannot form Assuming

basis for jurisdiction because it was repealed in 1976.

there is a federal common law Doctrine of Accretion and Erosion, it cannot provide a jurisdictional basis in federal court. The

Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 12 U.S.C. § 3331-3351, also do not create federal jurisdiction. appraisals utilized 12 this These standards relate to real estate in § connection 1331, and with no federally related was

transactions, involved in

U.S.C. case.

such in

transaction the

Additionally,

Florida

county

property appraiser is a constitutionally created office whose appraisals are carried out pursuant to state statute, FLA . STAT . § 193.011 as well as professional appraisal standards established by the International Association of Assessing Officers and the

-14-

Appraisal Institute. (11th Cir. 1996). Therefore, the

Parrish v. Nikolits, 86 F.3d 1088, 1091 n.2

Court

finds

no

other

basis

of

federal

jurisdiction has been plead in the Third Amended Complaint. F. Remaining State Law Claims: The remaining possible claims in the Third Amended Complaint are all state law claims. Complaint may be read to Read liberally, the Third Amended allege a claim to invalidate the

Resolution for alleged state-law procedural defects, a state law claim of trespass, a state law claim of conspiracy to misrepresent, a state law claim of fraud, state law claims of malfeasance, a state law claim of oppression, and a state law claim of slander of title. Even assuming these are properly pled, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) the Court would exercise its discretion and decline claims. to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state

Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (11th

Cir. 2004)(encouraging district courts to dismiss state claims where all claims which provided original jurisdiction have been dismissed.) prejudice. Having The dismissal of the state claims will be without Crosby v. Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339, 1352 (11th Cir. 1999). found that this Court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction, and will not retain supplemental jurisdiction, the Court need not address the issues raised in the remaining

defendants’ motions to dismiss. Accordingly, it is now
-15-

ORDERED: 1. Defendant Property Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (Doc. #303) is GRANTED to the extent set forth in paragraph 5 below. 2. Defendant Property Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss and

Close File (Doc. #285) is DENIED as moot. 3. State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection

and Division of Recreation and Parks, State of Florida, and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund’s Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Cause of Action (Doc. #291) is GRANTED to the extent set forth in paragraph 5 below. 4. Defendants Lee County, Florida, Board of Lee County

Commissioners, Lee County Attorney, Jack N. Peterson’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #304) is GRANTED to the extent set forth in paragraph 5 below. 5. The Third Amended Complaint is dismissed without

prejudice as to all defendants and all claims.

The Clerk shall

enter judgment accordingly, terminate all pending motions as moot, and close the case. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this May, 2008. 5th day of

Copies: Parties of record

-16-

[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________ No. 08-13170 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MAR 5, 2009 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK

D. C. Docket No. 07-00228-CV-FTM-29-SPC JORG BUSSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, KENNETH M. ROESCH, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, versus LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, BOARD OF LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, KENNETH M. WILKINSON, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _________________________ (March 5, 2009)

Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jorg Busse, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his third amended complaint in his civil rights action against various state and local governmental entities and officials in Florida, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. The district court dismissed Busse’s federal claims because he had either failed to adequately plead them or had not established federal subject matter jurisdiction. In the absence of any viable federal claims, the court declined to retain jurisdiction over Busse’s state law claims. Based on our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we AFFIRM the dismissal. I. BACKGROUND On 10 December 1969, the Board of Commissioners of Lee County, Florida (“the Board”) adopted a resolution claiming certain lands in the Cayo Costa subdivision as public lands (“the Resolution”). R10-288 at 9. In the Resolution, the Board identified the relevant lands by reference to a map of the subdivision which showed that, along with a number of designated land parcels in the subdivision, there were also a number of unidentified areas on the eastern and western edges of the subdivision. Id. The Board laid claim to all of these nondesignated parcels “and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of the public for public purposes.” Id.

Busse asserts that he currently owns Lot 15A of the Cayo Costa subdivision along with all accretions thereto and that the Resolution violates his property rights under both federal and state law. Id. at 1. To vindicate his rights, he brought suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against an array of state and local parties, including the Lee County Board of Commissioners, the county property appraiser, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.1 Id. In his third amended complaint, Busse made six claims: unconstitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; unconstitutional temporary takings; trespass; conspiracy, fraud, and malfeasance regarding the designation of certain unplatted lots; conspiracy to materially misrepresent and defraud; and oppression or slander of title. Id. at 3–8. He asserted that an array of statutory and constitutional provisions supported the exercise of jurisdiction: two civil rights acts — 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343; Articles Three and Four and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act (33 U.S.C. § 403); the 1862 Homestead Act, the federal common law doctrine of

The full list of defendants includes: Lee County, Florida; the Board of Lee County Commissioners, in their official and private capacities; Kenneth M. Wilkinson, the Lee County property appraiser, in his official and private capacity; the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida, in their official and private capacities; the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida Division of Recreation and Parks, and the Cayo Costa State Park staff, in their individual and private capacities; and Jack N. Peterson, Lee County Attorney, in his official and private capacity. Id.

