rh UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISIOMUTNOY 14 PH 3:59 JORG BUSSE, 2 ) Plaintiff, 2 2 CASE NO: vs. ) — 2:07-Cv-228-FTM-295PC 2 LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al., ) Fort myers, Florida } November 7, 2007 Defendants. ) 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 3 MARTINA REPORTING SERVICES the Courtney Building 2069 First Street - Suite 201 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (239) 334-6545 / FAX (239) 332-2913 a SM NIV OS10 cb 12 13 14 15, 16 v7 18 19 20 2a 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES For the Defendants: (via Speakerphone) continued) LINDA KATHRYN FUNCHESS, ESQUIRE REAGAN KATHLEEN RUSSELL, ESQUIRE Florida Department of Environmental Protection Ms 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 PATSY LYNN COLEMAN, RPR10 1 12 13 14 4s is | Ww 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE CLERK: Calling Case Number 2:07-CVv-228- FIM-29SPC, Jorge Busse versus Lee County, Florida, et al. THE COURT: If the parties would introduce themselves for the record, please. MS. JOHNSON: Hi. I'm Sherri Johnson and I represent Ken wilkinson, the Lee County Property Appraiser, who's seated here beside me. THE COURT: How are you? MS. JOHNSON: Fine. Thank you. MR. BUSSE: Good morning, Your Honor. I'm Dr. Busse. I'm the plaintiff, pro se. THE COURT: Good morning. Mr. Busse, I set this case for hearing on October 22nd and the purpose of the hearing today is to discuss the Property Appraiser's motion for Rule 11 sanctions. They had filed that on August 9th of 2007, That's Document Number 97. So at this point that's really what we're going to be discussing today and the purpose of this hearing. So, Ms. Johnson, T would ask, since it is your motion, that you proceed with your argument in that regard. MS. JOHNSON: Yes, Your Honor. okay. Your Honor, what I'd like to do is just go through a brief procedural background and then talk a Jittle bit about the entitlement to sanctions and what10 uw 2 13 14 15 16 wv 18 19 20 24 22 23 24 25 sanctions might be appropriate in this case if the Court determines to issue them. The plaintiff in this case filed his original complaint back in April of this year and an amended complaint in late May. Among other things -- it seems to be a dispute over the ownership of some property; but among other things, he alleged that the Property Appraiser, my client, had conspired with the other governmental defendants to -- basically to fraudulently take his property. The Property Appraiser filed a motion to dismiss, which was later granted by Judge Steele. However, while our motion to dismiss was pending, the plaintiff continued to file multiple, as in several a day, pleadings, which included multiple frivolous motions for summary judgment. after receiving my motion for sanctions, Mr. Busse did not withdraw his amended complaint or any of his motions. Rather than withdraw any of his pleadings, instead, on July 30th he filed a motion to add the defendant attorneys as parties and began accusing not just the parties but their attorneys of professional misconduct and assisting their clients with criminal fraud and various other misdeeds. He also filed a motion for criminal prosecution; and in that motion he alleged that the defendants and theirooo 10 i 12 13 14 15 16 wv 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lawyers have known for decades that the county's 1969 resolution was, in his words, bogus. He also basically alleged that we assisted in 1 guess fabricating deeds, forgeries. And just to give you an idea of why I believe these are completely frivolous, that 1969 resolution was actually passed four years before I was born, so obviously I could not have participated in fabricating it; and as far as knowing for decades of anything, I've been practicing for nine years, so that would be a physical impossibility. On August 7th Judge Steele dismissed the plaintiff's amended complaint; but he gave the plaintiff Teave to amend his complaint and he wrote a rather detailed order explaining to the plaintiff, because he is a pro se litigant, what he would need to do in order to file a proper pleading in this court. the plaintiff did file a second amended complaint, but it was just as improper as the first two complaints and continued to violate pretty much all of the rules of civil procedure. In this one, however, he went even further and he claimed to be representing four additional property owners. Those property owners later had to pay to hire their own personal attorneys to get them out of this case because it turned out that these four alleged plaintiffs that he purported to be representing were not -- had never authorized him to include them as plaintiffs in this case.10 1 12 3B 14 4s 16 | 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 since I filed my motion for sanctions back this summer, the plaintiff has increased the frequency of his pleadings, sometimes filing -- I think I got the other day ten pleadings in one day. A11 of them are frivolous. In addition, he e-mails copies of all his pleadings, motions and correspondence to a list of -- I believe I counted 80 e-mail recipients. mong the e-mail recipients are staff members of The Florida Bar, various law enforcement agencies and various news organizations. I have a copy of the e-mail list as a visual aid s0 you can see what I'm talking about. As far as the entitlement to sanctions go, Rule 11 -- and I have a copy if you'd like, but Rule 11(c) allows a Court to impose sanctions if it determines that an attorney or an unrepresented party has violated Rule 11(b). ‘And then Rule 11(b) sets forth the four, basically, things that attorney or unrepresented party is supposed to certify to when