,f~_,

'1./

J .: --'.; -"'" --

- r ~LL:.LJ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVIS I dI!lG 1 NOV 14 Prl 3: 58

-'~ ......... ,.

JORG BUSSE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

) LEE COUNTY, --FLORIDA, et a 1., )

)

Defendants. )

----~----------------------)

CASE NO: 2:07-cv-228-FTM-29sPC

Fort Myers, Florida November 7, 2007 9:30 A.M.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS BEFORE THE HONORABLE SHERI POLSTER-CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

APPEARANCES:

For the plaintiff:

JORGE BUSSE, Pro Se

For the Defendants:

SHERRI L. JOHNSON, ESQUIRE Dent & Johnson, chartered 3415 Magic oak Lane Sarasota, Florida 34232

MARTINA REPORTING SERVICES

The courtney Building

2069 First Street - Suite 201 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (239) 334-6545 / FAX (239) 332-2913

1

- t

~ ...,._ ~- "}

- -~

7

2

1

2 3

A P PEA RAN C E S (continued)

For the Defendants: 4 (via speakerphone)

LINDA KATHRYN FUNCHESS, ESQUIRE REAGAN KATHLEEN RUSSELL, ESQUIRE Florida Department of Environmental protection

MS 35

3900 commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

5

6

8 Reported By: 9

PATSY LYNN COLEMAN, RPR

10 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9 THE COURT: HoW are you?
10 MS. JOHNSON: Fine. Thank you.
11 MR. BUSSE: Good morning, Your Honor.
12 Dr. Busse. I'm the plaintiff, pro se.
13 THE COURT: Good morning. 14 Mr. Busse, I set this case for hearing on october 15 22nd and the purpose of the hearing today is to discuss the 16 property Appraiser's motion for Rule 11 sanctions. They

17 had filed that on August 9th of 2007. That's Document

18 Number 97. So at this point that's really what we're going 19 to be discussing today and the purpose of this hearing.

20 so, Ms. Johnson, I would ask, since it is your

21 motion, that you proceed with your argument in that regard.

24 go through a brief procedural background and then talk a 25 little bit about the entitlement to sanctions and what

22 23

4

MS. JOHNSON: Yes, Your Honor.

okay. Your Honor, what I'd like to do ;s just

3

1

THE CLERK: Calling case Number 2:07-cv-228-

2 FTM-29SPC, Jorge Busse versus Lee county, Florida, et 3 al.

THE COURT: If the parties would introduce

5 themselves for the record, please.

6

MS. JOHNSON: Hi. I'm Sherri Johnson and I

7 represent Ken wilkinson, the Lee county property Appraiser, 8 who's seated here beside me.

1 sanctions might be appropriate 1n this case if the Court 2 determines to issue them.

3 The plaintiff in this case filed his original

4 complaint back in April of this year and an amended

5 complaint in late May. Among other things -- it seems

6 to be a dispute over the ownership of some property; but

7 among other things, he alleged that the Property Appraiser, 8 my client, had conspired with the other governmental

9 defendants to -- basically to fraudulently take his

10 property.

11 The Property Appraiser filed a motion to dismiss,

12 which was later granted by Judge Steele. However, while

13 our motion to dismiss was pending, the plaintiff continued 14 to file multiple, as in several a day, pleadings, which

15 included multiple frivolous motions for summary judgment.

16 After receiving my motion for sanctions,

17 Mr. Busse did not withdraw his amended complaint or 18 any of his motions. Rather than withdraw any of his 19 pleadings, instead, on July 30th he filed a motion to

20 add the defendant attorneys as parties and began accusing 21 not just the parties but their attorneys of professional 22 misconduct and assisting their clients with criminal

23 fraud and various other misdeeds.

24 He also filed a motion for criminal prosecution;

25 and ln that motion he alleged that the defendants and their

4

5

1 lawyers have known for decades that the county's 1969

2 resolution was, ln his words, bogus. He also basically 3 alleged that we assisted in I guess fabricating deeds,

4 forgeries. And just to give you an idea of why I believe 5 these are completely frivolous, that 1969 resolution was

6 actually passed four years before I was born, so obviously ? I could not have participated in fabricating it; and as

8 far as knowing for decades of anything, lIve been practicing 9 for nlne years, so that would be a physical impossibility.

10 On August 7th Judge Steele dismissed the

11 plaintiff's amended complaint; but he gave the plaintiff

12 leave to amend his complaint and he wrote a rather detailed 13 order explaining to the plaintiff, because he is a pro se

14 litigant, what he would need to do in order to file a proper 15 pleading in this Court.

16 The plaintiff did file a second amended complaint,

17 but it was just as improper as the first two complaints and 18 continued to violate pretty much all of the rules of civil 19 procedure. In this one, however, he went even further and 20 he claimed to be representing four additional property

21 owners. Those property owners later had to pay to hire

22 their own personal attorneys to get them out of this case

23 because it turned out that these four alleged plaintiffs

24 that he purported to be representing were not -- had never 25 authorized him to include them as plaintiffs in this case.

6

1 Since I filed my motion for sanctions back this

2 summer, the plaintiff has increased the frequency of his

3 pleadings, sometimes filing -- I think I got the other day 4 ten pleadings in one day. All of them are frivolous. In 5 addition, he e-mails copies of all his pleadings, motions 6 and correspondence to a list of -- I believe I counted 80 7 e-mail recipients. Among the e-mail recipients are staff

8 members of The Florida Bar, various law enforcement agencies 9 and various news organizations.