1

accretion and erosion; the Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, and 12 U.S.C. §§ 3331–3351; and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201). Id. at 2–3. The defendants subsequently filed separate motions to dismiss Busse’s third amended complaint, primarily based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. R10-285, 291, 303, 304. The district court granted these motions and dismissed Busse’s third amended complaint. R11-338. In so doing, the court first found that Busse had made out a valid takings claim but that it had no jurisdiction over that claim since he had failed to show that he had pursued all available state remedies before bringing suit. Id. at 7–10. The court then concluded that Busse had not made out a valid claim under any of his other alleged federal bases. Id. at 10–15. Given that the court did not have jurisdiction over any of Busse’s federal claims, it chose to dismiss his state law claims. Id. at 15. Busse now appeals the dismissal of all of the claims in his third amended complaint. II. DISCUSSION We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions regarding subject matter jurisdiction, including the determinations that a claim is not ripe or that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over it. See Lanfear v. Home Depot, Inc., 536 F.3d 1217, 1221 (11th Cir. 2008); Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1204 (11th Cir. 2006). We also “review a grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state

a claim de novo, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Gandara v. Bennett, 528 F.3d 823, 826 (quotation marks and citation omitted). The decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., 468 F.3d 733, 738 (11th Cir. 2006). Since Busse is proceeding pro se, we construe his pleadings liberally. See Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008). On appeal, Busse argues that the district court erred in dismissing his federal claims. He asserts that his Takings Clause claim was ripe for review and that he had properly stated claims involving violations of his procedural due process, equal protection, and substantive due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.2 Additionally, we read Busse’s brief liberally to argue that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. We address these arguments in turn. A. Takings Clause Claims
2

Busse’s brief on appeal does not discuss the other jurisdictional bases cited in his third amended complaint — Articles Three and Four of the United States Constitution; the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act; the 1862 Homestead Act; the federal common law doctrine of accretion and erosion; the Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, and 12 U.S.C. §§ 3331–3351; and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act. Generally arguments not raised in a brief on appeal are deemed abandoned. See Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1131 n.1 (11th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, we agree with the district court’s analysis of these provisions and find that none of them could serve as a potential jurisdictional basis for Busse’s claims. See, e.g., Arthur v. Haley, 248 F.3d 1302, 1303 n.1 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting that appellate courts can and should sua sponte inquire into subject matter jurisdiction whenever it appears to be lacking).

Busse contends that the Resolution constituted an unconstitutional taking of his property rights in Lot 15A. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of private property “for public use, without just compensation” — a condition made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. Const. amend. V; Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617, 121 S. Ct. 2448, 2457 (2001) (noting that the Fourteenth Amendment made the Takings Clause applicable to the States). A plaintiff can bring a federal takings claim only if he can show that he did not receive just compensation in return for the taking of his property. See Eide v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 720 (11th Cir. 1990). As a result, for a takings claim to be ripe, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he unsuccessfully “pursued the available state procedures to obtain just compensation” before bringing his federal claim. Id. at 721. In this case, Busse’s claim would not be ripe because he has not shown that he attempted to obtain or secure relief under established Florida procedures. Since at least 1990, Florida courts have recognized that an inverse-condemnation remedy is available for alleged takings violations. See Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412, 1417 (11th Cir. 1994). Busse contends that his claim would still be ripe since that remedy was unavailable in 1969 when the Board of Commissioners enacted the Resolution. However, our past circuit precedent dictates “that a Florida property owner must pursue a reverse condemnation remedy in state court

before his federal takings claim will be ripe, even where that remedy was recognized after the alleged taking occurred.” Id. Accordingly, regardless of whether Busse has a valid property interest in Lot 15A, because he has not alleged that he sought and was denied compensation through available state procedures, his Takings Clause claim would not be ripe for review. We thus conclude that the district court did not err in finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Busse’s Takings Clause claim. B. Procedural Due Process Claims Busse asserts that his procedural due process rights were violated since Lee County had no authority to take his land nor jurisdiction over it and because the Resolution was improperly executed. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. A plaintiff could make a procedural due process claim by challenging the procedures by which a regulation was adopted, including the failure to provide pre-deprivation notice and hearing. See Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610, 615 (11th Cir. 1997); Zipperer v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995). For such a claim to be valid, however, the plaintiff would have to allege that state law failed to provide him with an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378, 382 (11th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).