they file any paper in the Court. Rule 11(b) (1) provides that a party presenting a pleading, motion or other paper to the Court certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, that the paper's not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.10 nw 12 B 14 1s 16 7 18 19 20 au 22 23 24 25 It is our position that the plaintiff's multiple dilatory pleadings, motions and other papers that he files in this Court are basically being filed solely to harass the parties and their attorneys. He has been cautioned by this Court about following the rules of civil procedure and the local rules, but he has continued to ignore them and to file basically what amounts to the same documents over and over and over, with the same attachments over and over. sometimes the titles are changed somewhat, sometimes the relief is changed; but it's basically the same documents. He sends copies of every document filed in this case to the 80 people that I told you about; and x can already tell you that the staff members at The Florida Bar have sent him e-mails asking him to please stop copying them because, like us, it's freezing up their e-mail programs in their office; and he has not responded to those requests. He's continued to copy these people against their wishes. Following receipt of my motion for sanctions, he retaliated against us by accusing the parties’ attorneys of crimes, professional misconduct, reporting us to the Bar, et cetera, et cetera, and routinely demanding that we be sanctioned, in a nutshell, merely because we had the temerity to come into this Court and represent our10 1 2 13 “ 1s 16 7 19) 20 21 22 23 24 25 defendants and take a position that is adverse to the plaintiff's. So I believe that the pleadings filed in this case, the motions, do violate Rule 11(b)(1) and I also believe they violate the next two, 11(b}(2) and 11(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, modification or reversal of existing law. The plaintiff in this case has filed many é documents that are not recognized anywhere in thelimertas” Rules -- or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He has filed at least five motions for summary judgment and he has not filed any affidavits in support of those motions for summary judgment. At the time he filed them, no discovery had been done, so he filed these five motions for summary judgment with absolutely no support for them other than just documents that he submits to the Court, which you cannot do. His documents repeatedly demand sanctions against the attorneys merely for essentially defending their clients in this case. Some of his documents request crimina’ prosecution, which is, of course, beyond the scope of this case or this Court. He also, obviously, included parties as plaintiffs that had never even authorized him to include10 14 R 13 14 15 16 v7 18 19 20 2a) 22 23 24 25 them. And also, as far as the legal sufficiency of what he's done, normally conversations between counsel would be privileged; but he actually filed a copy of correspondence from his prior attorneys, Brigham Moore, with this Court in support of his own claims; and the letters indicate that his counsel at Brigham Moore, prior to termination of their relationship, had advised him to drop this Federal Court case and advised him to drop his criminal complaints. So it appears that Mr. Busse did have counsel advise him about the meritlessness of his actions; but he continued to pursue them. And then finally, Rule 11(b)(3) requires a party filing a document to certify that the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support. In this case the plaintiff's pleadings do not merely stop at alleging a dispute over the ownership of his property on Cayo Costa. If it were as simple as that, we probably wouldn't be here today. Instead, the plaintiff has gone farther. He's alleged that the defendants and now their attorneys as well have deliberately and intentionally engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud him and other property owners on Cayo Costa. He's alleged, as I said, in some documents the defendants, their attorneys, falsified deeds and other documents in order to take his property; and, Your Honor,10 1 12 2B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 these are serious accusations and he has never come forward with any evidence to substantiate any intention to commit fraud by any of these defendants and certainly not their attorneys. The entire basis for all of these claims by him seem to be just the fact that we're defending this Jawsuit. That brings us to the issue of sanctions and what would be appropriate. The Schramek case, which I've cited to you, says that if a paper filed in this Court violates Rule 11, sanctions are mandatory; but the question is what would be an appropriate sanction. Rule 11(c)(2) lists the sanctions that can be issued by this court. They include directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or al] of their attorney's fees incurred. In my motion I asked for two sanctions. I asked for an order restricting the plaintiff from continuing to file documents with this Court unless he is represented by an attorney or obtains prior leave of Court; and I also asked for payment of some or all of my client's attorney's fees. In this instance I do think that the most10 1 12 a3 14 15 16 Ww 18 19 20) 21 22 23 24 25 i appropriate sanction and the sanction that would be the most effective would in fact be an order restricting the plaintiff's ability from continuing to file further documents with the Clerk of Court. I've cited you to two cases, the Martin-Trigona case and the Schramek case. The Martin-Trigona, which I sent you a copy of, it's an Eleventh Circuit case in which the Eleventh