10 I have a copy of the e-mail list as a visual aid

11 so you can see what I'm talking about.

12 As far as the entitlement to sanctions go, Rule

13 11 -- and I have a copy if you'd like, but Rule lICe) allows 14 a court to impose sanctions if it determines that an

15 attorney or an unrepresented party has violated Rule lICb). 16 And then Rule 11Cb) sets forth the four, basically, things 17 that attorney or unrepresented party is supposed to certify 18 to when they file any paper in the Court.

19 Rule 11(b)(I) provides that a party presenting 20 a pleading, motion or other paper to the Court certifies 21 that to the best of the person's knowledge, information 22 and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the

23 circumstances, that the paper's not being presented for any 24 improper purpose, such as to harass or cause unnecessary

25 delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

1

programs in their office; and he has not responded to

2

It is our position that the plaintiff's multiple dilatory pleadings, motions and other papers that he files

3

in this court are basically being filed solely to harass

4

the parties and their attorneys.

5

He has been cautioned by this court about

6

following the rules of civil procedure and the local

7 I

rules, but he has continued to ignore them and to file

8

basically what amounts to the same documents over and

9

over and over, with the same attachments over and over.

10

sometimes the titles are changed somewhat, sometimes the relief is changed; but it's basically the same documents.

11

12

He sends copies of every document filed in this case to the 80 people that I told you about; and I can already tell you that the staff members at The Florida Bar have sent him e-mails asking him to please stop copying

13

14

15

16

them because, like us, it's freezing up their e-mail

17

18 those requests. He's continued to copy these people

19 against their wishes.

20 Following receipt of my motion for sanctions,

21 he retaliated against us by accusing the parties' attorneys 22 of crimes, professional misconduct, reporting us to the

23 Bar, et cetera, et cetera, and routinely demanding that

24 we be sanctioned, in a nutshell, merely because we had

25 the temerity to come into this court and represent our

7

9 10

1 2 3

modification or reversal of existing law.

The plaintiff in this case has filed many documents that are not recogni zed anywhere i n th~1tW~af"'"

4

defendants and take a position that 1S adverse to the plaintiff's.

So I believe that the pleadings filed ln this case, the motions, do violate Rule 11(b)(1) and I also

5

believe they violate the next two, II(b)(2) and II(b)(3).

Rule 11(b)(2) provides that the filing party certifies that the claims, defenses and other legal contentions in the document are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension,

6

7

8

11

12

13 Rules -- or Federal Rules of civil Procedure. He has filed

14 at least five motions for summary judgment and he has not

15 filed any affidavits in support of those motions for summary 16 judgment. At the time he filed them, no discovery had been

17 done, so he filed these five motions for summary judgment

18 with absolutely no support for them other than just

19 documents that he submits to the court, which you cannot do.

20 His documents repeatedly demand sanctions against

21 the attorneys merely for essentially defending their clients 22 in this case. Some of his documents request criminal

23 prosecution, which is, of course, beyond the scope of this 24 case or this Court. He also, obviously, included parties 25 as plaintiffs that had never even authorized him to include

8

1 them.

2 And also, as far as the legal sufficiency of what

3 he's done, normally conversations between counsel would be 4 privileged; but he actually filed a copy of correspondence 5 from his prior attorneys, Brigham Moore, with this Court

6 in support of his own claims; and the letters indicate that 7 his counsel at Brigham Moore; prior to termination of their 8 relationship, had advised him to drop this Federal Court

9 case and advised him to drop his criminal complaints. So

10 it appears that Mr. Busse did have counsel advise him about 11 the meritlessness of his actions; but he continued to pursue 12 them.

13 And then finally, Rule 11(b)(3) requires a party

14 filing a document to certify that the allegations and other 15 factual contentions have evidentiary support. In this case 16 the plaintiff's pleadings do not merely stop at alleging a 17 dispute over the ownership of his property on Cayo Costa. 18 If it were as simple as that, we probably wouldn't be here

9

19 today. Instead, the plaintiff has gone farther. He's
20 alleged that the defendants and now their attorneys as well
21 have deliberately and intentionally engaged in a criminal
22 conspiracy to defraud him and other property owners on (ayo
23 costa. He's alleged, as I said, in some documents the 24 defendants, their attorneys, falsified deeds and other

25 documents in order to take his property; and, Your Honor,

1 these are serlOUS accusations and he has never come forward 2 with any evidence to substantiate any intention to commit

3 fraud by any of these defendants and certainly not their

4 attorneys. The entire basis for all of these claims by

5 him seem to be just the fact that we're defending this

6 lawsuit.

7 That brings us to the lssue of sanctions and

8 what would be appropriate.

9 The schramek case, which I've cited to you,

10 says that if a paper filed in this court violates Rule II, 11 sanctions are mandatory; but the question is what would be 12 an appropriate sanction.

13 Rule 11(c)(2) lists the sanctions that can

14 be issued by this Court. They include directives of a

15 nonmonetary nature. an order to pay a penalty into court, 16 or, if warranted for effective deterrence, an order

17 directing payment to the movant of some or all of their 18 attorney's fees incurred.

19 In my motion I asked for two sanctions. I asked

20 for an order restricting the plaintiff from continuing to 21 file documents with this court unless he is represented by 22 an attorney or obtains prior leave of court; and I also

23 asked for payment of some or all of my client's attorney's 24 fees.