Based on these standards, we find that Busse has failed to state a valid procedural due process claim. Florida provides him an adequate post-deprivation remedy, inverse condemnation, and he makes no argument that this procedure is inadequate. Even if it was inadequate, though, Busse still would not have a valid procedural due process claim. The Resolution constituted a legislative act since it was a general provision that affected a large number of persons and area, 200 acres in all, rather than being specifically targeted at Busse or his immediate neighbors. See 75 Acres, LLC v. Miami-Dade County, Fla., 338 F.3d 1288, 1294 (11th Cir. 2003). Since alleged problems with the adoption of such acts cannot serve as the basis for a procedural due process claim, Busse could not cite them as the basis for his claim. See id. (noting that “if government action is viewed as legislative in nature, property owners generally are not entitled to procedural due process”). Accordingly, we find that the district court did not err in dismissing Busse’s procedural due process claims. C. Equal Protection Claims Busse also argues that his equal protection rights were violated because the Board, in adopting the Resolution, treated differently privately-owned property and state-owned property.3 The Fourteenth Amendment forbids states from “deny[ing]
3

In his brief on appeal, Busse argues that he experienced different treatment than other landowners in Lee County. However, we need not address this argument since he did not mention this in his third amended complaint and we find that none of the exceptions that would allow us to consider an issue not raised before the district court would apply here. See Narey v.

to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. “[T]o properly plead an equal protection claim, a plaintiff need only allege that through state action, similarly situated persons have been treated disparately.” Thigpen v. Bibb County, 223 F.3d 1231, 1237 (11th Cir. 2000) abrogated on other grounds by National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122 S. Ct. 2061 (2002). Under Florida law, counties can exercise eminent domain over any land that is not owned by the state or federal government. See Fla. Stat. § 127.01(1)(a) (2006). Since a state landowner would not be subject to the eminent domain power but Busse, as a private landowner, would be, Busse could not be similarly situated to a state landowner. Busse therefore cannot rely on his disparate eminent domain treatment vis-a-vis state landowners as the basis for an equal protection claim. Since Busse made no other allegations of disparity in his third amended complaint, we find that he has failed to plead a valid equal protection claim and that the district court correctly dismissed this claim. D. Substantive Due Process Claim Busse also appears to allege that the Resolution denied him his substantive due process property rights. Substantive due process protects only those rights that are “fundamental,” a description that applies only to those rights created by the

Dean, 32 F.3d 1521, 1526-27 (11th Cir. 1994) (discussing the exceptions to this general rule).

United States Constitution. See Greenbriar Village, L.L.C. v. Mountain Brook, City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Property rights would not be fundamental rights since they are based on state law. See id. Busse thus could not bring a viable substantive due process claim based on the alleged denial of a state-defined property right. See id. Accordingly, we find that the district court properly dismissed his substantive due process claims.4 E. Supplemental Jurisdiction Busse also contends that the court abused its discretion in not hearing his pendent state law claims. “The decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state claims rests within the discretion of the district court.” Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Since the district court “had dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it therefore had the discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Busse’s state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Furthermore, we expressly encourage district courts to take such action when all federal claims have been dismissed pretrial. See Raney, 370 F.3d at 1089. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse

The district court, in addressing Busse’s substantive due process claim, mentions that assertions of irrational and arbitrary government action could not serve as the basis for such a claim. Even under a liberal reading of Busse’s complaint, though, we do not think he made such allegations. In the third amended complaint, he discusses takings violations and procedural problems with the enactment of the Resolution but never questions the rationale for its passage. Accordingly, we need not address whether he has a valid substantive due process claim based on arbitrary and capricious government action.

4

its discretion when it chose not to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Busse’s state law claims. III. CONCLUSION Busse contends that the district court incorrectly dismissed his federal claims regarding alleged takings and deprivations of property rights. Since Busse’s takings claim was not ripe because he had not pursued available state remedies and he failed to adequately plead his other federal claims, the district court correctly dismissed all of these claims. As a result, despite Busse’s objections to the contrary, the district court also did not commit an abuse of discretion in not exercising jurisdiction over his state law claims. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Busse’s third amended complaint. AFFIRMED.