Circuit said that an injunction entered by a District Court in the State of Connecticut restricting a vexatious pro se litigant from filing actions without leave of Court was appropriate and would be enforced in the Eleventh Circuit. And then the schramek case, that, of course, is the paula Jones case; and that comes out of the Middle District. In that case this Court said that because the pro se litigant had been a party to 15 lawsuits in the Tampa division of the Court, the Court would prohibit him from filing any further actions. Now, this case is a little different because what we're not talking about, although we may end up getting to that point -- we're not talking about at this point prohibiting him from filing more, separate actions. we're already in this case and I guess what I'm asking is for him to be prohibited from continuing to file frivolous motions and pleadings because that really -- even though10 aw 12 13 14 1s 16 | 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 the parties have all filed motions to dismiss, and I do hope this case will be dismissed at some point, the problem we're facing now is that again, yesterday, there were ten documents to come through. we're responding to and reading, you know, such a myriad of documents and pleadings, a11 of which have basically no merit, that it's really becoming costly and unduly harming the parties. I also believe it would be appropriate to order the plaintiff to pay the Property Appraiser's attorney's fees for responding to all of this. In the Patterson v. Aiken case which I've cited to you, an Eleventh Circuit case, the Court found one count of a pro se litigant's complaint to be frivolous and did find a proper sanction was to order the plaintiff to pay the attorney's fees for responding to that count. And if the Court determines that that is the way it wants to go, T have prepared an affidavit. We can discuss the amount of fees or that can be set for a separate hearing, however the Court wished to go. But I do think the most significant thing we're asking for today and the thing that would really curb the abuse of the system would be some type of restriction on the plaintiff's ability to continue filing documents with the Clerk of Court unless they're signed by an attorney or he receives leave of Court to file them.10 i 12 13 4 15 16 v7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 THE COURT: All right. Discuss with me the affidavit that you've prepared. what would you be proposing, if that was appropriate under the circumstances, the amount of attorney fees? MS. JOHNSON: Well, Your Honor, I can tell you right now the attorney's fees incurred to date in this case are about $25,000. Broken down -- T broke it down for you in there as far as what that covers. Basically, there have been about 238 documents filed in this case in the last six months, so my fees are $150 an hour, and that came out to about one hour per business day since this case was filed, which is about what it takes to go through and respond to everything that's been done. Basically, what that would include is, obviously, reviewing everything that's come in this case. I believe I've responded to some, not all of the motions in the last month or so. I kind of declined to respond to every single motion that's come through. I've filed three motions to dismiss, a motion to strike, the motion for sanctions, responded to discovery requests by Mr. Busse. I've also attended a case management down here in Fort Myers. And the normal, usual research and meeting with the parties and their attorneys. So, like I said, I have the affidavit. I'd be10 i 2 13 14 1s 16 Bed 18 19 a 22 23 24 25 14 happy to submit it if you'd like. THE COURT: All right. Yes, I would ask you to do that. MS. JOHNSON: May I approach, Your Honor? THE COURT: You may. Ms. JOHNSON: And, Your Honor, I will say, as stated in the affidavit, everything that's in here is based on contemporaneous time records. However, I did not attach the time records because this is an ongoing case and 1 do feel that they would include work product, so if it were at the end of the case I would. THE COURT: AT] right. Thank you. All right. Mr. Busse, this is your opportunity at this time to address the issue of the motion that's before the Court. It's really not to go through and discuss your case or to try your case. It's merely to answer to the allegations in the motion that you have been filing frivolous motions before the Court, accusatory motions and pleadings and whatnot. So that's what I need to hear from you. MR. BUSSE: Right. THE COURT: Not anything about your case. MR. BUSSE: Your Honor, the Rule 11 deals with -- THE COURT: Mr. Busse, you're going to have to be near a microphone so that she can get this down.10| a 12 13 14 as 16 wv 18 19 20 ra 22 23 24 25 15 Obviously, I'm sure you want to make sure there's a record of everything, as does everyone. So if you're going to be speaking from there, that's okay. Wwe just need to have you near a microphone. €Mit..pusse: rule 11 deals with representations to this Court for improper purposes with lack of factual support. I brought to you the ultimate issue before this Court, which is the plat of survey of the Cayo costa subdivision. The representation by al? defendants of a fictitious Lot A and a Block 1 is frivolous. There is entirely no factual support whatsoever for a Lot A or a Block 1. You have the legal authority to interrogate counsel and ask one question pertaining to the ultimate issue: Is there a Lot A and a Block 1? Yes or no. with an answer by defendants to that question, this case will be over. You have personally the authority to determine if there is a Lot A on this official publication in Plat Book 3, Page 25. Tt is entirely