25 In this instance I do think that the most

10

1 appropriate sanction and the sanction that would be the 2 most effective would in fact be an order restricting the 3 plaintiff's ability from continuing to file further

4 documents with the clerk of Court.

S I've cited you to two cases, the Martin-Trigona

6 case and the schramek case.

1 The Martin-Trigona, which I sent you a copy

8 of, it's an Eleventh Circuit case in which the Eleventh

9 Circuit said that an injunction entered by a District Court 10 in the state of Connecticut restricting a vexatious pro se 11 litigant from filing actions without leave of court was

12 appropriate and would be enforced in the Eleventh Circuit.

13 And then the Schramek case, that, of course, 1S

14 the Paula Jones case; and that comes out of the Middle

15 District. In that case this court said that because the 16 pro se litigant had been a party to 15 lawsuits in the

17 Tampa division of the court, the Court would prohibit him 18 from filing any further actions.

19 NOW, this case is a little different because

20 what we're not talking about, although we may end up

21 getting to that point -- we're not talking about at this 22 point prohibiting him from filing more, separate actions. 23 We're already in this case and I guess what I'm asking is 24 for him to be prohibited from continuing to file frivolous 25 motions and pleadings because that really -- even though

~1

1 the parties have all filed motions to dismiss, and I do

2 hope this case will be dismissed at some point, the problem 3 we're facing now 1S that again, yesterday, there were ten

4 documents to come through. we're responding to and reading, 5 you know, such a myriad of documents and pleadings, all of 6 which have basically no merit, that it's really becoming

7 costly and unduly harming the parties.

8 I also believe it would be appropriate to order

9 the plaintiff to pay the property Appraiser's attorney's

10 fees for responding to all of this. In the Patterson v. 11 Aiken case which I've cited to you, an Eleventh Circuit

12 case, the court found one count of a pro se litigant's

13 complaint to be frivolous and did find a proper sanction 14 was to order the plaintiff to pay the attorney's fees for 15 responding to that count. And if the Court determines

16 that that is the way it wants to go, I have prepared an

17 affidavit. We can discuss the amount of fees or that can 18 be set for a separate hearing, however the court wished to 19 go.

20 But I do think the most significant thing we're 21 asking for today and the thing that would really curb the 22 abuse of the system would be some type of restriction on 23 the plaintiff's ability to continue filing documents with 24 the Clerk of court unless they're signed by an attorney or 25 he receives leave of court to file them.

12

1 THE COURT: All right. Discuss with me the

2 affidavit that you've prepared. What would you be

3 proposlng, if that was appropriate under the circumstances, 4 the amount of attorney fees?

5 MS. JOHNSON: Well, Your Honor, I can tell you

6 right now the attorney's fees incurred to date in this

7 case are about $25;000. Broken down -- I broke it down 8 for you in there as far as what that covers.

9 Basically, there have been about 238 documents

10 filed in this case in the last six months, so my fees are 11 $150 an hour, and that came out to about one hour per

12 business day since this case was filed, which is about

13 what it takes to go through and respond to everything

14 that's been done.

15 Basically, what that would include is, obviously,

16 revlewlng everything that's come in this case. I believe 17 I've responded to some, not all of the motions in the last 18 month or so. I kind of declined to respond to every single 19 motion that's come through. I've filed three motions to

20 dismiss, a motion to strike, the motion for sanctions,

21 responded to discovery requests by Mr. Busse. I've also

22 attended a case management down here in Fort Myers. And

23 the normal, usual research and meeting with the parties

24 and their attorneys.

25

So, like I said, I have the affidavit. I'd be

13

1 happy to submit it if you'd like.

2 THE COURT: All right. Yes, I would ask you to

3 do that.

4 MS. JOHNSON: May I approach, Your Honor?

5 THE COURT: You may.

6 MS. JOHNSON: And, Your Honor, I will say, as

7 stated in the affidavit, everything that's in here is based 8 on contemporaneous time records. However, I did not attach 9 the time records because this is an ongoing case and I do

10 feel that they would include work product, so if it were 11 at the end of the case I would.

12 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

13 All right. Mr. Busse, this is your opportunity

14 at this time to address the issue of the motion that's

15 before the Court. It's really not to go through and

16 discuss your case or to try your case. It's merely to

17 answer to the allegations in the motion that you have been 18 filing frivolous motions before the (ourt, accusatory

19 motions and pleadings and whatnot. So that's what I need 20 to hear from you.

21 MR. BUSSE:

22 THE COURT:

23 MR. BUSSE:

Right.

Not anything about your case.

Your Honor, the Rule 11 deals with

24 THE COURT:

Mr. Busse, you're gOlng to have

25 to be near a microphone so that she can get this down.

14

4

near a microphone. ~ ..

~;;.,,,,~I3:U&&E.:Rule 11 deals with representations

to this court for improper purposes with lack of factual

15

1 Obviously, I'm sure you want to make sure there's a record

2 of everything, as does everyone. So if you're going to be 3 speaking from there, that's okay. We just need to have you

5

6

7 support. I brought to you the ultimate issue before this

8 Court, which is the plat of survey of the cayo Costa

9 subdivision. The representation by all defendants of a 10 fictitious Lot A and a Block 1 is frivolous. There is

11 entirely no factual support whatsoever for a Lot A or a

12 B10ck 1.

13 You have the legal authority to interrogate

14 counsel and ask one question pertaining to the ultimate

15 issue: IS there a Lot A and a Block 17 Yes or no. with

16 an answer by defendants to that question, this case will

17 be over. You have personally the authority to determine 18 if there is a Lot A on this official publication in plat

19 Book 3, page 25. It is entirely frivolous in the absence 20 of any evidence whatsoever of a Lot A and a Block 1 to

21 make all these claims. The defenses of the defendants have
22 been unwarranted because of a complete, a complete lack of
23 factual support.
24 This lS the document officially published in Lee
25 County showing to you and any fact finder that there never 1 was a Lot A and a Block 1.

2 You personally and any other member would not

3 like their front yard and backyard to be taken without due 4 process, just compensation, without any legal justification. 5 I have been deprived and defrauded of my property. 6 There is no Lot A. There is no Block 1. You cannot in the 7 absence of a legal description survey any Lot A.

8 The Property Appraiser claims exactly 107.41

9 acres. It is impossible for any surveyor in the United

10 States to come up with that figure. It is impossible to 11 perform any survey in the absence of a Lot A.

12 All legal descriptions in this very subdivision

13 of Cayo Costa were made in reference to this very plat and 14 perhaps three prior plats. In the absence of a Lot A, you 15 cannot survey, you cannot legally describe Lot A.

16 The property Appraiser in his worldwide official

17 publications claims in a fraudulent manner that my front 18 yard, that 90 percent, approximately, of my property are a 19 park. This is impossible. Before this court have been

20 mUltiple documents, federal, state, and county documents, 21 that there cannot be a Lot A. The property Appraiser

22 professes worldwide, publishes worldwide, sells worldwide 23 information stating, asserting that my property 15 a park. 24 There;s not one shred of evidence anywhere in the federal, 25 state and/or local data bases that this is true. So the

16

17

1 conduct that needs to be deterred here is clearly and 2 conclusively the conduct of the defendants.

3 There's nothing frivolous at all about the

4 plaintiff stating to this court that the fraud of Lot A 5 and Block 1 deprives and defrauds the plaintiff and

6 approximately 100 other property owners.

7 You can with your authority determine that none

8 of the eight lettered lots on this very plat shows a Lot A, 9 that none of the 56 blocks on this plat depict a Block 1.

10 So there's a legal impossibility of the claimed, frivolously 11 claimed, unwarrantedly claimed ownership of Lee county of a 12 Lot A and a Block 1.

13 The survey before this Court -- and here 1S

14 another copy with a seal -- shows that the natural boundary 15 of the plaintiff's property is the mean high water mark of 16 the Gulf of Mexico. This is entirely consistent with the 17 depiction of the Gulf of Mexico as the natural boundary of 18 plaintiff's riparian gulf front Lot 15~A.

19 under Rule 11, the representations of defendants

20 and in particular defendant Property Appraiser, to this

21 court are frivolous, entirely unsupported.

22 I had asked the Property Appraiser to cease and 23 desist the worldwide publications and sales of fictitious 24 data of a Lot A and Block 1, which never existed, which 25 cannot be shown on this very admissible evidence of the

1 cayo Costa subdivision plat.

2 I have been deprived of the rights which were

3 granted to the original developer and owner, Mr. Alexander 4 C. Rush, as depicted on this plat. On the four -- and

5 this is the fourth of four -- plats, the federal and

6 constitutionally guaranteed rights to receive accretions, 7 subdivide accretions and sell accreted lands are all

8 captured in those four officially published plats of the 9 cayo Costa subdivision.

10 I have the very same rights, the very same

11 constitutionally guaranteed federal rights that Mr. Rush

12 had. Both Mr. Rush and myself are the signees of a federal 13 land patent, meaning there was a conveyance of land from

14 the united States to Mr. Rush.

15 I have provided perfect and paramount evidence

16 of my legal title, which is derived from said federal land 17 patent. There are federal surveys before this Court, there 18 are the data by the United States Bureau of Land Management, 19 all affirming my perfect legal title to approximately more 20 than 2.5 acres of riparian land, which the property

21 Appraiser claims is a park, which the Property Appraiser 22 worldwide publishes 1S a park.

23 So coming to Rule 11, here there is entirely

24 frivolous conduct in the face of massive conclusive evidence 25 to continue with these false and fraudulent allegations.

1 The property Appraiser knows that each and every

2 property in Lee county has a property identification and/or 3 strap and/or folio number. There are seven digits. The

4 reference to this very plat as recorded in plat Book 3 on

5 Page 25 is made in the fourth two-digit block, which for

6 properties in the subdivision is 01. 01 designates this

7 second revised plat of the cayo Costa subdivision. The

8 Property Appraiser in the last block, four-digit block,

9 designates Lot A to be legally owned by Lee county.

10 Your Honor, th;s is legally impossible. No

11 surveyor in the united States would be capable to survey, 12 to put those boundaries anywhere on the ground. The claim, 13 the publication of l07.4l acres is blatantly fraudulent.

14 Your Honor, I am a physician and also a state

15 certified appraiser who cannot appraise a property in the 16 absence of a legal description. You are personally and 17 any other person in this room unable to identify, legally 18 describe a Lot A as assigned by the Property Appraiser to 19 the accreted lands abutting the Gulf of Mexico.

20 THE COURT: MI. Busse, let me just interrupt you

21 for a minute. You're telling me about your case and why 22 you believe that you should prevail on your case.

23 MR. BUSSE: I believe that the conduct to be

24 deterred is the conduct by the defendant Appraiser. It is 25 just the other way around.

19

1 Now, 1n this very motion the Property Appraiser

2 wants to continue to take my property, deprive me of my

3 right to assert my property in the complete absence of a 4 shred of evidence.

S Your Honor, this is the only document, the only

6 ultimate issue, which all defendants have resisted over

7 and over and over to answer. If you interrogate, ask the 8 question, 1S there a Lot A, we are done, because you can 9 determine there is not. There is no need for factfinders,

10 1 .e., a jury, to make a determination that every person, 11 a child of reasonable intelligence, could determine that 12 there is no Lot A, there is no Block 1.

13 This is what I have called fraud; and it

14 1S impertinent, immaterial and presented for improper

15 purposes to have me pay the expenses to assert my federal 16 constitutionally guaranteed rights to not have the property 17 Appraiser publish worldwide every day that my front yard is 18 a park.

19

20

I have presented to defendants and this

20 Honorable Court clear evidence that I am told my 2.5 acres 21 are essentially a park; that I have been denied access to 22 the property via the gulf, via charlotte Harbor. The

23 defendants have claimed worldwide that both riparian

24 properties called fraudulently Lot A and Block 1 are theirs, 25 when it is entirely impossible.

21

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Busse, you are arguing

1

2 your case to me; and I appreciate the fact that you're 3 telling me about your case and I understand that. The

4 point is you have filed a complaint and then you were able 5 through Judge Steele's order to file an amended complaint. 6 That's what the courts are for.

7 when you come to court and you file a complaint,

8 the defendants have the opportunity and the right, just

9 as you have the right to file a complaint, to defend that 10 complaint.

11 And you may -- that's how disputes happen. You 12 may believe that they have absolutely no evidence of that 13 and you are -- I can tell you're convinced that that's the 14 case; but they, just as you, have the right to come into 15 court and defend their position.

16 You need to tell me why you believe it's

17 appropriate in motion after motion to accuse them of 18 fraud, accuse the attorneys of perpetrating frauds on

19 the Court. If they're arguing their position, they have 20 a right to do that; and in no less than 141 motions that 21 were filed after the Rule 11 sanctions motion, you have 22 continued to reiterate those types of things, even after

23 the court on three separate occasions no one's preventing

24 you from coming into court to argue your position. But on 25 three separate occasions, on May 17th of this year, June 7th

22

1 of this year and aga1n on June 12th, I cautioned you about 2 continuing to make those kind of allegations.

3 You have every right to be ln court with a

4 complaint, but they have every right to answer to that

5 complaint; and they have now filed again, I guess, motions 6 to dismiss that are pending and that will be ruled on.

7 If the motion to dismiss is denied; then obviously

8 at some point this case is going to come to a head and come 9 to a trial; but to continue to file motion after motion

10 after motion that not only, one, generally contains the 11 same type of allegations, but, two, contains voluminous 12 attachments that sometimes when reading them they're very 13 difficult to determine exactly what it is that the court 14 can do in responding to those.

15 So I need to hear from you why you thought it

16 was necessary, even after the court's admonitions and after 17 you were advised through the filing of the Rule 11 sanctions 18 motion, that it was still appropriate to go ahead and file 19 another;~~~¢;·:mQripn.shn a very short span of time between

20 August and now, today, in November.

21 MR. BUSSE: Your Honor, this 1S a deception, has

22 been a deception upon the public in general Slnce 1969.

23 The records are supporting the mUltiple inquiries by members 24 of the public pertaining to the fraud of a Lot A and a Block 25 1. This is a massive fraud where three governmental

13

THE COURT: okay. But, Mr. Busse, the point is

1 agencies conspired to misrepresent a lot which never 2 existed, which you can determine to not exist on this

3 official publication, the authenticity of which defendants 4 can certify.

5 The term "fraud" is based on the defining legal

6 elements which are before this Court. In the absence of 7 any legal description, to claim more than 200 acres worth 8 more than two hundred millions of dollars, clearly and

9 conclusively appears to be fraud. This is an absolute

10 impossibility. It is entirely impossible to exist.

11 THE COURT: Okay. But if you filed one motion

12 saylng that, why file another 141 motions saying that?

MR. BUSSE: Because I have not received a

14 response to your 9-13-2007 order. Defendant state has

15 declared to acquire this entire subdivision through means 16 of fraud. I challenge the defendants to show good cause 17 why this 1S not fraud.

18 I conferred with Ms. Johnson as per the records

19 for approximately 30 minutes and requested kindly to cease 20 and desist these publications; and in answering a question, 21 these publications make me entirely unable to use my

22 property because I'm denied access from the gulf to the 23 property, I'm denied access from Charlotte Harbor, I'm

24 denied access by vehicle across the east-west trail. why

25

23

1 that's what this dispute is about. And if they were in 2 agreement with you that you should have access or that 3 property is yours, then we wouldn't be here. But we're 4 here because they're not 1n agreement with you.

5 MR. BUSSE: Your Honor ~-

6 THE COURT: Tell me what motion you're saying on

7 9~13 that you were waiting for a response on.

8 MR. BUSSE: Your Honor, I am a broker associate

9 or a certified broker and a state certified appraiser,

10 appraiser instructor and licensed mortgage broker. I have 11 a reasonable familiarity with the issue.

12 THE COURT: Okay. But answer my question. What 13 exactly are you waiting for? What september 13th order is 14 going to help you solve this issue?

15 MR. BUSSE: Why are defendants state not 1n

16 contempt for not responding to your September 13th order 17 to respond to plaintiff's interrogatories?

18 Again, I want to underline and emphasize that

19 this is about the just and speedy determination of one

20 ultimate issue. And I point out to you today: why hasn't 21 anybody since April, and as far as the state court matter 22 15 concerned, since 2006, presented one, one single piece 23 of evidence to support their claim that there is a Lot A 24 and/or a Block 1, when the world can see on this official 25 publication that there is none?

24

25

1

2 to that. 3

4

THE COURT: Okay. We're not going to get back

MR. BUSSE: Sure.

THE COURT: I understand that argument. I

5 understand what your argumen1: is; and certainly that

6 would be something that you could argue strenuously. I 7 understand.

8 Is the defendant -- do you know specifically

9 what document he's talking about that the court has not

10 either ruled on or is waiting for?

11 MS. JOHNSON: Your Honor, I know that the court 12 did order the defendants -- and it was unclear whether it 13 was all the defendants or if it was just the state because 14 it was the state's motion for protective order; but when 15 the state filed a motion for protective order on the

16 interrogatories, you did enter an order directing us to

17 respond to the first 25 of the 80 interrogatories. I wasn't 18 sure if it applied to us; but we did go ahead and serve

19 answers to those interrogatories, so they have been served.

20 THE COURT: All right.

21 MR. BUSSE: Your Honor, I have not received a

22 single response from the State of Florida pursuant to your 23 9-13 order.

24 THE COURT: And, counsel, you are indicating that

25 you served those on him?

18

MR. BUSSE: Your Honor, that 15 correct. They

1

MS. JOHNSON: Well, Your Honor, I represent the

2 defendant Lee County property Appraiser.

3

THE COURT: Right.

MS. JOHNSON: And I did -- he may not be happy

4

5 with my answers, and r'm sure that's an issue, but I did

6 serve answers. And I believe the state did, although she's 7 on the phone, so maybe she can respond.

8

THE COURT: Can you respond to that? I'm sorry,

9 if you could state your name.

10

MS. FUNCHESS: My name 1S Kathryn Funchess, for

11 the Board of Trustees and Department of Environmental

12 protecti on.

13 We sent the responses to interrogatories via DHL.

14 That came back to us. It was not picked up. We also sent

15 responses via U.S. Mail; and when Mr. Busse said -- was

16 complaining that he had not received responses, we sent

17 them via e-mail to his AOL account.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Busse, they're

19 indicating that actually by three separate means that they 20 served you with the answers. Are you indicating to this 21 court that you did not receive those either bye-mail, by

22 letter or by regular mail or by --

23

24 certified to this court that they submitted their responses 25 by DHL. I have tried for a tracking certification, where

26

27

1 this could have possibly gone. It never came to me.

2 All defendants have not cooperated in any

3 meaningful way -- and 1'm presenting this concern to you 4 ln any meaningful way in answering one simple, ultimate 5 simple question: Is there a Lot A or Block 17

6 It is frivolous, not supported, presented for

7 lmproper purposes.

8 THE COURT: okay. Again, we're not gOlng to go

9 there. Let me just address the state.

10 MR. BUSSE: oenlals of the defenses are frivolous.

11 What they are alleging --

12 THE COURT: okay. But let me address the state

13 fi rst.

14 what I would ask is that you file a certificate

15 of compliance that you did in fact send him those by several 16 different media -- or mediums so that that. is in the record.

17 MS. FUNCHESS: Yes, Your Honor.

18 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Busse, 1S there

19 anything else you want to say about filing the numerous 20 pleadings that you filed?

21 MR. BUSSE: Right.

22 This case is now set for trial. I conferred

23 with Ms. Johnson on the 26th. We also addressed today's 24 date on the 26th. I also e-mailed to the parties on the 25 24th regarding today, just so you know that 1'm very

1 meticulous about details. I left four separate messages 2 with the courtroom deputy.

3 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Busse, I did get all of

28

4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

your messages

MR. BUSSE: Right. Just so you know.

THE COURT: -- but this court had set this hearing for today. I want to make sure that this is addressed and itls addressed in a timely manner so that people know how to proceed.

I did receive word that you had been leaving messages. In fact, I think you filed five or six separate motions for the Court to take notice of unavailability and I think as late as last evenlng you talked with my courtroom deputy, who told you that the court was still gOlng to have the hearing. So I understand that you may have had other plans this morning; but the court had set this hearing on October 22nd, had advised all the parties. The parties were calling in to indicate whether or not they were appearing in person or via phone, and it was just not a situation where the hearing could be reset.

MR. BUSSE:

THE COURT:

Sure.

I took into account your situation

and all of the parties who were in need of attending the hearing, so I wanted to make sure that everybody had the opportunity to be heard; and, frankly, this motion has been

29

1 pending for some time. There have been numerous pleadings 2 filed after the Property Appraiser's motion for Rule 11

3 sanctiops and so it was just really time to have the hearing 4 and sit down.

S So 1n regard to the fact you may have been

6 unavailable. I do understand that; but I needed to take 7 into account everyone's schedules.

8 MR. BUSSE: Sure. And I'm glad to be here and I

9 thank you kindly for making this all possible.

10 I also did want to let you know that the system

11 indeed showed it and it was then terminated and I sent

12 caples of that. I am, of course, not having the same

13 experience. I'm also handicapped by the fact that I cannot 14 electronically convey it to you by the push of a button,

15 and I had addressed that to you before.

16 THE COURT: And I saw what you were argulng, and

17 apparently there was either a -- in the docket entry it

18 indicated that the motion was terminated; but that doesn't 19 necessarily mean the hearing is terminated, so there's some 20 difference there. But I think everybody that you spoke to 21 did tell you that you did need to appear because the hearing 22 wasn't cancelled; and I wanted to make sure that you knew

23 that, because if you hadn't appeared, that would have been 24 a problem, too. okay?

25 MR. BUSSE: And I will try to make arrangements

30

1 with the Department of Justice.

2 But I want to address the motion and state to

3 you that it would be entirely frivolous for them to deter 4 me from seeking to remedy these deprivations of my

5 constitutional rights, to muzzle me in seeking my property

6 rights. I am unable to use 2.5 acres.
7 THE COURT: okay. And that's not what they're
8 saying. What they're asking for lS for the Court to
9 prohibit you from filing similar motions to the motions
10 that have been filed in the future, not -- without either 11 leave of Court or without a basis to do so. So that's what 12 they're asking. They're not asking that you not be able to 13 pursue your case.

14 I mean they have their motions filed and the

15 District Court is going to have to decide on that motion 16 to dismiss and see what happens; and, as I said, if the 17 court denies the motion to dismiss, we're on track for

18 trial. If the court does not, then that's another lssue. 19 Okay?

20

MR. BUSSE: Your Honor, I trained with very fine

21 people at the university of chicago. I have a reputation

22 to cooperate. You sent this kindly to me. It's your order, 23 Document Number 213. I received it. I received this hard 24 copy on the day that we had the deadline for mandatory

25 initial disclosures. I never received by this October 30th

31

1 date any disclosure. Lee county has now decided, after that 2 deadline, in a one-sentence disclosure that all the records 3 can be found in the Division of Lands. We have the

4 inventory control file.

S I'm pleading to you that if there's cooperation

6 on the part of the defendants, which there has not been in 7 an extreme fashion, that we follow these orders.

8 I have better things to do than write pleadings.

9 I am seeking to use my property, that it is no longer

10 declared to be a park, that I'm not -- that my property's 11 not taken without due process.

12 There's only two ways of taking property.

13 THE COURT: Let me hear from Ms. Johnson, because

14 agaln we're getting into your argument. That may play well 15 to a jury or the court in the future, but at this point

16 it's not what we're addressing.

17 Ms. Johnson, di d you have a response?

18 MS. JOHNSON: well, I just wanted to respond

19 specifically to again, you know, trying to turn it back on 20 us, that we're not cooperating, that, in fact, yes, I did 21 serve my mandatory initial disclosures the other day. I· 22 filed a motion for a five-day extension because I had been 23 out of town in the interim and I asked for an extension

24 until Monday and I served them on Monday, so he should have 25 them, if not already -- if not, soon.

19

1 And I would just reiterate to the court that 2 from what I'm hearing today, it sounds to me Mr. Busse

3 does not understand and acknowledge that his behavior is

4 inappropriate in what he's been doing with this court; and 5 if the court does not do anything, I see -- from what it

6 looks like to me, it's just going to continue until this

7 case is either dismissed or goes to trial. So I would

8 sincerely ask this court to please do something about it.

9 THE COURT: The second -- Mr. Busse, don't address

10 her. You need to address the Court, okay; and r'll ask for 11 your response.

32

12 13

MR. BUSSE: Sure.

THE COURT: The second prong of the standard --

14 there's a frivolous prong and then there's a prong that 15 talks about him understanding that the pleadings were 16 frivolous or whatever. DO you want to address that?

17 MR. BUSSE: Are you asking --

18 THE COURT: No. I'm asking Ms. Johnson.

MS. JOHNSON: oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were

20 asking him.

21 You wanted me to address which prong? I'm sorry.

22 The frivolousness of the pleadings?

23 THE COURT: Yes. Because I think there's two

24 situations when testing the conduct under Rule 11.

25 MS. JOHNSON: Right.

5

MS. JOHNSON: I understand, I understand. And

1

THE COURT: The court has to use an objective

2 standard and examine the reasonableness of the conduct

3 under the circumstances and what was reasonable to believe 4 at the time the pleadings were submitted.

6 I think that my basis there was I was trying not to get 7 into the underlying merits of the case. Obviously, we 8 disagree with his presentation on the merits and the

9 ownership of this property; and there are other issues

10 that we don't think we're a proper party since we're just 11 a property appraiser.

12 But as far as the merits of the motions and

13 pleadings that were filed, again, there were five motions 14 for summary judgment filed. You can't get a summary

15 judgment unless you have some kind of admissible evidence 16 before the Court, which he did not have. He submitted

17 stacks of documents; but no affidavits, no discovery had 18 been done, anything like that.

19 He claimed in his motions that there were

20 plaintiffs that were not really plaintiffs, were not 21 parties.

22 THE COURT: All right. And you've argued that

23 then. okay.

24

MR. BUSSE: Your Honor, there is two plaintiffs

2S publicly recorded regarding this matter.

33

9

34

1 You r Honor, Ms. Johnson accused me duri ng the

2 October 26th conference, which lasted approximately 30

3 minutes, as documented, of cr1mes. she filed a criminal

4 complaint with the Florida Bar, 50 she again under Rule 11 5 is misrepresenting the sequence of events. She used the

6 word "retaliatory".

7 It is my responsibility to respond to the 1nqu1ry

8 by The Florida Bar. This is frivolous.

she accused me as late as October 26th of

10 crimes when I am stating that Lot A never existed. This 11 is frivolous, unwarranted. There's no factual support by

12 any other claims by any other defendants. There 1S no legal 13 title anywhere in the Lee County grantor/grantee index.

14 15

THE COURT: okay.

MR. BUSSE: So all I'm say1ng 1S the court is

16 supposed, under Rule 11, to describe the conduct that 17 needs to be deterred. I have here pursued my federal

18 rights, which I have been deprived off and defrauded of, 19 conclusively evidenced by, under Rule 44, the official

20 publications, which are admissible evidence. Also under

21 Rule 44(b) there is a complete lack of any supporting
22 document in the grantor/grantee index.
23 These defendants have
24 THE COURT: I've heard that argument, Mr. Busse.
25 Let me ask you this. what other pleadings do you think you 35

1 need to be fi 1 i ng now? You said we're in a tri al posture
2 here and I think we're just wai t i ng for --
3 MR. BUSSE: Your Honor, I promise you pe rsona 11 y.
4 We have made face-to-face eye contact today. I put it in 5 your lap. I glve you my word as an academic person I want 6 this resolved. A just, speedy resolution. You have been

7 so kind to allow me to focus on the narrow -- I have tried 8 ln the recent pleadings to work down this prescription. It 9 is a very, very laser sharp, limited, narrow focus. Is

10 there a Lot A or is there not; and if there is not, we all 11 can go home.

12 THE COURT: All right.
13 MR. BUSSE: These defendants create a smoke
14 screen. Do not get --
15 THE COURT: Let's not go any further than that.
16 MR. BUSSE: Sure.
17 THE COURT: If that's the issue
18 MR. BUSSE: But I promlse you, I want cooperation.
19 I don't know why the conduct of remedying the 20 deprivations needs to be deterred.

21

I can give you my personal word. J. R. Busse

22 gives you the word. I step back if I see -- and I do 23 see some evidence today because you give me the great 24 opportunity to be heard -- if they produce meaningful

25 discovery and answer the simple question: Has there been

6

THE COURT: okay. But the thing is, even if

36

lone request for admission been answered? No. Have I ever

2 received a response to mUltiple interrogatories? No.
3 So I promise you: You have outlined what needs to
4 be done. If this will be done, there 1S no need to write
5 any more pleadings. 7 you write a pleading, Mr. Busse, if you haven't received 8 something, the court doesn't have a problem with you

9 writing a pleading and saying, you know, this is the

10 deadline, I have not received this, please compel them 11 to produce this; but that can be done in four lines. It 12 doesn't have to be done in a pleading that reargues your 13 whole case. Okay? So that's the problem here. We're 14 getting multiple, multiple, multiple pleadings, 141

15 pleadings that are freezing up everyone's system, because 16 in every pleading you want to argue your whole case.

17 That's not what it's for. okay? It's got to be boiled 18 down: This is what I didn't receive, this is why I want 19 to receive it. Forget accusing anyone of fraud, forget 20 accuslng anyone of perpetrating frauds on the Court.

21 There's room for that in certain circumstances, but not

22 in very simple pleadings before the court; and that's what 23 you have to boil things down to.

24 You cannot continue to file pleadings before

25 this Court, frankly, that sometimes I can't decipher

7 the local rules, that's the whole point. You can appear 8 in federal court as a pro se litigant and we welcome the

9 fact that you can file your pleadings and appear here; but 10 when you do that, you are held to the same standard as the 11 attorneys are. And we try to give you some leeway and some 12 guidance if we can, but you are held to that same standard. 13 They have to present something in a very succinct manner to 14 the court and back it up with their case law. You need to 15 do the same, not rearguing all of the things.

16 I mean I think I've heard the arguments now. I

17 understand what counsel for the defendants are argulng. I 18 understand what sanctions they're requesting. I have heard 19 from you, Mr. Busse, about what your case is and where you 20 think it's going and I've also heard your response to what 21 their motion for Rule 11 sanctions is. So at this point I 22 think that we can terminate the hearing unless there's

23 anything further that you need to address.

24 But I think the motion to dismiss 1S pending. 25 Hopefully we'll rece1ve a ruling on that and that might

1 because there are so many issues and I don't know what
2 it is that you're asking me for and they donlt know what
3 it 15 that they're supposed to respond to and they can't
4 take the time and, frankly, I can't take that time to boil
5 it down. 37

So I mean that's what that -- the federal rules,

6

3

38

1 glve us some guidance, too.

2 So I think at this point we'll be in recess.

Thank you, counsel, for appearing. Thank you,

4 Mr. Busse, for appearing --

5

MR. BUSSE: Thank you.

6

THE COURT: -- to advise the court of the

7 situation.

8 (proceedings concluded.)

9

10

C E R T I F I CAT E

11

12 I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript of the 13 record of proceedings in this case ori November 7, 2007.

14

i'

\ .

\.j~\jf\\J.t~,( \1;) fbO~T~t

Date

;

n\ Co 1 eman, RPR Court Reporter

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25