David Souter U.S. Supreme Court Justice RE: Lee County [FL] O.R.569/875 – An eminent domain scam of giant proportions Case-fixing in the U.S. Court of Appeals

We are writing to you in the matter of the corruption and case-fixing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Common intelligence dictates that residents use designated streets to get to their lots. Unintelligently, the 11th Circuit cannot tell the difference between a designated street and “unidentified areas”. See Plat Book 3, p. 25 at www.leeclerk.org. In West Peninsular Title Co.1, corrupt Chief Circuit Judge Edmondson co-wrote: “And, plaintiffs’ “arbitrary and capricious” due process claim is ripe. Plaintiffs accused the County of applying an arbitrary and capricious action .. Plaintiffs’ claim was ripe as soon as the County applied the ordinance … See Eide v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 724 n.13(11th Cir. 1990).” “But the County insists that adjoining landowners own the strip parcels, citing Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959), as an alternative to 16.33 Acres.” For Appellees’ bribes, Edmondson now changed his mind and conspired to pervert a platted designated street into an “unidentified area” in order to fix Appellants’ Cases. Here for bribes, ripeness vanished, and justice is for sale in the 11th Circuit. The Appellant(s) also own property in N.H. and wish you the best for your retirement. /s/ Jennifer Franklin Prescott /s/Dr. Jorg Busse

1

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/41/41.F3d.1490.93-4449.93-4104.html Volume 41, The Federal Reporter, 3d Ed. [Nov., 1994 – Jan., 1995]

41 F.3d 1490

Page 1 of 4

« up
This is Google's cache of http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/41/41.F3d.1490.934449.93-4104.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Mar 24, 2009 15:42:24 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more These search terms are highlighted: united states v 16.33 acres Text-only version

41 F.3d 1490 WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO., Absolute, Inc., Marion H. Cooper, for Estate of Alfred R. Cooper, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, Carol A. Roberts, Chair of Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County, Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 93-4104, 93-4449.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Jan. 10, 1995.
Patti A. Velasquez, Asst. County Atty., West Palm Beach, FL, Robert S. Hackleman, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for appellants in No. 93-4104. Sharon M. Pitts, Patti A. Velasquez, Asst. County Atty., West Palm Beach, FL, Robert S. Hackleman, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for appellants in No. 93-4449. Jeffrey A. Aman, Smith, Williams & Bowles, P.A., Tampa, FL, Joan E. O'Dell, Gregory L. Williams, Smith, Williams & Bowles, P.A., Washington, DC, for appellees in both cases. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Before HATCHETT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, MELTON* , Senior District Judge. PER CURIAM:

1

After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants raise several arguments, hoping mainly to void concessions made in district court in the joint pretrial stipulation. The district court is affirmed. The controversy concerns the ownership of strip parcels (roads and ditches) offered by Palm Beach Farms for dedication to Palm Beach County in 1912. A 1976 instrument entitled "Notice of Withdrawal of Platted Roads, Streets, and Other Unexercised Rights" revoked the offer of dedication. In 1986, pursuant to local Ordinance No. 86-18 (the "Ordinance"), defendant Palm Beach County (the

2

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009

41 F.3d 1490

Page 2 of 4

"County"), began a practice of selling easement and right of way interests in property originally acquired through dedication. In return for a "privilege fee," the County issued an abandonment resolution, which, when recorded, transferred ownership of the parcel to the payor of the fee. This dispute began when the County attempted to collect fees in exchange for abandonment resolutions for parcels that, according to plaintiffs, had never been accepted by the County. 3 Plaintiffs, claiming that they were successors in interest to Palm Beach Farms (and thus owners of the strip parcels), challenged the County's practice as an unconstitutional taking--under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments--of their property.1 The County conceded that it never expressly accepted the dedication; but, at trial, the County attempted to show that it had impliedly accepted the dedication by using the strip parcels. The jury found for plaintiffs, deciding that the County had not accepted the 1912 offer of dedication within a reasonable time. The district court entered judgment for plaintiffs: plaintiffs were judged the fee simple owners of the pertinent strip parcels; defendants were enjoined from applying the Ordinance to plaintiffs' property; and plaintiffs were awarded attorney's fees. Defendants appeal. The County now contests plaintiffs' standing, arguing that plaintiffs could not possibly own the strip parcels (and thus have no interest at stake). But given plaintiffs' allegations and the County's stipulations in the district court, the record supports both standing and jurisdiction. A "case or controversy" exists in this case because the parties genuinely disputed ownership of the strip parcels in the district court. The County stipulated to plaintiffs' chain of title, agreeing that plaintiffs were successors in interest to Palm Beach Farms. The controversy was thus limited to a decision about whether the offer of dedication was accepted.2 Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the application of the Ordinance to what they assert is their property. But the County insists that adjoining landowners own the strip parcels, citing Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959), as an alternative to 16.33 Acres. This decision is not about standing: what the County is really arguing is that plaintiffs failed to join indispensable parties. Amicus Boywic Farms agrees, arguing that it was harmed by the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Because the district court could only determine who, as between plaintiffs and the County, had the better claim to the strip parcels, amicus is not bound by the district court's order. It was no abuse of discretion for the district court to refuse to dismiss this case for failure to join indispensable parties. The County, as movant, had the burden "to show the nature of the unprotected interests of the absent parties," 5A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 1359; yet, the County's citation to the record reveals only that it established the existence of adjoining landowners (not the nature of allegedly unprotected interests). And, plaintiffs' "arbitrary and capricious" due process claim is ripe.3 Plaintiffs accused the County of applying an arbitrary and capricious action (asserting ownership to the strip parcels and recording abandonment resolutions which transferred title) to their property. Plaintiffs' claim was ripe as soon as the County applied the ordinance and the petition process (including a $400 nonrefundable application fee) to the undedicated strip parcels. See Eide v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 724 n. 13 (11th Cir.1990). The County argues that no subject matter jurisdiction exists because plaintiffs' claims are so frivolous. But the course of litigation and stance of the County in