frivolous in the absence of any evidence whatsoever of a Lot A and a Block 1 to make all these claims. The defenses of the defendants have been unwarranted because of a complete, a complete lack of factual support. this is the document officially published in Lee County showing to you and any fact finder that there never10 ee 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23) 24 25 16 was a Lot A and a Block 1. You personally and any other member would not like their front yard and backyard to be taken without due process, just compensation, without any legal justification. I have been deprived and defrauded of my property. There is no Lot A. There is no Block 1. You cannot in the absence of a legal description survey any Lot A. The Property Appraiser claims exactly 107.41 acres. It is impossible for any surveyor in the united states to come up with that figure. It is impossible to perform any survey in the absence of a Lot A. All legal descriptions in this very subdivision of Cayo Costa were made in reference to this very plat and perhaps three prior plats. In the absence of a Lot A, you cannot survey, you cannot legally describe Lot A. The Property Appraiser in his worldwide official publications claims in a fraudulent manner that my front yard, that 90 percent, approximately, of my property are a park. This is impossible. Before this Court have been multiple documents, federal, state, and county documents, that there cannot be a Lot A, The Property Appraiser professes worldwide, publishes worldwide, sells worldwide information stating, asserting that my property is a park. There is not one shred of evidence anywhere in the federal, state and/or local data bases that this is true. So the10 nu 12 3B 4 15 16 Ww 18 a9 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 conduct that needs to be deterred here is clearly and conclusively the conduct of the defendants. There's nothing frivolous at all about the plaintiff stating to this Court that the fraud of Lot A and Block 1 deprives and defrauds the plaintiff and approximately 100 other property owners. You can with your authority determine that none of the eight lettered lots on this very plat shows a Lot A, that none of the 56 blocks on this plat depict a Block 1. so there's a legal impossibility of the claimed, frivolously claimed, unwarrantedly claimed ownership of Lee county of a Lot A and a Block 1. The survey before this Court -- and here is another copy with a seal -- shows that the natural boundary of the plaintiff's property is the mean high water mark of the Gulf of Mexico. This is entirely consistent with the depiction of the Gulf of Mexico as the natural boundary of plaintiff's riparian gulf front Lot 15-a. under Rule 11, the representations of defendants and in particular defendant Property Appraiser, to this Court are frivolous, entirely unsupported. I had asked the Property Appraiser to cease and desist the worldwide publications and sales of fictitious data of a Lot A and Block 1, which never existed, which cannot be shown on this very admissible evidence of the10 oem 12 13 44 15 16 Ww 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 18 cayo Costa subdivision plat. T have been deprived of the rights which were granted to the original developer and owner, Mr, Alexander C. Rush, as depicted on this plat. On the four -- and this is the fourth of four -- plats, the federal and constitutionally guaranteed rights to receive accretions, subdivide accretions and sell accreted lands are all captured in those four officially published plats of the Cayo Costa subdivision. I have the very same rights, the very same constitutionally guaranteed federal rights that Mr. Rush had. Both Mr. Rush and myself are the signees of a federal and patent, meaning there was a conveyance of land from the united States to mr. Rush. I have provided perfect and paramount evidence of my legal title, which is derived from said federal land patent. There are federal surveys before this Court, there are the data by the united States Bureau of Land Management, all affirming my perfect legal title to approximately more than 2.5 acres of riparian land, which the property Appraiser claims is a park, which the Property Appraiser worldwide publishes is a park. So coming to Rule 11, here there is entirely frivolous conduct in the face of massive conclusive evidence to continue with these false and fraudulent allegations.10 cae 12 2B 14 15 16 wv 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 The Property Appraiser knows that each and every property in Lee County has a property identification and/or strap and/or folio number. There are seven digits. The reference to this very plat as recorded in Plat Book 3 on Page 25 is made in the fourth two-digit block, which for properties in the subdivision is 01, OL designates this second revised plat of the Cayo Costa subdivision. The Property Appraiser in the last block, four-digit block, designates Lot A to be legally owned by Lee County. Your Honor, this is legally impossible. No surveyor in the united States would be capable to survey, to put those boundaries anywhere on the ground. The claim, the publication of 107.41 acres is blatantly fraudulent. Your Honor, I am a physician and also a state certified appraiser who cannot appraise a property in the absence of a legal description. You are personally and any other person in this room unable to identify, legally describe a Lot A as assigned by the Property Appraiser to the accreted lands abutting the Gulf of Mexico. THE COURT: Mr. Busse, Tet me just interrupt you for a minute. You're telling me about your case and why you believe that you should prevail on your case. MR. BUSSE: I believe that the conduct to be deterred is the conduct by the defendant Appraiser. It is just the other way around.10 ae 12 13 “4 5 16 Wv 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 Now, in this very motion the Property Appraiser wants to continue to take my property, deprive me of my right to assert my property in the complete absence of a shred of evidence. Your Honor, this is the only document, the only ultimate issue, which all defendants have resisted over and over and over to answer. If you interrogate, ask the question, is there a Lot A, we are done, because you can determine there is not. There is no need for factfinders, i.e., a jury, to make a determination that every person, a child of reasonable intelligence, could determine that there is no Lot A, there is no Block 1. This is what I have called fraud; and it is impertinent, immaterial and presented for improper purposes to have me pay the expenses to assert my federal constitutionally guaranteed rights to not have the Property Appraiser publish worldwide every day that my front yard is a park. I have presented to defendants and this Honorable Court clear evidence that T am told my 2.5 acres are essentially a park; that I have been denied access to the property via the gulf, via Charlotte Harbor. The defendants have claimed worldwide that both riparian properties called fraudulently Lot A and Block 1 are theirs, when it is entirely impossible.10 oe 12 13 14 45 16 47 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Busse, you are arguing your case to me; and I appreciate the fact that you're telling me about your case and I understand that. The point is you have filed a complaint and then you were able through Judge Steele's order to file an amended complaint. That's what the courts are for. when you come to court and you file a complaint, the defendants have the opportunity and the right, just as you have the right to file a complaint, to defend that complaint. And you may -- that's how disputes happen. You may believe that they have absolutely no evidence of that and you are -- I can tell you're convinced that that's the case; but they, just as you, have the right to come into court and defend their position. You need to tell me why you believe it's appropriate in motion after motion to accuse them of fraud, accuse the attorneys of perpetrating frauds on the Court. If they're arguing their position, they have a right to do that; and in no less than 141 motions that were filed after the Rule 11 sanctions motion, you have continued to reiterate those types of things, even after the Court on three separate occasions -- no one's preventing you from coming into court to argue your position. But on three separate occasions, on May 17th of this year, June 7th10 aoe 12 1B 14 15 16 Ww 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 of this year and again on June 12th, I cautioned you about continuing to make those kind of allegations. You have every right to be in court with a complaint, but they have every right to answer to that complaint; and they have now filed again, I guess, motions to dismiss that are pending and that will be ruled on. If the motion to dismiss is denied, then obviously at some point this case is going to come to a head and come to a trial; but to continue to file motion after motion after motion that not only, one, generally contains the same type of allegations, but, two, contains voluminous attachments that sometimes when reading them they're very difficult to determine exactly what it is that the Court can do in responding to those. So I need to hear from you why you thought it was necessary, even after the Court's admonitions and after you were advised through the filing of the Rule 11 sanctions motion, that it was still appropriate to go ahead and file another, 141 motions ‘in a very short span of time between August and now, today, in November. MR. BUSSE: Your Honor, this is a deception, has been a deception upon the public in general since 1969. The records are supporting the multiple inquiries by members of the public pertaining to the fraud of a Lot A and a Block 1. This is a massive fraud where three governmental10 Wn 2 13 44 45 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 agencies conspired to misrepresent a lot which never existed, which you can determine to not exist on this official publication, the authenticity of which defendants can certify. the term "fraud" is based on the defining lega elements which are before this Court. In the absence of any legal description, to claim more than 200 acres worth more than two hundred millions of dollars, clearly and conclusively appears to be fraud. This is an absolute impossibility. It is entirely impossible to exist. THE COURT: Okay. But if you filed one motion saying that, why file another 141 motions saying that? MR. BUSSE: Because I have not received a response to your 9-13-2007 order. Defendant state has declared to acquire this entire subdivision through means of fraud. 1 challenge the defendants to show good cause why this is not fraud. I conferred with Ms. Johnson as per the records for approximately 30 minutes and requested kindly to cease and desist these publications; and in answering a question, these publications make me entirely unable to use my property because I'm denied access from the gulf to the property, I'm denied access from Charlotte Harbor, I'm denied access by vehicle across the east-west trail. why -- THE COURT: Okay. But, Mr, Busse, the point is10 i 12 B 14 is 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 that's what this dispute is about. And if they were in agreement with you that you should have access or that property is yours, then we wouldn't be here. But we're here because they're not in agreement with you. MR. BUSSE: Your Honor -- THE COURT: Tell me what motion you're saying on 9-13 that you were waiting for a response on. MR. BUSSE: Your Honor, I ama broker associate -- or a certified broker and a state certified appraiser, appraiser instructor and licensed mortgage broker, I have a reasonable familiarity with the issue. THE COURT: Okay. But answer my question. What exactly are you waiting for? what September 13th order is going to help you solve this issue? MR. BUSSE: Why are defendants state not in contempt for not responding to your September 13th order to respond to plaintiff's interrogatories? again, I want to underline and emphasize that this is about the just and speedy determination of one ultimate issue. And T point out to you today: why hasn't anybody since April, and as far as the state court matter is concerned, since 2006, presented one, one single piece of evidence to support their claim that there is a Lot A and/or a Block 1, when the world can see on this official publication that there is none?lo a 12 13 iu 15 16 Aare 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 THE COURT: Okay. We're not going to get back to that. MR. BUSSE: Sure. THE COURT: I understand that argument. I understand what your argument is; and certainly that would be something that you could argue strenuously. I understand. Is the defendant -- do you know specifically what document he's talking about that the Court has not either ruled on or is waiting for? MS. JOHNSON: Your Honor, I know that the Court did order the defendants -- and it was unclear whether it was all the defendants or if it was just the state because it was the state's motion for protective order; but when the state filed a motion for protective order on the interrogatories, you did enter an order directing us to respond to the first 25 of the 80 interrogatories. I wasn't sure if it applied to us; but we did go ahead and serve answers to those interrogatories, so they have been served. THE COURT: A171 right. MR. BUSSE: Your Honor, I have not received a single response from the State of Florida pursuant to your 9-13 order. THE COURT: And, Counsel, you are indicating that you served those on him?10 a 2 1B 14 1s 16 v7 18 19 20 an 22 23 24 25 26 MS. JOHNSON: well, Your Honor, I represent the defendant Lee County Property Appraiser. THE COURT: Right. MS. JOHNSON: And I did -- he may not be happy with my answers, and I'm sure that's an issue, but I did serve answers. and I believe the state did, although she's on the phone, so maybe she can respond. THE COURT: Can you respond to that? I'm sorry, if you could state your name. MS. FUNCHESS: My name is Kathryn Funchess, for the Board of Trustees and Department of Environmental Protection. We sent the responses to interrogatories via DHL. That came back to us. It was not picked up. we also sent responses via U.S. Mail; and when Mr. Busse said -- was complaining that he had not received responses, we sent them via e-mail to his AOL account. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Busse, they're indicating that actually by three separate means that they served you with the answers. Are you indicating to this court that you did not receive those either by e-mail, by letter or by regular mail or by -- MR. BUSSE: Your Honor, that is correct, They certified to this Court that they submitted their responses by DHL. I have tried for a tracking certification, where10 iw 12 13 uu 4s 16 Ww 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 this could have possibly gone. It never came to me. All defendants have not cooperated in any meaningful way -- and I'm presenting this concern to you -- in any meaningful way in answering one simple, ultimate simple question: Is there a Lot A or Block 1? it is frivolous, not supported, presented for improper purposes. THE COURT: Okay. Again, we're not going to go there. Let me just address the state. MR. BUSSE: Denials of the defenses are frivolous. What they are alleging -- THE COURT: Okay. But let me address the state first. what I would ask is that you file a certificate of compliance that you did in fact send him those by several different media -- or mediums so that that is in the record. MS. FUNCHESS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Busse, is there anything else you want to say about filing the numerous pleadings that you filed? MR. BUSSE: Right, This case is now set for trial. I conferred with Ms. Johnson on the 26th. We also addressed today's date on the 26th. I also e-mailed to the parties on the 24th regarding today, just so you know that I'm very10 a 12 13 14 15 16 Ww 18 ig 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 meticulous about details. I left four separate messages with the courtroom deputy. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Busse, I did get all of 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 it's 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 T think as late as last evening you talked with my courtroom deputy, who told you that the court was still going 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: Sure. THE COURT: 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 |10 oem 12 2B 14 15 16 v7 18 19 20 2a 22 23 24 25 29 pending for some time. There have been numerous pleadings filed after the Property Appraiser's motion for Rule 11 sanctions and so it was just really time to have the hearing and sit down. so in regard to the fact you may have been unavailable, I do understand that; but I needed to take nto account everyone's schedules. MR. BUSSE: Sure. And I'm glad to be here and I thank you kindly for making this all possible. I also did want to let you know that the system ‘indeed showed it and it was then terminated and I sent copies of that. I am, of course, not having the same experience. I'm also handicapped by the fact that I cannot electronically convey it to you by the push of a button, and I had addressed that to you before. THE COURT: And T saw what you were arguing, and apparently there was either a -- in the docket entry it indicated that the motion was terminated; but that doesn't necessarily mean the hearing is terminated, so there's some difference there. But I think everybody that you spoke to did tell you that you did need to appear because the hearing wasn't cancelled; and I wanted to make sure that you knew that, because if you hadn't appeared, that would have been a problem, too. okay? MR. BUSSE: And T will try to make arrangements10 11 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 30 with the Department of Justice. But I want to address the motion and state to you that it would be entirely frivolous for them to deter me from seeking to remedy these deprivations of my constitutional rights, to muzzle me in seeking my property rights. = am unable to use 2.5 acres. THE COURT: Okay. And that's not what they're saying. what they're asking for is for the Court to prohibit you from filing similar motions to the motions that have been filed in the future, not -- without either leave of Court or without a basis to do so. So that's what they're asking. They're not asking that you not be able to pursue your case. I mean they have their motions filed and the District Court is going to have to decide on that motion to dismiss and see what happens; and, as I said, if the Court denies the motion to dismiss, we're on track for trial. If the Court does not, then that's another issue Okay? MR. BUSSE: Your Honor, I trained with very fine people at the University of Chicago. I have a reputation to cooperate. You sent this kindly to me. It's your order, Document Number 213. I received it. I received this hard copy on the day that we had the deadline for mandatory initial disclosures. I never received by this october 30th10 ut 12 3B 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 31 date any disclosure. Lee County has now decided, after that deadline, in a one-sentence disclosure that all the records can be found in the Division of Lands. we have the inventory control file. I'm pleading to you that if there's cooperation on the part of the defendants, which there has not been in an extreme fashion, that we follow these orders. I have better things to do than write pleadings. I am seeking to use my property, that it is no longer declared to be a park, that I'm not -- that my property's not taken without due process. There's only two ways of taking property. THE COURT: Let me hear from Ms. Johnson, because again we're getting into your argument. That may play well to a jury or the Court in the future, but at this point it's not what we're addressing. Ms. Johnson, did you have a response? MS. JOHNSON: Well, T just wanted to respond specifically to again, you know, trying to turn it back on us, that we're not cooperating, that, in fact, yes, I did serve my mandatory initial disclosures the other day. I filed a motion for a five-day extension because I had been out of town in the interim and I asked for an extension until Monday and I served them on Monday, so he should have them, if not already -- if not, soon.10 a 2 2B 4 15 16 v7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 And T would just reiterate to the Court that from what I'm hearing today, it sounds to me Mr. Busse does not understand and acknowledge that his behavior is inappropriate in what he's been doing with this Court; and if the Court does not do anything, I see -- from what it looks like to me, it's just going to continue until this case is either dismissed or goes to trial. So I would sincerely ask this Court to please do something about it. THE COURT: The second -- Mr. Busse, don't address her. You need to address the Court, okay; and x'11 ask for your response. MR. BUSSE: Sure. THE COURT: The second prong of the standard -- there's a frivolous prong and then there's a prong that talks about him understanding that the pleadings were frivolous or whatever. Do you want to address that? MR. BUSSE: Are you asking -- THE COURT: No. I'm asking Ms. Johnson. MS. JOHNSON: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were asking him. You wanted me to address which prong? I'm sorry. The frivolousness of the pleadings? THE COURT: Yes. Because I think there's two situations when testing the conduct under Rule 11. MS. JOHNSON: Right.10 1 12 13 14 45 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: The Court has to use an objective standard and examine the reasonableness of the conduct under the circumstances and what was reasonable to believe at the time the pleadings were submitted. MS. JOHNSON: I understand, I understand. and I think that my basis there was I was trying not to get into the underlying merits of the case. Obviously, we disagree with his presentation on the merits and the ownership of this property; and there are other issues that we don't think we're a proper party since we're just a property appraiser. But as far as the merits of the motions and pleadings that were filed, again, there were five motions for summary judgment filed. You can't get a summary judgment unless you have some kind of admissible evidence before the Court, which he did not have. He submitted stacks of documents; but no affidavits, no discovery had been done, anything like that. He claimed in his motions that there were plaintiffs that were not really plaintiffs, were not parties. THE COURT: ATI right. And you've argued that then. Okay. MR. BUSSE: Your Honor, there is two plaintiffs publicly recorded regarding this matter. 3310 qt 12 13 14 15 16 v7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 Your Honor, MS. Johnson accused me during the October 26th conference, which lasted approximately 30 minutes, as documented, of crimes. she filed a criminal complaint with the Florida Bar, so she again under Rule 11 is misrepresenting the sequence of events. she used the word “retaliatory”. It is my responsibility to respond to the inquiry by The Florida Bar. This is frivolous. she accused me as late as October 26th of crimes when I am stating that Lot A never existed. This is frivolous, unwarranted. There's no factual support by any other claims by any other defendants. There is no legal title anywhere in the Lee County grantor/grantee index. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BUSSE: So all I'm saying is the Court is supposed, under Rule 11, to describe the conduct that needs to be deterred. 1 have here pursued my federal rights, which I have been deprived off and defrauded of, conclusively evidenced by, under Rule 44, the official publications, which are admissible evidence. Also under Rule 44(b) there is a complete lack of any supporting document in the grantor/grantee index. These defendants have -- THE COURT: I've heard that argument, Mr. Busse Let me ask you this. what other pleadings do you think you10 a 12 13 14 as 16 7 18 19 20 2a 22 23 24 25 35 need to be filing now? You said we're in a trial posture here and I think we're just waiting for -- MR. BUSSE: Your Honor, I promise you personally. we have made face-to-face eye contact today. I put it in your lap. T give you my word as an academic person I want this resolved. A just, speedy resolution. You have been so kind to allow me to focus on the narrow -- 1 have tried ‘in the recent pleadings to work down this prescription. It is a very, very laser sharp, limited, narrow focus. Is there a Lot A or is there no 3 and if there is not, we all can go home. THE COURT: All right. MR. BUSSE: These defendants create a smoke screen. Do not get ~~ THE COURT: Let's not go any further than that. MR. BUSSE: Sure. THE COURT: If that's the issue -- MR. BUSSE: But I promise you, I want cooperation. I don't know why the conduct of remedying the deprivations needs to be deterred. I can give you my personal word. J. R. Busse gives you the word. I step back if I see -- and I do see some evidence today because you give me the great opportunity to be heard -- if they produce meaningful discovery and answer the simple question: Has there been10 ca 12 13 14 15 16 ed 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 one request for admission been answered? No. Have I ever received a response to multiple interrogatories? No. So I promise you: You have outlined what needs to be done. If this will be done, there is no need to write any more pleadings. THE COURT: Okay. But the thing is, even if you write a pleading, mr. Busse, if you haven't received something, the Court doesn't have a problem with you writing a pleading and saying, you know, this is the deadline, I have not received this, please compel them to produce this; but that can be done in four lines. It doesn't have to be done in a pleading that reargues your whole case. Okay? So that's the problem here. we're getting multiple, multiple, multiple pleadings, 141 pleadings that are freezing up everyone's system, because in every pleading you want to argue your whole case. That's not what it's for. Okay? It's got to be boiled down: This is what 1 didn't receive, this is why T want to receive it. Forget accusing anyone of fraud, forget accusing anyone of perpetrating frauds on the Court. There's room for that in certain circumstances, but not in very simple pleadings before the court; and that's what you have to boil things down to. You cannot continue to file pleadings before this Court, frankly, that sometimes I can't decipher10 a 12 B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 because there are so many issues and I don't know what jt is that you're asking me for and they don't know what it is that they're supposed to respond to and they can't take the time and, frankly, I can't take that time to boil it down. So I mean that's what that -- the federal rules, the local rules, that's the whole point. You can appear in federal court as a pro se litigant and we welcome the fact that you can file your pleadings and appear here; but when you do that, you are held to the same standard as the attorneys are. And we try to give you some leeway and some guidance if we can, but you are held to that same standard. They have to present something in a very succinct manner to the Court and back it up with their case law. You need to do the same, not rearguing all of the things. I mean T think I've heard the arguments now. 1 understand what counsel for the defendants are arguing. I understand what sanctions they're requesting. I have heard from you, Mr. Busse, about what your case is and where you think it's going and I've also heard your response to what their motion for Rule 11 sanctions is. So at this point T think that we can terminate the hearing unless there's anything further that you need to address. But I think the motion to dismiss is pending. Hopefully we'll receive a ruling on that and that might10 a 12 13 14 15 16 Ww 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 give us some guidance, too. So I think at this point we'll be in recess. Thank you, Counsel, for appearing. Thank you, Mr. Busse, for appearing -- MR. BUSSE: Thank you. THE COURT: -- to advise the Court of the situation. (Proceedings Concluded.) CERTIFICATE T certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript of the record of proceedings in this case on November 7, 2007. Patsy (Ymn\coleman, RPR Date Contrae® Court Reporter