4

5

6

7

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009

41 F.3d 1490

Page 3 of 4

district court undercuts its claim of frivolousness. We also note that the pretrial stipulation plainly reads that "[n]either party contests subject matter ... jurisdiction."4 If the County actually thought plaintiffs' claims were frivolous, it should not have so willingly conceded facts giving rise to jurisdiction in the stipulation. Because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' federal claims, the court did not err by including plaintiffs' state claims for declaratory relief--pendent jurisdiction was proper. 8 The County also argues that the district court erred by interpreting the stipulation as a "winner-take-all" proposition. That is, the County says it reserved a right to make several arguments, after the jury's fact finding, by referring to "undisposed of motions" in the stipulation. We disagree. The parties agreed that the jury's conclusion would "be outcome determinative of all of the federal and state claims." The County does not argue that it was unfairly duped into signing the stipulation. And, we owe great deference to the trial judge's interpretation and enforcement of pretrial stipulations. See Morrison v. Genuine Parts Co., 828 F.2d 708 (11th Cir.1987); Hill v. Nelson, 676 F.2d 1371, 1373 n. 8 (11th Cir.1982). In the light of the stipulations, the district court did not err when it refused to entertain the County's post-verdict motions. Defendants raise other arguments, none of which present grounds for reversal. The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
*

9

Honorable Howell W. Melton, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation
1

Application of the Ordinance, according to plaintiffs, put a "cloud" on plaintiffs' title because title to the strip parcels was transferred to the payor of the privilege fee. Plaintiffs' property was, in other words, not transferable so long as the County continued to demand fees for the "abandonment" of property it never owned
2

"[S]tanding cannot be waived and may be asserted at any stage of litigation." Harris v. Evans, 20 F.3d 1118, 1121 n. 4 (11th Cir.1994) (en banc). We disagree with the County's argument that plaintiffs' ownership claim is so obviously frivolous that standing could not possibly exist, regardless of stipulated facts pointing to standing. In support of this claim, the County cites the allegedly "remarkably similar" case of United States v. 16.33 Acres of Land, 342 So.2d 476 (Fla.1977), as binding precedent denying plaintiffs' ownership claim. But 16.33 Acres is distinguishable because in that case the government expressly accepted the offer of dedication. Id. at 479
3

Because we conclude that plaintiffs' arbitrary and capricious due process claim was ripe, we say nothing about whether plaintiffs' additional constitutional claims were ripe. We do note, however, that plaintiffs were not granted relief pursuant to a specific claim. Instead, the County stipulated that plaintiffs would be entitled to the remedies requested if plaintiffs prevailed on any of the disputed fact issues
4

Parties may not stipulate jurisdiction. Bush v. United States, 703 F.2d 491, 494 (11th Cir.1983). And we do not say that jurisdiction was proper because jurisdiction was stipulated. Instead, we look to the record; we affirm the district court's conclusion that

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009

41 F.3d 1490

Page 4 of 4

the stipulated facts give rise to jurisdiction. For example, the County argues frivolousness by pointing to purported transfers--by plaintiffs' predecessors in interest-that the County says are null and void. But the County stipulated to plaintiffs' chain of title; and, the County agreed that it was undisputed that "plaintiffs are the successors in interest to the Palm Beach Farms Company." The record was set in district court
CC∅ | TRANSFORMED BY PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful