JUDICIAL GANG RAPE ON JUNE 22, 2010, 10 : 00 a.m.

SEE YOU AT SODOM …

COURTROOM 6-B

NO TITLE NEEDED … JUST PAY JUDGE AT THE DOOR

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (c) (3) The Honey way …

Don’t you ever complain again …

“PRE-FILING INVASION”:
Just follow the “Local Rules” … and stick your “piece of property” …

Honey well if you can’t prove title just pay me

Judge Charlene E. Honeywell

6/16/2010

Official site of the U.S. District Court f…

This is Google's cache of http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/judicialInfo/FtMyers/JgHoneywell.htm. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on May 24, 2010 07:27:49 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more These search terms are highlighted: charlene edwards honeywell
Text-only version

The Honorable Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge
Ft. Myers Division

Jacksonville Judges Orlando Judges Ocala Judges Tampa Judges Ft. Myers Judges

TEL: 239-461-2170 FAX: 239-461-2179

Biography:
Charlene Edwards Honeywell is a United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida. She was appointed by President Obama in November 2009. Prior to that appointment, Judge Honeywell served as a Circuit Court Judge for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Tampa, Florida. She was appointed to that position by Governor Jeb Bush in 2000. Judge Honeywell graduated from Howard University, cum laude, in May 1979 and from the University of Florida's Levin College of Law in 1981. From 1982 to 1985, she served in the Tallahassee Public Defender's Office, first, as an appellate attorney and then as a trial attorney. Judge Honeywell then spent two years as an assistant public defender in the Tampa Public Defender's office. From 1987 to 1994, she worked as an Assistant City Attorney for the City of Tampa, where she was the chief of the litigation department. Judge Honeywell also spent six years as a litigation attorney and shareholder at the Tampa law firm Hill, Ward & Henderson. In 1994, Judge Honeywell served as a County Court Judge for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in Florida. Chambers Staff: Bettye G. Samuel Judicial Assistant 239-461-2170 Nefertari S. Rigsby Law Clerk 239-461-2173
Odd Numbered Cases

All Judges

Federal Court Judges Practice Guide

Michael A. Pusateri Law Clerk 239-461-2174
Even Numbered Cases

Joy Stancel Court Reporter 239-461-2064

Libby Figgers Courtroom Deputy 239-461-2005
1/2

…googleusercontent.com/search?q=ca…

6/17/2010

Justia :: 24 C.F.R. § 203.385 Types o…

Supreme Court Center | US Laws | Blawgs.FM | BlawgSearch.com | Justia
Justia> Law > United States> Code of Federal Regulations> Title Search Justia 24 - Housing and Urban Development> CHAPTER II--OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HOUSING--FEDERAL HOUSING COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT> PART 203--SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE INSURANCE > § 203.385 Types of satisfactory title evidence.

24 C.F.R. § 203.385 Types of satisfactory title evidence.
Title 24 - Housing and Urban Development

Title 24: Housing and Urban Development PART 203—SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE INSURANCE Subpart B—Contract Rights and Obligations Property Title Transfers and Title Waivers Browse Next
§ 203.385 Types of satisfactory title evidence.

The following types of title evidence shall be satisfactory to the Commissioner: (a) Fee or owner's title policy. A fee or owner's policy of title insurance, a guaranty or guarantee of title, or a certificate of title, issued by a title company, duly authorized by law and qualified by experience to issue such instruments. If an owner's policy of title insurance is furnished, it shall show title in the Commissioner and inure to the benefit of his successors in office. (b) Mortgagee's policy of title insurance. A mortgagee's policy of title insurance supplemented by an Abstract and an Attorney's Certificate of Title covering the period subsequent to the date of the mortgage, the terms of the policy shall be such that the liability of the title company will continue in favor of the Commissioner after title is conveyed to him. The policy may be drawn in favor of the mortgagee and the Federal Housing Commissioner, “as their interests may appear”, with the consent of the title company endorsed thereon; (c) Abstract and legal opinion. An abstract of title prepared by an abstract company or individual engaged in the business of preparing abstracts of title and accompanied by the legal opinion as to the quality of such title signed by an attorney at law experienced in examination of titles. If title evidence consists of an Abstract and an Attorney's Certificate of Title, the search shall extend for at least forty years prior to the date of the Certificate to a well recognized source of good title; (d) Torrens of similar certificate. A Torrens or similar title certificate; or (e) Title standard of U.S. or State government. Evidence of title conforming to the standards of a supervising branch of the Government of the United States or of any State or Territory thereof. Browse Next

Copyright © Justia - No copyright claim is made to any of the government data on these pages. Company :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Contact Us :: Have a Happy Day!

…justia.com/…/24-2.1.1.2.4.2.107.70.…

1/1

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 186

Filed 06/07/10 Page 1 of 2

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

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT and DR. JORGE BUSSE, Plaintiffs, v. ROGER ALEJO, et al, Defendants. / CASE NO. 2:09-cv-791-FTM-36-SPC

ORDER On March 31, 2010, the Court directed Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE as to why this Court should not impose sanctions against them pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (c) (3) (Doc. 126). Plaintiffs have not directly responded to the Order To Show Cause. Instead, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal as to the Order To Show Cause (Docs. 130, 131 and 132). On May 13, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, dismissed Plaintiffs' appeal for want of prosecution (Doc. 178). Plaintiffs have continued to file motions and pleadings in violation of the Local Rules of this Court and prior Orders of this Court.1 Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

On February 9, 2010, Plaintiffs filed yet another lawsuit regarding the dispute over a particular piece of property in Lee County, Florida. This lawsuit names, among others, Eleventh Circuit Court Judges, District Judges, and the Governor of Florida.

1

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 186

Filed 06/07/10 Page 2 of 2

1.

The Plaintiffs are directed to appear before this Court on June 22, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.

in Courtroom 6-B, United States Courthouse and Federal Building, 2110 First Street, Fort Myers, Florida. 2. At this hearing, the Plaintiffs are to show cause why they should not be sanctioned

for violating Local Rules of this Court and prior Orders of this Court as set forth in the Order To Show Cause entered on March 31, 2010. 3. The Court will also hear argument on the USAO Defendants' Motion for Pre-filing

Injunction, Monetary Sanctions, And Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 149). DONE AND ORDERED at Ft. Myers, Florida, on June 7, 2010.

COPIES TO: COUNSEL OF RECORD AND UNREPRESENTED PARTIES, IF ANY

-2-

Beyond Perverted

JUDICIAL GANG RAPE ON JUNE 22, 2010 DOC. # 186
Honey well let’s gang sodomize the Plaintiff rape victims as “vexatious” …
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why this Court should not gang rape the Plaintiffs

Honey well if you can’t prove title just pay me and I’ll fix it …
JUNE 22 SHOW OF GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION

Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Judicial Crime Victim Dr. Jorg Busse, Governmental Crime Victim http://www.scribd.com/JUDICIAL%20FRAUD CERTIFIED FACSIMILE TO 239-461-2179 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION CHAMBERS Charlene Edwards Honeywell, U.S. District Judge Bettye G. Samuel, Judicial Assistant Libby Figgers, Courtroom Deputy RE: NOTICE OF JUDICIAL CORRUPTION, CONCEALMENT, FRAUD ON COURT BRIBERY OF CROOKED JUDGE SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL Fraudulent Pretenses of “Lee County” “title” to Fake “parcels”: Facially Forged “parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”; Facially Forged “parcel” “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”; Facially Fraudulent “legal description”: “… all accretions”; Criminal Governmental Concealment of Record Lack of any County title/ownership; Fraud by Defendant Lee County Property Appraiser Kenneth M. Wilkinson; Criminal Concealment of Def. Wilkinson’s Crimes by Def. Attorney Jack N. Peterson

CC:

Federal Bureau of Investigation Florida Department of Law Enforcement U.S. Department of Justice Florida Bar

6/16/2010
L EE COUNTY P ROPERTY A PPRAISER

Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin…

PROPERTY DATA FOR PARCEL 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0 T AX YEAR 2009
Parcel data is available for the following tax years: [ 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 ]
[ Next Lower Parcel Number | Next Higher Parcel Number | Display Tax Bills on this Parcel |
OWNERSHIP , LEGAL, S ALES
AND

Tax Estimator
FROM THE

]

DISTRICT DATA ARE

FROM THE CURRENT DATABASE .

LAND, BUILDING, VALUE

AND

E XEMPTION DATA ARE

2009 ROLL.

PROPERTY DETAILS
OWNER OF RECORD LEE COUNTY PO BOX 398 FORT MYERS FL 33902 SITE ADDRESS GOVT LOT CAPTIVA FL 33924 LEGAL DESCRIPTION CAYO COSTA PB 3 PG 25 ALL UNNUMBERED AND ACCRETED LANDS [ PICTOMETRY AERIAL VIEWER ] TAXING DISTRICT 050 - COUNTY / NO FIRE DISTRICT PROPERTY VALUES (TAX ROLL 2009) ISTORY C HART ] [H 1,074,100 JUST 1,074,100 ASSESSED 1,074,100 ASSESSED SOH TAXABLE BUILDING BUILDING FEATURES 0 0 0
INCL.
IN BLDG VALUE.

[ VIEWER ] TAX MAP [ PRINT ]

DOR CODE 86 - COUNTIES - OTHER

EXEMPTIONS HOMESTEAD WIDOW WIDOWER DISABILITY WHOLLY AGRICULTURE 0 0 0 0 1,074,100 0

ATTRIBUTES LAND UNITS OF MEASURE TOTAL NUMBER OF LAND UNITS FRONTAGE DEPTH BEDROOMS BATHROOMS AC 107.41 0 0

leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?…

1/3

6/16/2010

Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin…

LAND LAND 0 FEATURES SOH DIFFERENCE

1,074,100
INCL.
IN LAND VALUE.

0

TOTAL BUILDING SQFT 1ST YEAR BUILDING ON TAX ROLL HISTORIC DISTRICT

0 NO

SALES/TRANSACTIONS
SALE PRICE DATE OR NUMBER VERIFIER Add TRANSACTION DETAILS TYPE DESCRIPTION 01 Disqualified (Doc Stamp .70 / SP less th $100 / Other Disq)
There are 1 additional parcel(s) with this document (may have been split after the transaction date)...

VACANT / IMPROVED V

100 12/1/1969 569/875

07-44-21-01-00001.0000

SOLID WASTE (GARBAGE) ROLL DATA
SOLID WASTE DISTRICT 007 - Upper Islands C OLLECTION DAYS ROLL TYPE CATEGORY UNIT/AREA 0 TAX AMOUNT 0.00

ELEVATION INFORMATION
STORM SURGE CATEGORY TS FLOOD INSURANCE (FIRM LOOK-UP) RATE CODE COMMUNITY 125124 PANEL 0192 VERSION F DATE 8/28/2008

Please contact Lee County DCD at 239-533-8597 option 4 to verify your flood zone status.

[ Show ]

APPRAISAL DETAILS

TRIM (proposed tax) Notices are available for the following tax years: [ 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 ] [ Next Lower Parcel Number | Next Higher Parcel Number ] [ New Query | Parcel Queries Page | Lee PA Home ]
leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?… 2/3

6/17/2010

FindACase™ | Prescott v. Alejo
Nam e of Court: State: -Standard service 24 Hour Rush

Court Records Request: Full Docket

Retrieve Original Court Records From all NonFederal Courts

Buy Document Now

Prescott v. Alejo UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION Docket Number available at www.versuslaw.com Citation Number available at www.versuslaw.com March 25, 2010 JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT; JORG BUSSE, PLAINTIFFS, v. ROGER ALEJO; KENNETH M. WILKINSON; JACK N. PETERSON; ROGER DESJARLAIS; LEE COUNTY FLORIDA; LEE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD; LORI L. RUTLAND; STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND; STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL, PROTECTION; CHAD LACH; REAGAN KATHLEEN RUSSELL; KAREN B. HAWES; CHARLIE GREEN; BOB JANES; BRIAN BIGELOW; RAY JUDAH; TAMMY HALL; FRANK MANN; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY(S); SEAN P. FLYNN; E. KENNETH STEGEBY; DAVID P. RHODES; A. BRIAN ALBRITTON; CYNTHIA A. PIVACEK; JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.; STEVEN CARTA; MIKE SCOTT; HUGH D. HAYES; GERALD D. SIEBENS; STATE OF FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL; WILLIAM M. MARTIN; PETERSON BERNARD; SKIP QUILLEN; TOM GILBERTSON; CHARLES BARRY STEVENS, DEFENDANTS. ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the Defendants, A. Brian Albritton, David P. Rhodes, Sean P. Flynn, and E. Kenneth Stegeby's (USAO Defendants) Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Notices (Doc. # 74, 75, and 76) and for an Award of Monetary Sanctions (Doc. #80) filed on March 9, 2010. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that the Court may order "any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter" be stricken from a pleading. Harvey v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2005 WL 1421170 (M.D. Fla. June 17, 2005). In evaluating a motion to strike, the court must treat all well pleaded facts as admitted and cannot consider matters beyond the pleadings. Microsoft Corp. v. Jesse's Computers & Repair, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 681, 683 (M.D. Fla. 2002). A motion to strike will usually be denied unless the allegations have no possible relation to the controversy and may cause prejudice to one of the parties. Harvey, 2005 WL 1421170 (citing Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Services, Inc., 57 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 1347 (M.D. Fla. 1997). The UASO Defendants move to strike the Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice of Appeal and Notice of Publications of Defendants' Fraud (Doc.# 74), Motion for Judicial Notice of Defendants' Fraud upon the Court and Notice of Publications of Defendants' Fraud (Doc. # 75), and Motion for Relief from Defendants' Fraud upon the Court and Notice of Publications of Defendants' Fraud (Doc. # 76), all filed on March 8, 2010, as an immaterial, impertinent and scandalous matter. The USAO Defendants further request the court exercise its inherent authority to award sanctions against Plaintiffs Prescott and Busse. As grounds, the USAO Defendants state that all three Motions contain irrelevant, scandalous material, and that the Plaintiffs are merely using this case to harass any individual that has opposed them in their previous lawsuits. As an example, the Plaintiff referred to AUSA Jennifer Corinis as "Jennifer Whore Corinis." (Doc. # 75 ¶ 15). The Plaintiff continually asserts that Judges in the Middle District of Florida are corrupt and have participated in a conspiracy against him. The allegations appear to be based solely on the fact that the Plaintiff received adverse rulings from judges in the Middle District of Florida and from the Eleventh Circuit. A review of the Plaintiff's filings demonstrate that the Plaintiff's Motions are immaterial and scandalous, and do not present legal arguments for the Court's review. Therefore, the Court finds good cause to strike the Motions. The USAO Defendants also move the Court to impose sanctions, under Rule 11, on the Plaintiffs for bringing the Motions. The purpose of Rule 11 sanctions is to reduce frivolous claims defenses, or motions and to deter costly meritless maneuvers. Massengale v. Ray, 267 F.3d 1298, 1302 (11th Cir. 2001). Rule 11 requires district courts to impose appropriate sanctions, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond where an attorney or party submits a pleading to the court that: (1) is not wellgrounded in fact and therefore has no reasonable factual basis; (2) is not legally tenable; or (3) is submitted in bad faith for an improper purpose. Ricccard v. Prudential Insurance Company, 307 F.3d 1277, 1294 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)). The USAO Defendant's Rule 11 Motion is due to be denied for failure to comply with the Rule's requirements. First, a motion for Rule 11 sanctions must be filed separately from other motions or requests. Nicarry v. Cannaday, 2006 WL 3931449 * 3 (M.D. Fla. December 7, 2006). Further, the motion must be served in accordance with Rule 5, but should not be presented to the court until

…findacase.com/…/wfrmDocViewer.aspx

1/2

6/17/2010

FindACase™ | Prescott v. Alejo

after opposing counsel has been given a twenty-one (21) day "safe harbor" period in which to correct or withdraw the offending document. Id.(citing DeShiro v. Branch, 183 F.R.D. 281 (M.D.Fla.1998) (explaining in detail the "safe harbor" period). Here, the USAO Defendant's included the Rule 11 Motion with their Motion to Strike and they fail to comply with the "safety harbor" provision. Thus the Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions is due to be denied at this time. However, the Court cautions the Plaintiffs that future filings containing immaterial and scandalous matters may result in sanctions being imposed. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: The Defendants, A. Brian Albritton, David P. Rhodes, Sean P. Flynn, and E. Kenneth Stegeby's (USAO Defendants) Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Notices (Doc. # 74, 75, and 76) and for an Award of Monetary Sanctions (Doc. #80) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (1) The Defendants, A. Brian Albritton, David P. Rhodes, Sean P. Flynn, and E. Kenneth Stegeby's (USAO Defendants) Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Notices is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to STRIKE (Docs. # 74, 75, and 76). (2) The Defendants, A. Brian Albritton, David P. Rhodes, Sean P. Flynn, and E. Kenneth Stegeby's (USAO Defendants) Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 25th day of March, 2010. 20100325 © 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.
Buy Document Now

Powered by VersusLaw, Inc. Home | Advertise | About | Feedback | Terms | Privacy Policy | FAQ
All contents © Copyright 2008 - 2010 VersusLaw , Inc. Bellevue, WA, USA. All rights reserved

…findacase.com/…/wfrmDocViewer.aspx

2/2

6/17/2010

Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin…

Lee County Property Appraiser
Next Lower Parcel Number Next Higher

Tax Year 2009 Property Data for Parcel 07-44-21-01-00001.0000
Parcel Number Tax Estimator Tax Bills Print

Property Details
Owner Of Record
LEE COUNTY PO BOX 398 FORT MYERS FL 33902

[ Viewer ] Tax Map [ Print ]

Site Address
CAYO COSTA CAPTIVA FL 33924

Legal Description
ALL UN-NUMBERED + UNDESIGNATED LOTS IN CAYO COSTA + LT K BLK 32

Classification / DOR Code
COUNTIES - OTHER / 86

[ Pictometry Aerial Viewer ]

Property Values (2009 Tax Roll)
Homestead Just Assessed Portability Applied Assessed SOH Taxable Building Building Features Land Land Features SOH Difference 0 0 Incl. in bldg value 91,700 Incl. in bldg value 0 91,700 91,700 0 91,700 0 0

Exemptions
0 0 0 0 0 91,700 0 0

Attributes
Land Units of Measure Total Number of Land Units Frontage Depth Total Number of Buildings Total Bedrooms Total Bathrooms Total Buildings Sq Ft 1st Year Building on Tax Roll Historic District AC 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No

Additional Homestead Widow Widower Disability Wholly Senior Agriculture

Taxing Authorities Sales / Transactions
Sale Price Date OR Number 2761/690 569/875 Verifier Add Add Type 03 01 Description Sales disqualified as a result of examination of the deed Disqualified (Interest Sales / Court Docs / Government) Sales disqualified as a result of examination of the deed Disqualified (Doc Stamp .70 / SP less th $100 / Other Disq) Vacant/Improved V V

5,000.00 11/01/1996 100.00 12/01/1969

Parcel Numbering History
Prior STRAP 07-44-21-00-00001.0000 07-44-21-01-00032.0000 Split (From another Parcel) Combined (With another parcel-Delete Occurs) 07/02/1997 Renumber Reason Renumber Date

Solid Waste (Garbage) Roll Data
leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?… 1/2

6/17/2010

Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin…

Elevation Information
Storm Surge Category TS Flood Insurance [ FIRM Look-up ] Rate Code Community 125124 Panel 0211 Version F Date 8/28/2008

Appraisal Details
Land
Land Tracts
Use Code 8600 Use Code Description County Owned, Offices, Library, Government Bldg Number of Units 9 Unit of Measure Acres

TRIM (proposed tax) Notices are available for the following tax years [ 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 ] Next Lower Parcel Number Next Higher Parcel Number New Query Search Results Home

leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?…

2/2

5/29/2010

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC
Prescott et al v. Alejo et al Assigned to: Judge Charlene E. Honeywell Referred to: Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell Case in other court: 09-16203-H 09-16205-H 09-16206H 09-16207-H 09-16208-H 10-10645-F 10-11628-D 10-11629-D 10-11630-D 10-11631-D 10-11632-D 10-11633-D 10-11634-D 10-12134-H Florida Southern, 9:09-cv-82359 Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question Date Filed 12/01/2009 # Docket Text Date Filed: 12/04/2009 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

1 COMPLAINT against A. Brian Albritton, Roger Alejo, Peterson Bernard, Brian Bigelow, Steven Carta, Roger Desjarlais, Sean P. Flynn, Tom Gilbertson, Charlie Green, Tammy Hall, Karen B. Hawes, Hugh D. Hayes, Bob Janes, Johnson Engineering, Inc., Ray Judah, Chad Lach, Lee County Florida, Lee County Value Adjustment Board, Frank Mann, William M. Martin, Jack N. Peterson, Cynthia A. Pivacek, Skip Quillen, David P. Rhodes, Reagan Kathleen Russell, Lori L. Rutland, Mike Scott, Gerald D. Siebens, State of Florida Attorney General, State of Florida, Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, State of Florida, Department of Environmental, E. Kenneth Stegeby, Charles "Barry&quo Stevens, United States Attorney(s), Kenneth M. Wilkinson., filed by Jennifer Franklin Prescott.(lh) [Transferred from flsd on 12/4/2009.] (Entered: 12/02/2009) 2 Filing fee: For new case $ 350.00, receipt number 726644 (lh) [Transferred from flsd on 12/4/2009.] (Entered: 12/02/2009) 3 ORDER Transferring and Closing Case. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to CLOSE this case. Signed by Senior Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 12/3/2009. (asl)
1/19

12/01/2009 12/04/2009

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

“O.R. 569/875”
Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Court Case No. Filed NOS Closed 890 440 440 440 440 440 440 440 02/04/2009 05/06/2008 06/04/2009 07/25/2008 11/05/2009 02/11/2009 BUSSE, JORG flmdce BUSSE, JORG flmdce BUSSE, JORG flmdce BUSSE, JORG flmdce BUSSE, JORG flmdce BUSSE, JORG flmdce BUSSE, JORG flmdce BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2009cv00041 01/23/2009 2:2010cv00089 02/09/2010 2:2007cv00228 04/10/2007 2:2009cv00341 05/26/2009 2:2008cv00364 05/07/2008 2:2009cv00602 09/11/2009 2:2009cv00791 12/04/2009 2:2008cv00899 12/05/2008

5

TRANSCRIPT OF 11/17/2009 ROGER ALEJO PERJURY PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS DR. BUSSE & FRANKLIN PRESCOTT: [VAB RECORD: 1:05:23 – 1:05:33; YOU TUBE: 1:54 - 2:04]

“Is our riparian Gulf-front land parcel, ending on 015A [Parcel # 12-44-2001-00015.015A] bounded by the natural boundary of the Gulf of Mexico? YES or NO?”
Defendant Special Magistrate LORI L. RUTLAND: [VAB RECORD: 1:05:34 – 1:05:42; YOU TUBE: 2:05 – 2:12]

“Mr. Alejo, does the property have the Gulf of Mexico next to it? Is it right up next to the Gulf of Mexico?”
Defendant ROGER ALEJO: [VAB RECORD: 1:05:42 – 1:05:43; YOU TUBE: 2:13 – 2:15]

“YES, Ma’am.” ROGER ALEJO’S PERJURY & FRAUD ON YOU TUBE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYp-Mb242D0

CERTIFIED DELIVERY

17

Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads

Page 1 of 6

This is Google's cache of http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/390349EE42BDFAC385256593005C0A0A. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Apr 23, 2009 23:14:42 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more These search terms are highlighted: united states v 16.33 acres Text-only version

Florida Attorney General Advisory Legal Opinion
Number: AGO 78-125 Date: October 24, 1978 Subject: Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads

David B. Higginbottom City Attorney Frostproof QUESTION: Is a municipality authorized by law to require abutting landowners who request vacation of a public street to prove a revesionary interest in the property and pay for the proportionate costs of an appraisal and for the proportionate appraised value of such property interest as conditions to the vacation? SUMMARY: A municipality possesses no authority under the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act to require property owners whose land abuts a dedicated public street to 'prove a reversionary interest' or any other property interest or property right in the streetbed prior to and as a condition to the vacation of such street. The determination and adjudication of property rights is a judicial function which may not be exercised by the legislative branches of government; hence any such exercise by a municipality does not constitute a lawful exercise of a municipal governmental power for a municipal purpose. In addition, while the vacation of streets in the public interest or when the streets are no longer required for public use is a legislative function which may be performed by a municipality, a municipality possesses neither statutory nor constitutional authority to exact payment for or otherwise interfere with the property rights of landowners whose property abuts a public street as conditions to or in exchange for the exercise of its power to vacate streets no longer required for public use.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie...

4/30/2009

Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads

Page 2 of 6

Your letter advises that the Frostproof City Council has adopted a 'motion' which reads as follows: [I]n the future a qualified appraiser [shall] be used by the city to set the value of a street (to become property) when requested for closure. The person or persons making the request would have to bear the expense of the appraisal and proof of a reversionary clause. They would be notified and bills [sic] for the appraised property value before actual closing of the street could take place. Payment to be made on date of actual closing. Section 2(b), Art. VIII, State Const., provides in pertinent part: Municipalities shall have governmental, corporate and proprietary powers to enable them to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions and render municipal services, and may exercise any power for municipal purposes except as otherwise provided by law. (Emphasis supplied.) Statutory implementation of the broad grant of home rule is provided by Ch. 166, F. S., the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act. Section 166.051(1), F. S., of that act states in relevant part that 'municipalities . . . may exercise may power for municipal purposes, except when expressly prohibited by law.' (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, it is clear that the only limitation upon the exercise of power by a municipality is that it must be exercised for a municipal purpose. State v. City of Sunrise, 354 So.2d 1206, 1209 (Fla. 1977). Although the phrase 'municipal purposes' is not defined by the constitution, it is defined by s. 166.021(2), F. S., as 'any activity or power which may be exercised by the state or its political subdivisions.' But see City of Miami Beach v. Forte Towers, Inc., 305 So.2d 764, 765-769 (Fla. 1974) (Dekle, J., concurring), in which Justice Dekle observed: It is not the definition of municipal purposes found in . . . s. 166.021(2) that grants power to the municipality . . . but rather the provision of . . . s. 166.021(1) which expressly empowers municipalities to 'exercise any power for municipal purposes, except when expressly prohibited by law.' It is a fundamental principal in this state that the determination and adjudication of property rights is a judicial function which cannot be performed by the Legislature. Hillsborough County v. Kensatt, 144 So. 393 (Fla. 1932); State Plant Board v. Smith, 110 So.2d 401 (Fla. 1959); Daniels v. State Road Dept., 170 So.2d 846 (Fla. 1964). Legislation which constitutes an invasion of the

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie...

4/30/2009

Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads

Page 3 of 6

province of the judiciary is invalid. Thursby v. Stewart, 138 So. 742 (Fla. 1931); Simmons v. State, 36 So.2d 207 (Fla. 1948). Thus, while the vacation of streets is a legislative function which may be validly delegated to municipalities (see Sun Oil Company v. Gerstein, 206 So.2d 439, 440 (3 D.C.A. Fla., 1968), AGO 075-171), no legislative body (whether state, county, or municipal) is authorized to invade private property rights or require abutting property owners to prove a reversionary or any other interest in real property as a condition to the vacation of a public street. Accordingly, the action taken by the Frostproof City Council does not constitute a municipal purpose; and, therefore, it is outside the scope of municipal home rule powers possessed by the municipality. Moreover, under the general rule, the interest acquired in land by a municipal corporation for street purposes is held in trust for the benefit of all the public, regardless of whether the corporation owns the fee or has merely an interest therein. Sun Oil Company v. Gerstein, supra; 30 Am. Jur.2d Highways Streets and Bridges s. 159. A municipality is empowered to vacate streets only when the vacation is in the public interest or when the street is no longer required for public use and convenience. 64 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations s. 1668. Consequently, in AGO 078-118, I noted, as a caveat, with respect to the vacation of county roads: [I]f the general public is using the roads and streets in question (including public service vehicles such as garbage trucks, police, fire or emergency vehicles), then the county should not close or vacate the roads or streets in question as such vacation would be injurious to the public welfare or violate individual property rights. Applying these principles to your inquiry, it is clear that the city council should not undertake to vacate any streets in the absence of a determination that the general public would benefit from the vacation or that such streets are no longer required for the public use and convenience. As to whether a municipality is authorized to exact charges or payments from abutting landowners as a condition to or in exchange for the vacation of a public street, it is necessary to analyze the property interests possessed by the public and the abutting or adjoining landowners in public streets. Recently, in AGO's 078-63, 078-88, and 078-118, I examined the elements and effect of the dedication of property for public use. There are two basic requirements to the existence of a valid dedication to the public. First, there must be a clearly manifested intention by the owner of the property to dedicate it to public use. Second, the public, through its authorized agents, must clearly show its intent to accept the dedication. City of

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie...

4/30/2009

Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads

Page 4 of 6

Miami v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 84 So. 726 (Fla. 1920); Roe v. Kendrick, 200 So. 394 (Fla. 1941). An offer of dedication to the public may be accomplished by making and recording a plat and selling lots with reference thereto. See, e.g., Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Worley, 38 So. 618 (Fla. 1905); Miami Beach v. Undercliff Realty and Investment Co., 21 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1945); and see, s. 177.081, F. S. However the dedication to the public is accomplished, it is clear that such dedication does not have the effect of transferring legal title from the grantor to the public. To the contrary, the fee remains in the grantor (or his grantees) while the public acquires only a right of easement in trust, so long as the dedicated land is used for the intended purpose of the dedication. Attorney General Opinion 078-118. Unless otherwise specifically provided in the conveyance, the legal title of the grantor in the dedicated property passes to the grantees of those lots sold with reference to a plat, which lots abut the dedicated streets. Their title extends to the center of the street subject to the public easement. Walker v. Pollack, 74 So.2d 886 (Fla. 1954); Smith v. Horn, 70 So. 435 (Fla. 1915); New Fort Pierce Hotel Co. v. Phoenix Tax Title Corp., 171 So. 525 (Fla. 1936); United States v. 16.33 Acres of Land in County of Dade, 342 So.2d 476, 480 (Fla. 1977); cf. Emerald Equities v. Hutton, 357 So.2d 1071 (2 D.C.A. Fla., 1978). Therefore, a street in which the public has only an easement when properly vacated ceases to be a street; the abutting landowners continue to hold fee simple title to the center of the vacated roadbed unencumbered by the easement. Smith v. Horn, supra; Robbins v. White, 42 So. 841, 843-844 (Fla. 1907); AGO 078-118. See also s. 177.081(1), F. S., providing that every plat of a subdivision filed for record must contain a dedication by the developer; s. 177.081(2), F. S., providing that all streets, rights-of-way, and public areas shown on plats approved by the affected local governments shall be deemed dedicated to the public for the uses and purposes stated in such plat, unless otherwise stated therein by the dedicator; s. 177.085(1), F. S., providing that when any landowner subdivides his land and dedicates streets or roadways on the plat but reserves unto the dedicator the reversionary interests in the dedicated streets or roadways, and thereafter conveys abutting lots, such conveyance carries with it the reversionary interest in the abutting street to the center line, unless the landowner clearly provides otherwise in the conveyance; and s. 177.085(2), F. S., providing that prior holders of any interest in the reversionary rights in the streets and roads in recorded plats of subdivided lots, other than the owners of abutting lots, 'shall have 1 year from July 1, 1972, to institute suit . . . to establish or enforce the right,' and that, if no such action is instituted within that time, any

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie...

4/30/2009

Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads

Page 5 of 6

right, title, or interest and all right of reversion shall be barred and unenforceable. With regard to the instant inquiry, therefore, it is apparent that the Frostproof City Council does not 'own' streets which have been dedicated to public use. Cf. AGO 078-118 in which this office concluded that a county was not authorized to convey or transfer ownership and control of dedicated streets to a 'homeowners association' since the county possessed no legal title in the property which it could convey or transfer. Under such circumstances, there would appear to be no legal basis upon which the city could require abutting fee owners to pay to secure property interests which they already possess. See McQuillin Municipal Corporations s. 30.189, at 123 (3rd rev. ed. 1977), stating: 'A municipality is not entitled to compensation for loss of a public easement in streets in which it does not own the fee.' Accord: Lockwood & Strickland Co. v. City of Chicago, 117 N.E. 81, 82 (Ill. 1917), in which the court held, among other things: [I]t would be beyond the power of the city to grant or convey to a private person or corporation the ground embraced in a vacated street or alley. Whether a city owns the fee in an alley or merely an easement, when it is vacated because no longer needed for public use, the law disposes of the reversionary interest, and the reversionary rights cannot be granted or conveyed by the city. . . . Whether the alley was no longer needed for public use, and whether the public interest would be subserved by its vacation, could not be made to depend on how much the city could get for its action. The legislative powers of a city must be exercised for the public benefit, but that does not authorize a municipality to sell or bargain legislation as a means of obtaining revenue. The State Constitution provides that all natural persons shall have the inalienable right 'to acquire, possess and protect property . . ..' Section 2, Art. I, State Const. Additionally, s. 9, Art. I, State Const., provides that no person 'shall be deprived of . . . property without due process of law . . ..' Section 6, Art. X, State Const., states that '[n]o private property shall be taken except for a public purpose and with full compensation therefor . . ..' Thus, the acquisition, possession, enjoyment, use, and alienation of property and property rights are controlled by constitutional law and the common law. Moreover, the term 'property' for purposes of the abovecited constitutional provisions includes more than the abutting landowner's fee simple title. As stated in Seldon v. City of Jacksonville, 10 So. 457, 459 (Fla. 1891): There is incident to abutting property, or its ownership, even

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie...

4/30/2009

Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads

Page 6 of 6

where the abutter's fee or title does not extend to the middle of the street, but only to its boundary, certain property rights which the public generally do not possess. They are the right of egress and ingress from and to the lot by the way of the street, and the right of light and air which the street affords. Viewing property to be not the mere corporal subject of ownership, but as being all the rights legally incidental to the ownership of such subject, which rights are generally said to be those of user, exclusion, and disposition, or the right to use, possess, and dispose of, . . . we are satisfied that the rights just mentioned are within the meaning of the word 'property,' as it is used in this constitutional provision. [10 So. 457, 459 (1891) (construing s. 12, Declar. Rts., State Const. 1885, in part a predecessor of s. 6, Art. X, State Const.).] See also Lutterloh v. Mayor and Council of Town of Cedar Keys, 15 Fla. 306, 308 (1875); City of Miami v. East Coast Ry. Co. , 84 So. 726, 729 (Fla. 1920); McCorquodale v. Keyton, 63 So.2d 906 (Fla. 1956); Monell v. Golfview Road Association, 359 So.2d 2 (4 D.C.A. Fla., 1978). Accordingly, it has been held that the rights of abutting or adjacent purchasers depend on principles of law applicable to private property rather than public dedication since these rights depend upon a 'private easement implied from sale with reference to a plat showing streets [etc.]' rather than upon any dedication to the public generally. Burnham v. Davis Islands, Inc., 87 So.2d 97, 100 (Fla. 1956). An abutting landowner may be entitled to compensation from a public body when it vacates a public street for consequent loss of access to such landowner's property on the theory that a property right has been taken without compensation. See Pinellas County v. Austin, 323 So.2d 6, 8 (2 D.C.A. Fla., 1975). If follows, then, that the several property interests of abutting landowners are subject to constitutional protection. Clearly the attempt by a municipality to usurp private property rights or property interests or to barter or sell such property rights as conditions to or in exchange for the exercise of its legislative power to vacate streets no longer required for public use, does not constitute a municipal purpose and is outside the scope of municipal home rule powers. Prepared by: Patricia R. Gleason Assistant Attorney General

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie...

4/30/2009

GOVERNMENTAL TRICKERY & DECEPTION:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 08-14846 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________

FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT APRIL 21, 2009 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK

D. C. Docket No. 08-00364-CV-FTM-29-SPC JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, JORG BUSSE,

Plaintiffs-AppellantsCross-Appellees,

versus STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, DIVISION OF RECREATION AND PARKS, HAROLD GEORGE VIELHAUER, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees, KENNETH M. WILKINSON, Defendant-AppelleeCross-Appellant.

________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _________________________ (April 21, 2009) Before BLACK, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Jorg Busse (“the Appellants”), proceeding pro se, appeal the district court’s: (1) dismissal without prejudice of their pro se civil rights complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim and (2) denial of their motion for the district court judge to recuse himself. Appellee Ken Wilkinson cross-appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for sanctions against the Appellants. After review, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND A. Current Action The Appellants are owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision in Lee County, Florida. On May 5, 2008, the Appellants filed the present pro se complaint against numerous state and county officials1 alleging that they had

The complaint named the following defendants (herein collectively “the Appellees”): (1) the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund; (2) the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks; (3) Lee County, Florida; (4) the Board of Lee County Commissioners; (5) Jack N. Peterson, Lee County 2

1

violated the Appellants’ constitutional rights with respect to their Cayo Costa property. Most of the allegations in the complaint concern the 1969 Lee County Resolution 569/875, which claimed the undesignated areas on the east and west side of the Cayo Costa subdivision plat and all accretions thereto as public land to be used for public purposes. The Appellants’ Lot 15A is on the west side of the Cayo Costa subdivision on the Gulf of Mexico and is adjacent to land that was claimed through Resolution 569/875 to create the Cayo Costa State Park. The Appellants’ complaint alleged that the Appellees: (1) passed an invalid resolution that resulted in the unconstitutional taking of their land without just compensation, the operation of a state park on their land, and the destruction of their land through the failure to prevent fires on their property during a drought, all in violation of the Takings and Due Process Clauses; (2) enacted Lee County Resolution 569/875 without notice and a hearing in violation of the Due Process Clause; and (3) treated certain individuals differently in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Appellants alleged numerous bases for federal jurisdiction.2 The complaint also alleged several state law violations, including
Attorneys Jack Peterson, Donna Marie Collins, and David Owen; (6) Lee County property appraisers Kenneth M. Wilkinson and Sherri L. Johnson; and (7) Cayo Costa State Park employees Reginald Norman, Harold Vielhauerin, Linda Funchess, Reagan Russell, and Tom Beason. The Appellants alleged that there was federal jurisdiction for their complaint under: (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343; (3) Articles III and IV of the U.S. 3
2

Although this issue is closer, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying Appellee Wilkinson’s motion for sanctions. The district court was intimately familiar with the Appellees’ claims in both complaints and their conduct throughout the litigation and was thus in the best position to determine whether Rule 11 sanctions were appropriate. We note that the district court has now warned the Appellees that their conduct may warrant sanctions in the future if continued. III. CONCLUSION Therefore, we affirm the district court’s orders dismissing the Appellants’ complaint, denying the Appellants’ motion for recusal, and denying the Appellees’ motion f or sanctions. AFFIRMED.

12

6/16/2010

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…

Select Year:

2009

Go

The 2009 Florida Statutes
CHAPTER 712 MARKETABLE RECORD TITLES TO REAL PROPERTY 712.01 Definitions. 712.02 Marketable record title; suspension of applicability. 712.03 Exceptions to marketability. 712.04 Interests extinguished by marketable record title. 712.05 Effect of filing notice. 712.06 Contents of notice; recording and indexing. 712.07 Limitations of actions and recording acts. 712.08 Filing false claim. 712.09 Extension of 30-year period. 712.095 Notice required by July 1, 1983. 712.10 Law to be liberally construed. 712.11 Covenant revitalization. 712.01 Definitions.--As used in this law: (1) The term "person" as used herein denotes singular or plural, natural or corporate, private or governmental, including the state and any political subdivision or agency thereof as the context for the use thereof requires or denotes and including any homeowners' association. (2) "Root of title" means any title transaction purporting to create or transfer the estate claimed by any person and which is the last title transaction to have been recorded at least 30 years prior to the time when marketability is being determined. The effective date of the root of title is the date on which it was recorded. (3) "Title transaction" means any recorded instrument or court proceeding which affects title to any estate or interest in land and which describes the land sufficiently to identify its location and boundaries. (4) The term "homeowners' association" means a homeowners' association as defined in s. 720.301, or an association of parcel owners which is authorized to enforce use restrictions that are imposed on the parcels.
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 1/6

6/16/2010

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…

(5) The term "parcel" means real property which is used for residential purposes that is subject to exclusive ownership and which is subject to any covenant or restriction of a homeowners' association. (6) The term "covenant or restriction" means any agreement or limitation contained in a document recorded in the public records of the county in which a parcel is located which subjects the parcel to any use restriction which may be enforced by a homeowners' association or which authorizes a homeowners' association to impose a charge or assessment against the parcel or the owner of the parcel or which may be enforced by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection pursuant to chapter 376 or chapter 403.
History .--s. 1, ch. 63-133; s. 11, ch. 65-420; s. 1, ch. 81-242; s. 1, ch. 97-202; s. 56, ch. 2000-258; s. 16, ch. 2000-317.

712.02 Marketable record title; suspension of applicability.--Any person having the legal capacity to own land in this state, who, alone or together with her or his predecessors in title, has been vested with any estate in land of record for 30 years or more, shall have a marketable record title to such estate in said land, which shall be free and clear of all claims except the matters set forth as exceptions to marketability in s. 712.03. A person shall have a marketable record title when the public records disclosed a record title transaction affecting the title to the land which has been of record for not less than 30 years purporting to create such estate either in: (1) The person claiming such estate; or (2) Some other person from whom, by one or more title transactions, such estate has passed to the person claiming such estate, with nothing appearing of record, in either case, purporting to divest such claimant of the estate claimed.
History .--s. 2, ch. 63-133; s. 1, ch. 85-83; s. 63, ch. 87-226; s. 797, ch. 97-102.

712.03 Exceptions to marketability.--Such marketable record title shall not affect or extinguish the following rights: (1) Estates or interests, easements and use restrictions disclosed by and defects inherent in the muniments of title on which said estate is based beginning with the root of title; provided, however, that a general reference in any of such muniments to easements, use restrictions or other interests created prior to the root of title shall not be sufficient to preserve them unless specific identification by reference to book and page of record or by name of recorded plat be made therein to a recorded title transaction which imposed, transferred or continued such easement, use restrictions or other interests; subject, however, to the provisions of subsection (5). (2) Estates, interests, claims, or charges, or any covenant or restriction, preserved by the filing of a proper notice in accordance with the provisions hereof. (3) Rights of any person in possession of the lands, so long as such person is in such possession. (4) Estates, interests, claims, or charges arising out of a title transaction which has been recorded subsequent to the effective date of the root of title. (5) Recorded or unrecorded easements or rights, interest or servitude in the nature of easements, rights-of-way and terminal facilities, including those of a public utility or of a governmental agency, so long as the same are used and the use of any part thereof shall except from the operation hereof the right to the entire use thereof. No notice need be filed in order to preserve the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust or any supplement thereto
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 2/6

6/16/2010

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes… encumbering any such recorded or unrecorded easements, or rights, interest, or servitude in the nature of

easements, rights-of-way, and terminal facilities. However, nothing herein shall be construed as preserving to the mortgagee or grantee of any such mortgage or deed of trust or any supplement thereto any greater rights than the rights of the mortgagor or grantor. (6) Rights of any person in whose name the land is assessed on the county tax rolls for such period of time as the land is so assessed and which rights are preserved for a period of 3 years after the land is last assessed in such person's name. (7) State title to lands beneath navigable waters acquired by virtue of sovereignty. (8) A restriction or covenant recorded pursuant to chapter 376 or chapter 403.
History .--s. 3, ch. 63-133; s. 12, ch. 65-420; s. 1, ch. 73-218; s. 1, ch. 78-288; s. 2, ch. 97-202; s. 17, ch. 2000-317.

712.04 Interests extinguished by marketable record title.--Subject to the matters stated in s. 712.03, such marketable record title shall be free and clear of all estates, interests, claims, or charges whatsoever, the existence of which depends upon any act, title transaction, event or omission that occurred prior to the effective date of the root of title. All such estates, interests, claims, or charges, however denominated, whether such estates, interests, claims, or charges are or appear to be held or asserted by a person sui juris or under a disability, whether such person is within or without the state, whether such person is natural or corporate, or is private or governmental, are hereby declared to be null and void, except that this chapter shall not be deemed to affect any right, title, or interest of the United States, Florida, or any of its officers, boards, commissions, or other agencies reserved in the patent or deed by which the United States, Florida, or any of its agencies parted with title.
History .--s. 4, ch. 63-133; s. 1, ch. 65-280.

712.05 Effect of filing notice.-(1) Any person claiming an interest in land or a homeowners' association desiring to preserve any covenant or restriction may preserve and protect the same from extinguishment by the operation of this act by filing for record, during the 30-year period immediately following the effective date of the root of title, a notice, in writing, in accordance with the provisions hereof, which notice shall have the effect of so preserving such claim of right or such covenant or restriction or portion of such covenant or restriction for a period of not longer than 30 years after filing the same unless again filed as required herein. No disability or lack of knowledge of any kind on the part of anyone shall delay the commencement of or suspend the running of said 30-year period. Such notice may be filed for record by the claimant or by any other person acting on behalf of any claimant who is: (a) Under a disability, (b) Unable to assert a claim on his or her behalf, or (c) One of a class, but whose identity cannot be established or is uncertain at the time of filing such notice of claim for record. Such notice may be filed by a homeowners' association only if the preservation of such covenant or restriction or portion of such covenant or restriction is approved by at least two-thirds of the members of the board of directors of an incorporated homeowners' association at a meeting for which a notice, stating the meeting's time
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 3/6

6/16/2010

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes… and place and containing the statement of marketable title action described in s. 712.06(1)(b), was mailed or

hand delivered to members of the homeowners' association not less than 7 days prior to such meeting. (2) It shall not be necessary for the owner of the marketable record title, as herein defined, to file a notice to protect his or her marketable record title.
History .--s. 5, ch. 63-133; s. 798, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 97-202; s. 1, ch. 2003-79.

712.06 Contents of notice; recording and indexing.-(1) To be effective, the notice referred to in s. 712.05 shall contain: (a) The name or description of the claimant or the homeowners' association desiring to preserve any covenant or restriction and the name and particular post office address of the person filing the claim or the homeowners' association. (b) The name and post office address of an owner, or the name and post office address of the person in whose name said property is assessed on the last completed tax assessment roll of the county at the time of filing, who, for purpose of such notice, shall be deemed to be an owner; provided, however, if a homeowners' association is filing the notice, then the requirements of this paragraph may be satisfied by attaching to and recording with the notice an affidavit executed by the appropriate member of the board of directors of the homeowners' association affirming that the board of directors of the homeowners' association caused a statement in substantially the following form to be mailed or hand delivered to the members of that homeowners' association:

STATEMENT OF MARKETABLE TITLE ACTION

The [name of homeowners' association] (the "Association") has taken action to ensure that the [name of declaration, covenant, or restriction], recorded in Official Records Book _____, Page _____, of the public records of _____ County, Florida, as may be amended from time to time, currently burdening the property of each and every member of the Association, retains its status as the source of marketable title with regard to the transfer of a member's residence. To this end, the Association shall cause the notice required by chapter 712, Florida Statutes, to be recorded in the public records of _____ County, Florida. Copies of this notice and its attachments are available through the Association pursuant to the Association's governing documents regarding official records of the Association. (c) A full and complete description of all land affected by such notice, which description shall be set forth in particular terms and not by general reference, but if said claim is founded upon a recorded instrument or a covenant or a restriction, then the description in such notice may be the same as that contained in such recorded instrument or covenant or restriction, provided the same shall be sufficient to identify the property. (d) A statement of the claim showing the nature, description, and extent of such claim or, in the case of a covenant or restriction, a copy of the covenant or restriction, except that it shall not be necessary to show the amount of any claim for money or the terms of payment. (e) If such claim is based upon an instrument of record or a recorded covenant or restriction, such instrument of record or recorded covenant or restriction shall be deemed sufficiently described to identify the same if the
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 4/6

6/16/2010

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes… notice includes a reference to the book and page in which the same is recorded.

(f) Such notice shall be acknowledged in the same manner as deeds are acknowledged for record. (2) Such notice shall be filed with the clerk of the circuit court of the county or counties where the land described therein is situated, together with a true copy thereof. The clerk shall enter, record, and index said notice in the same manner that deeds are entered, recorded, and indexed, as though the claimant were the grantee in the deed and the purported owner were the grantor in a deed, and the clerk shall charge the same fees for recording thereof as are charged for recording deeds. In those counties where the circuit court clerk maintains a tract index, such notice shall also be indexed therein. (3) The clerk of the circuit court shall, upon such filing, mail by registered or certified mail to the purported owner of said property, as stated in such notice, a copy thereof and shall enter on the original, before recording the same, a certificate showing such mailing. For preparing the certificate, the claimant shall pay to the clerk the service charge as prescribed in s. 28.24(8) and the necessary costs of mailing, in addition to the recording charges as prescribed in s. 28.24(12). If the notice names purported owners having more than one address, the person filing the same shall furnish a true copy for each of the several addresses stated, and the clerk shall send one such copy to the purported owners named at each respective address. Such certificate shall be sufficient if the same reads substantially as follows: I hereby certify that I did on this _____, mail by registered (or certified) mail a copy of the foregoing notice to each of the following at the address stated:

(Clerk of the circuit court)

of _____ County, Florida, By (Deputy clerk)

The clerk of the circuit court is not required to mail to the purported owner of such property any such notice that pertains solely to the preserving of any covenant or restriction or any portion of a covenant or restriction. (4) Failure of any purported owner to receive the mailed notice shall not affect the validity of the notice or vitiate the effect of the filing of such notice.
History .--s. 6, ch. 63-133; s. 5, ch. 77-354; s. 7, ch. 82-205; s. 57, ch. 95-211; s. 4, ch. 97-202; s. 2, ch. 2003-79; s. 110, ch. 2003402.

712.07 Limitations of actions and recording acts.--Nothing contained in this law shall be construed to extend the period for the bringing of an action or for the doing of any other act required under any statute of limitations or to affect the operation of any statute governing the effect of the recording or the failure to record any instrument affecting land. This law shall not vitiate any curative statute.
History .--s. 7, ch. 63-133.

712.08 Filing false claim.--No person shall use the privilege of filing notices hereunder for the purpose of asserting false or fictitious claims to land; and in any action relating thereto if the court shall find that any
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 5/6

6/16/2010

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes… person has filed a false or fictitious claim, the court may award to the prevailing party all costs incurred by her

or him in such action, including a reasonable attorney's fee, and in addition thereto may award to the prevailing party all damages that she or he may have sustained as a result of the filing of such notice of claim.
History .--s. 8, ch. 63-133; s. 799, ch. 97-102.

712.09 Extension of 30-year period.--If the 30-year period for filing notice under s. 712.05 shall have expired prior to July 1, 1965, such period shall be extended to July 1, 1965.
History .--s. 9, ch. 63-133.

712.095 Notice required by July 1, 1983.--Any person whose interest in land is derived from an instrument or court proceeding recorded subsequent to the root of title, which instrument or proceeding did not contain a description of the land as specified by s. 712.01(3), and whose interest had not been extinguished prior to July 1, 1981, shall have until July 1, 1983, to file a notice in accordance with s. 712.06 to preserve the interest.
History .--s. 2, ch. 81-242.

712.10 Law to be liberally construed.--This law shall be liberally construed to effect the legislative purpose of simplifying and facilitating land title transactions by allowing persons to rely on a record title as described in s. 712.02 subject only to such limitations as appear in s. 712.03.
History .--s. 10, ch. 63-133.

712.11 Covenant revitalization.--A homeowners' association not otherwise subject to chapter 720 may use the procedures set forth in ss. 720.403-720.407 to revive covenants that have lapsed under the terms of this chapter.
History .--s. 1, ch. 2007-173.

Copyright © 1995-2010 The Florida Legislature • Privacy Statement • Contact Us

www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm…

6/6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION JORG BUSSE Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-29SPC

LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; BOARD OF LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; KENNETH M. WILKINSON; LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER’S OFFICE; STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD OF [PAST & PRESENT] TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, AND DIVISION OF RECREATION AND PARKS; LEE COUNTY ATTORNEY; JACK N. PETERSON, Defendants. ___________________________________

OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the following motions: (1) defendant Property Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss and Close File (Doc. #285), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #302); (2) defendants State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees) and Florida Department of

Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Cause of Action (Doc. #291), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #316); (3)

defendant The Lee County Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of

Jurisdiction (Doc. #303), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #317); and (4) defendant Board of Lee County Commissioners’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #304), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #318). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his pleadings are

held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by an attorney and will be liberally construed. 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003). I. On December 10, 1969, the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County, Florida adopted the “Resolution Pertaining to Public Lands in Cayo Costa Subdivision”, Book 569, page 875 (the Resolution). The Resolution stated that the Second Revised Plat of the Cayo Costa Subdivision contained certain designated lot and block areas and other undesignated areas. The Resolution further noted that Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d

the plat contained certain un-numbered and unlettered areas lying East of the Easterly tier of blocks in the subdivision and lying West of the Westerly tier of blocks in the subdivision. The

Resolution stated that Lee County claimed the lands to the east and west of the tier of blocks as “public lands together with all accretions thereto” and “does by this Resolution claim all of said lands and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of the public for public purposes.” (Doc. #288, p. 9.)

Plaintiff Jorg Busse (plaintiff or Dr. Busse) asserts he is the current owner of Lot 15A of the Cayo Costa Subdivision and

-2-

accretions thereto. (Doc. #288, ¶¶ 1, 2.)

Plaintiff describes Lot

15A as being more than approximately 2.5 acres fronting the Gulf of Mexico with an estimated fair market value of more than $2 million. (Id. at ¶6.) Plaintiff asserts that the Resolution violates his

property rights in Lot 15A, which includes accretions, under both federal and state law. Count 1 sets forth a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff

alleges that the Resolution deprived him of his riparian rights, private easements, accreted property and privileges secured by the United States Constitution. Specifically, plaintiff asserts that

Lee County had no home rule powers or jurisdiction over the undedicated Cayo Costa Subdivision, and therefore the Resolution was unenforceable and in violation of the United States

Constitution. (Doc. #288, ¶13.) Plaintiff asserts that defendants confiscated more than 2.5 acres of his accreted property without compensation in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Id. at ¶14.) Plaintiff asserts that defendants also illegally took more

than 200 acres of private accretions onto Cayo Costa pursuant to the Resolution, all without compensation. (Id. at ¶15.) Further,

plaintiff asserts that “Defendant State Actors” claimed riparian rights to Lots 38A and 41A which they denied to plaintiff, thereby unlawfully discriminating against plaintiff because he is entitled to equal rights as the State property owner.
-3-

(Id. at ¶¶ 16, 27.)

Count 2 alleges an unconstitutional temporary taking under color of the Resolution. Plaintiff asserts that the Resolution was never signed, executed or acknowledged and did not meet resolution and recording requirements, and was therefore not entitled to be recorded and must be stricken from the public record. ¶17.) (Id. at

Plaintiff further alleges that the Cayo Costa Subdivision

was outside of Lee County’s home rule powers, and therefore the State and County had no powers to adopt resolutions or ordinances, and therefore the Resolution is unenforceable and ineffectual and the County capriciously (Id. at ¶18.) onto the grabbed private accreted land and

easements. his

Plaintiff asserts that defendants took riparian due gulf front of law, Lot 15A without notice,

accretions

authority,

justification,

process

public

hearing, vote count, or compensation, and that this unauthorized unconstitutional property value. taking injured plaintiff and destroyed his

(Id. at ¶19.) Plaintiff

Count 3 sets forth a state law claim for trespass.

alleges that since the 1969 Resolution the defendants have asserted that Lee County is the owner of the Cayo Costa accretions and have induced and caused the public to intrude onto the private beaches and other areas on Cayo Costa, injuring plaintiff’s property. (Id. at ¶¶ 20-21.) Plaintiff asserts that the State cannot exercise

power within the Subdivision east of the mean high water mark of the Gulf of Mexico and west of the mean high water mark of Charlotte Harbor. (Id. at ¶22.)
-4-

Count malfeasance.

4

alleges

a

conspiracy

to

fabricate,

fraud

and

Plaintiff asserts that the Lee County Property

Appraiser claimed that the Resolution entitled Lee County to ownership of the accreted property, but the County Appraiser has admitted that Lee County was not empowered to adopt the Resolution. (Id. at ¶23.) Plaintiff asserts that the Resolution on its face

did not meet recording or resolution requirements, and that the County Appraiser had a professional duty to verify the validity of the sham Resolution under the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that without evidence of title, defendants conspired to concoct an un-plated lot, block and park for the benefit of the State and County. Plaintiff also asserts that defendant (Id.) denied (Id. at ¶24.) agricultural

classification to his accreted lot.

Plaintiff asserts that

defendants destroyed most of his property value, deprived him of private easements without compensation, and denied equal protection in a land grab scheme. being to assist the (Id.) Plaintiff describes the agreement as confiscation of the

unconstitutional

accretions. Appraiser

(Id. at ¶25.) made

Plaintiff also asserts that the County valuation reports which were

incompetent

controverted by other comparable sales data and done in violation of Federal Appraisal Standards, but defendant continued to slander plaintiff’s perfect title. (Id. at ¶26.) As a result, plaintiff

received purchase offers far below market value and the County Appraiser has committed malfeasance and abuse of position.
-5-

(Id.)

Count 5 alleges a conspiracy to materially misrepresent and defraud. Plaintiff asserts that Lee County does not hold title to

the accreted property pursuant to the Resolution, and there has been no proceedings such as eminent domain or adverse possession. (Id. at ¶29.) Plaintiff asserts that Lee County’s claims of

ownership of the accretions therefore violated the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, and therefore defendants deprived the public of tax revenues which could have been received from the private accretions and easements. to (Id.) the Plaintiff asserts that defendants conspired extent of the Army Corps of Engineers’

misrepresent

authority over his lagoon.

(Id. at ¶32.)

Count 6 alleges oppression and slander of title by defendant Peterson for failing to challenge the invalidity of the Resolution despite his questions about its validity. (Id. at ¶¶ 33-35.)

The Third Amended Complaint asserts the Court has jurisdiction based on the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983), 28 U.S.C. § 1343, Articles 3 and 4 of the United States Constitution, and Amendments 4 and 5 of the United States Constitution (Doc. #288, ¶7), the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act (33 U.S.C. § 403)(id. at ¶8), the 1862 Homestead Act (id. at ¶9), the federal common law Doctrine of Accretion and Erosion (id. at ¶10), the Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (12 U.S.C. §§ 3331-3351), and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201)(id. at ¶12).
-6-

III. The Court will first address the federal claims, since these claims are necessary to provide subject matter jurisdiction. Given plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court reviews the Third Amended Complaint liberally. A. Takings Clause Claims: A consistent theme which runs through several of plaintiff’s counts is that the Resolution constitutes an unconstitutional taking of his property rights in his subdivision Lot 15A on Cayo Costa island.1 The legal principles are well-settled, and preclude

plaintiff’s takings claim. Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which states in pertinent part “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U.S. CONST. amend. V. The Fifth Amendment is applied to the States Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New (1978). The Third Amended

through the Fourteenth Amendment. York City, 438 U.S. 104, 121-23

Complaint may also be read to allege a conspiracy to violate the Takings Clause. State law defines the parameters of a plaintiff’s property interest, and whether state law has created a property interest is a legal question for the court to decide. Morley’s Auto Body, Inc.

See Lee County v. Morales, 557 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) for a description of Cayo Costa island and the Lee County zoning history of the island since 1978.
-7-

1

v. Hunter, 70 F.3d 1209, 1212 (11th Cir. 1996).

Under Florida law

a riparian or littoral owner owns to the line of the ordinary high water mark on navigable waters, and the riparian or littoral property rights include the vested right to receive accretions to the property. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust

Fund v. Sand Key Assocs., Ltd., 512 So. 2d 934, 936-37 (Fla. 1987); Brannon v. Boldt, 958 So. 2d 367, 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). These

rights constitute property, and cannot be taken or destroyed by the government without just compensation to the owners. Sand Key

Assoc., 512 So. 2d at 936; Lee County v. Kiesel, 705 So. 2d 1013, 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). “By now it is beyond question that a

permanent physical occupation of private property by the state constitutes a taking for which a landowner must be compensated.” New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe County, 95 F.3d 1084, 1088 (11th Cir. 1996)(citing Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1015 (1992) and Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 434 (1982)). Thus while plaintiff has adequately alleged a taking of his property, “a property owner has not suffered a violation of the Just Compensation to Clause just until the owner has unsuccessfully the procedures

attempted

obtain

compensation

through

provided by the State for obtaining such compensation . . .” Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 195 (1972). “Williamson County boils down to the rule

that state courts always have a first shot at adjudicating a
-8-

takings dispute because a federal constitutional claim is not ripe until the state has denied the would-be plaintiff’s compensation for a putative taking, including by unfavorable judgment in a state court proceeding.” F.3d Agripost, LLC v. Miami-Dade County, Fla., Without having

, 2008 WL 1790434 (11th Cir. 2008).

pursued such available state court remedies, a plaintiff’s Takings Clause claim is not ripe and therefore a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. Williamson County, 473 U.S. at

195; Watson Constr. Co. v. City of Gainsville, 244 Fed. Appx. 274, 277 (11th Cir. 2007); Garbo, Inc. v. City of Key West, Fla., 162 Fed. Appx. 905 (11th Cir. 2006). It has been clear since at least

1990 that Florida law provides a remedy of an inverse or reverse condemnation suit. Joint Ventures, Inc. v. Department of Transp.,

563 So. 2d 622, 624 (Fla. 1990); Tari v. Collier County, 56 F.3d 1533, 1537 n.12 (11th Cir. 1995); Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412, 1417 (11th Cir. 1994). Additionally, plaintiff could have

pursued an state action for declaratory judgment under FLA . STAT . § 86.011, a suit to quiet title, Trustees of Internal Imp. Fund of State of Florida v. Toffel, 145 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962), or a suit in ejectment if the matter is viewed as a boundary dispute. Petryni v. Denton, 807 So. 2d 697, 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The Third Amended Complaint does not allege that plaintiff pursued any state relief. Indeed, plaintiff has never suggested

that he has taken any action in state court to quiet title or receive damages under an inverse or reverse condemnation claim.
-9-

Since there is no showing of federal jurisdiction as to the Takings Clause claim, the Taking Clause claims and any conspiracy to violate the Takings Clause in any count will be dismissed without prejudice. B. Substantive Due Process Claim: A liberal reading of the Third Amended Complaint might suggest that plaintiff also frames the alleged taking of his property rights as a substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit has held, however, that there is

no independent substantive due process taking cause of action. Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610, 612-14 (11th Cir. 1997). Additionally, substantive due process protects

only fundamental rights, that is, those rights which are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Such rights are created by the Greenbriar

Constitution, and do not include property rights.

Village, LLC v. Mountain Brook City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2003). Merely asserting that the government’s actions were

arbitrary and irrational does not bring the matter within the protection of the substantive due process provision. Village, 345 F.3d at 1263-64. in the Third due Amended process Greenbriar

Therefore, those portions of counts which claim attempt or to assert will a be

Complaint takings

substantive dismissed.

conspiracy

-10-

C.

Procedural Due Process Claim: Plaintiff’s counts may also attempt to state a procedural due

process claim.

For example, plaintiff asserts that Lee County had

no home rule powers or jurisdiction over the undedicated Cayo Costa subdivision (Doc. #288, ¶¶ 13, 18, 23), that the Resolution was never signed, executed or acknowledged and did not meet resolution and recording requirements (id. at ¶¶ 17, 23), and that the taking was without authority, justification, due process, public notice, hearing, vote count, or compensation (id. at ¶19). “Procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before any government deprivation of a property interest.” Zipperer v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995). Not all government actions, however, are subject to a procedural due process claim. The County’s action in passing the Resolution

constituted a legislative act, and therefore plaintiff cannot state a procedural due process claim. 75 Acres, LLC v. Miami-Dade Plaintiff

County, Fla., 338 F.3d 1288, 1294 (11th Cir. 2003).

asserted that the Resolution effecting the taking of more than 200 acres other than his 2.5 acres. a legislative act. Equalization, 239 This is sufficient to constitute

See, e.g., Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of U.S. 441, 445 (1915)(noting that it is

impractical to give every one a voice when a legislative act applies to more than a few people). Additionally, even if not a

legislative act, a procedural due process claims does not exist

-11-

merely because state mandated procedures were not followed.

First

Assembly of God of Naples, Florida, Inc. v. Collier County, Fla., 20 F.3d 419, 422 (11th Cir. 1994). In this regard, some of the

allegations in the Third Amended Complaint are contradicted by the Resolution which is attached to it. The copy of the Resolution

attached to the Third Amended Complaint establishes that it was signed, executed, and duly recorded in the public records, and plaintiff will not be allowed to assert otherwise. The remaining

claimed defects are arguments concerning state law which do not arise to a constitutional level. Finally, plaintiff fails to state a procedural due process claim because he has failed to allege that Florida law provided him with an inadequate post-deprivation

remedy, Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378, 382 (11th Cir. 1996), and as discussed above it is clear that Florida does provide adequate post-deprivation remedies. Therefore, any claim founded on

procedural due process will be dismissed. D. Equal Protection Claim: Plaintiff also alleges that the Resolution violated his equal protection rights. “To properly plead an equal protection claim,

a plaintiff need only allege that through state action, similarly situated persons have been treated disparately.” Boyd v. Peet, 249 Fed. Appx. 155, 158 (11th Cir. 2007)(citation omitted). See also

Executive 100, Inc. v. Martin County, 922 F.2d 1536, 1552 (11th Cir. 1991). The Third Amended Complaint does not identify any

similarly situated person with whom plaintiff can be compared. The
-12-

Third Amended Complaint states that defendants have taken over 200 acres pursuant to the Resolution, far in excess of his 2.5 acres. The only assertion of disparate treatment is for those lots owned by government, which plaintiff alleges did not have their rights taken. However, a private owner such as plaintiff can not be Therefore,

compared to a public owner such as a government unit.

no equal protection claim is stated, and such claims will be dismissed without prejudice. E. Other Bases of Federal Jurisdiction: Having found no federal claim set forth in the Third Amended Complaint, the Court now examines the other purported bases of federal jurisdiction. Article III of the Constitution sets the outer boundaries of the federal court jurisdiction, but vests Congress with the

discretion to determine whether and to what extent that power may be exercised by lower federal courts. Therefore, lower federal

courts are empowered to hear only cases for which there has been a congressional grant of jurisdiction. Morrison v. Allstate Therefore

Indemnity Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2000).

Article III does not provide any additional basis of federal jurisdiction. Additionally, plaintiff’s reliance on Article IV of

the Constitution is misplaced because Article IV does not address the jurisdiction of a federal court. Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. § 1343 as a basis for federal jurisdiction. Section 1343 sets forth the jurisdiction of district
-13-

courts for certain civil rights actions, but does not itself create a private right of action. Albra v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 232 Since none of plaintiff’s

Fed. Appx. 885, 892 (11th Cir. 2007).

federal civil rights claims are properly before the court, § 1343 is not a basis for jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Plaintiff’s reliance on the 1899 Rivers and Harbors

Appropriation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 403 is misplaced. relates to the creation of an obstruction not

Section 403 authorized by

Congress, and simply not relevant to any of the claims in this case. The 1862 Homestead Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 161-64, cannot form Assuming

basis for jurisdiction because it was repealed in 1976.

there is a federal common law Doctrine of Accretion and Erosion, it cannot provide a jurisdictional basis in federal court. The

Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 12 U.S.C. § 3331-3351, also do not create federal jurisdiction. appraisals utilized 12 this These standards relate to real estate in § connection 1331, and with no federally related was

transactions, involved in

U.S.C. case.

such in

transaction the

Additionally,

Florida

county

property appraiser is a constitutionally created office whose appraisals are carried out pursuant to state statute, FLA . STAT . § 193.011 as well as professional appraisal standards established by the International Association of Assessing Officers and the

-14-

Appraisal Institute. (11th Cir. 1996). Therefore, the

Parrish v. Nikolits, 86 F.3d 1088, 1091 n.2

Court

finds

no

other

basis

of

federal

jurisdiction has been plead in the Third Amended Complaint. F. Remaining State Law Claims: The remaining possible claims in the Third Amended Complaint are all state law claims. Complaint may be read to Read liberally, the Third Amended allege a claim to invalidate the

Resolution for alleged state-law procedural defects, a state law claim of trespass, a state law claim of conspiracy to misrepresent, a state law claim of fraud, state law claims of malfeasance, a state law claim of oppression, and a state law claim of slander of title. Even assuming these are properly pled, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) the Court would exercise its discretion and decline claims. to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state

Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (11th

Cir. 2004)(encouraging district courts to dismiss state claims where all claims which provided original jurisdiction have been dismissed.) prejudice. Having The dismissal of the state claims will be without Crosby v. Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339, 1352 (11th Cir. 1999). found that this Court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction, and will not retain supplemental jurisdiction, the Court need not address the issues raised in the remaining

defendants’ motions to dismiss. Accordingly, it is now
-15-

ORDERED: 1. Defendant Property Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (Doc. #303) is GRANTED to the extent set forth in paragraph 5 below. 2. Defendant Property Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss and

Close File (Doc. #285) is DENIED as moot. 3. State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection

and Division of Recreation and Parks, State of Florida, and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund’s Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Cause of Action (Doc. #291) is GRANTED to the extent set forth in paragraph 5 below. 4. Defendants Lee County, Florida, Board of Lee County

Commissioners, Lee County Attorney, Jack N. Peterson’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #304) is GRANTED to the extent set forth in paragraph 5 below. 5. The Third Amended Complaint is dismissed without

prejudice as to all defendants and all claims.

The Clerk shall

enter judgment accordingly, terminate all pending motions as moot, and close the case. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this May, 2008. 5th day of

Copies: Parties of record

-16-

[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________ No. 08-13170 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MAR 5, 2009 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK

D. C. Docket No. 07-00228-CV-FTM-29-SPC JORG BUSSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, KENNETH M. ROESCH, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, versus LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, BOARD OF LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, KENNETH M. WILKINSON, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _________________________ (March 5, 2009)

Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jorg Busse, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his third amended complaint in his civil rights action against various state and local governmental entities and officials in Florida, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. The district court dismissed Busse’s federal claims because he had either failed to adequately plead them or had not established federal subject matter jurisdiction. In the absence of any viable federal claims, the court declined to retain jurisdiction over Busse’s state law claims. Based on our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we AFFIRM the dismissal. I. BACKGROUND On 10 December 1969, the Board of Commissioners of Lee County, Florida (“the Board”) adopted a resolution claiming certain lands in the Cayo Costa subdivision as public lands (“the Resolution”). R10-288 at 9. In the Resolution, the Board identified the relevant lands by reference to a map of the subdivision which showed that, along with a number of designated land parcels in the subdivision, there were also a number of unidentified areas on the eastern and western edges of the subdivision. Id. The Board laid claim to all of these nondesignated parcels “and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of the public for public purposes.” Id.

Busse asserts that he currently owns Lot 15A of the Cayo Costa subdivision along with all accretions thereto and that the Resolution violates his property rights under both federal and state law. Id. at 1. To vindicate his rights, he brought suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against an array of state and local parties, including the Lee County Board of Commissioners, the county property appraiser, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.1 Id. In his third amended complaint, Busse made six claims: unconstitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; unconstitutional temporary takings; trespass; conspiracy, fraud, and malfeasance regarding the designation of certain unplatted lots; conspiracy to materially misrepresent and defraud; and oppression or slander of title. Id. at 3–8. He asserted that an array of statutory and constitutional provisions supported the exercise of jurisdiction: two civil rights acts — 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343; Articles Three and Four and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act (33 U.S.C. § 403); the 1862 Homestead Act, the federal common law doctrine of

The full list of defendants includes: Lee County, Florida; the Board of Lee County Commissioners, in their official and private capacities; Kenneth M. Wilkinson, the Lee County property appraiser, in his official and private capacity; the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida, in their official and private capacities; the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida Division of Recreation and Parks, and the Cayo Costa State Park staff, in their individual and private capacities; and Jack N. Peterson, Lee County Attorney, in his official and private capacity. Id.

1

accretion and erosion; the Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, and 12 U.S.C. §§ 3331–3351; and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201). Id. at 2–3. The defendants subsequently filed separate motions to dismiss Busse’s third amended complaint, primarily based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. R10-285, 291, 303, 304. The district court granted these motions and dismissed Busse’s third amended complaint. R11-338. In so doing, the court first found that Busse had made out a valid takings claim but that it had no jurisdiction over that claim since he had failed to show that he had pursued all available state remedies before bringing suit. Id. at 7–10. The court then concluded that Busse had not made out a valid claim under any of his other alleged federal bases. Id. at 10–15. Given that the court did not have jurisdiction over any of Busse’s federal claims, it chose to dismiss his state law claims. Id. at 15. Busse now appeals the dismissal of all of the claims in his third amended complaint. II. DISCUSSION We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions regarding subject matter jurisdiction, including the determinations that a claim is not ripe or that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over it. See Lanfear v. Home Depot, Inc., 536 F.3d 1217, 1221 (11th Cir. 2008); Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1204 (11th Cir. 2006). We also “review a grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state

a claim de novo, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Gandara v. Bennett, 528 F.3d 823, 826 (quotation marks and citation omitted). The decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., 468 F.3d 733, 738 (11th Cir. 2006). Since Busse is proceeding pro se, we construe his pleadings liberally. See Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008). On appeal, Busse argues that the district court erred in dismissing his federal claims. He asserts that his Takings Clause claim was ripe for review and that he had properly stated claims involving violations of his procedural due process, equal protection, and substantive due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.2 Additionally, we read Busse’s brief liberally to argue that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. We address these arguments in turn. A. Takings Clause Claims
2

Busse’s brief on appeal does not discuss the other jurisdictional bases cited in his third amended complaint — Articles Three and Four of the United States Constitution; the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act; the 1862 Homestead Act; the federal common law doctrine of accretion and erosion; the Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, and 12 U.S.C. §§ 3331–3351; and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act. Generally arguments not raised in a brief on appeal are deemed abandoned. See Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1131 n.1 (11th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, we agree with the district court’s analysis of these provisions and find that none of them could serve as a potential jurisdictional basis for Busse’s claims. See, e.g., Arthur v. Haley, 248 F.3d 1302, 1303 n.1 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting that appellate courts can and should sua sponte inquire into subject matter jurisdiction whenever it appears to be lacking).

Busse contends that the Resolution constituted an unconstitutional taking of his property rights in Lot 15A. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of private property “for public use, without just compensation” — a condition made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. Const. amend. V; Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617, 121 S. Ct. 2448, 2457 (2001) (noting that the Fourteenth Amendment made the Takings Clause applicable to the States). A plaintiff can bring a federal takings claim only if he can show that he did not receive just compensation in return for the taking of his property. See Eide v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 720 (11th Cir. 1990). As a result, for a takings claim to be ripe, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he unsuccessfully “pursued the available state procedures to obtain just compensation” before bringing his federal claim. Id. at 721. In this case, Busse’s claim would not be ripe because he has not shown that he attempted to obtain or secure relief under established Florida procedures. Since at least 1990, Florida courts have recognized that an inverse-condemnation remedy is available for alleged takings violations. See Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412, 1417 (11th Cir. 1994). Busse contends that his claim would still be ripe since that remedy was unavailable in 1969 when the Board of Commissioners enacted the Resolution. However, our past circuit precedent dictates “that a Florida property owner must pursue a reverse condemnation remedy in state court

before his federal takings claim will be ripe, even where that remedy was recognized after the alleged taking occurred.” Id. Accordingly, regardless of whether Busse has a valid property interest in Lot 15A, because he has not alleged that he sought and was denied compensation through available state procedures, his Takings Clause claim would not be ripe for review. We thus conclude that the district court did not err in finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Busse’s Takings Clause claim. B. Procedural Due Process Claims Busse asserts that his procedural due process rights were violated since Lee County had no authority to take his land nor jurisdiction over it and because the Resolution was improperly executed. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. A plaintiff could make a procedural due process claim by challenging the procedures by which a regulation was adopted, including the failure to provide pre-deprivation notice and hearing. See Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610, 615 (11th Cir. 1997); Zipperer v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995). For such a claim to be valid, however, the plaintiff would have to allege that state law failed to provide him with an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378, 382 (11th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).

Based on these standards, we find that Busse has failed to state a valid procedural due process claim. Florida provides him an adequate post-deprivation remedy, inverse condemnation, and he makes no argument that this procedure is inadequate. Even if it was inadequate, though, Busse still would not have a valid procedural due process claim. The Resolution constituted a legislative act since it was a general provision that affected a large number of persons and area, 200 acres in all, rather than being specifically targeted at Busse or his immediate neighbors. See 75 Acres, LLC v. Miami-Dade County, Fla., 338 F.3d 1288, 1294 (11th Cir. 2003). Since alleged problems with the adoption of such acts cannot serve as the basis for a procedural due process claim, Busse could not cite them as the basis for his claim. See id. (noting that “if government action is viewed as legislative in nature, property owners generally are not entitled to procedural due process”). Accordingly, we find that the district court did not err in dismissing Busse’s procedural due process claims. C. Equal Protection Claims Busse also argues that his equal protection rights were violated because the Board, in adopting the Resolution, treated differently privately-owned property and state-owned property.3 The Fourteenth Amendment forbids states from “deny[ing]
3

In his brief on appeal, Busse argues that he experienced different treatment than other landowners in Lee County. However, we need not address this argument since he did not mention this in his third amended complaint and we find that none of the exceptions that would allow us to consider an issue not raised before the district court would apply here. See Narey v.

to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. “[T]o properly plead an equal protection claim, a plaintiff need only allege that through state action, similarly situated persons have been treated disparately.” Thigpen v. Bibb County, 223 F.3d 1231, 1237 (11th Cir. 2000) abrogated on other grounds by National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122 S. Ct. 2061 (2002). Under Florida law, counties can exercise eminent domain over any land that is not owned by the state or federal government. See Fla. Stat. § 127.01(1)(a) (2006). Since a state landowner would not be subject to the eminent domain power but Busse, as a private landowner, would be, Busse could not be similarly situated to a state landowner. Busse therefore cannot rely on his disparate eminent domain treatment vis-a-vis state landowners as the basis for an equal protection claim. Since Busse made no other allegations of disparity in his third amended complaint, we find that he has failed to plead a valid equal protection claim and that the district court correctly dismissed this claim. D. Substantive Due Process Claim Busse also appears to allege that the Resolution denied him his substantive due process property rights. Substantive due process protects only those rights that are “fundamental,” a description that applies only to those rights created by the

Dean, 32 F.3d 1521, 1526-27 (11th Cir. 1994) (discussing the exceptions to this general rule).

United States Constitution. See Greenbriar Village, L.L.C. v. Mountain Brook, City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Property rights would not be fundamental rights since they are based on state law. See id. Busse thus could not bring a viable substantive due process claim based on the alleged denial of a state-defined property right. See id. Accordingly, we find that the district court properly dismissed his substantive due process claims.4 E. Supplemental Jurisdiction Busse also contends that the court abused its discretion in not hearing his pendent state law claims. “The decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state claims rests within the discretion of the district court.” Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Since the district court “had dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it therefore had the discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Busse’s state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Furthermore, we expressly encourage district courts to take such action when all federal claims have been dismissed pretrial. See Raney, 370 F.3d at 1089. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse

The district court, in addressing Busse’s substantive due process claim, mentions that assertions of irrational and arbitrary government action could not serve as the basis for such a claim. Even under a liberal reading of Busse’s complaint, though, we do not think he made such allegations. In the third amended complaint, he discusses takings violations and procedural problems with the enactment of the Resolution but never questions the rationale for its passage. Accordingly, we need not address whether he has a valid substantive due process claim based on arbitrary and capricious government action.

4

its discretion when it chose not to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Busse’s state law claims. III. CONCLUSION Busse contends that the district court incorrectly dismissed his federal claims regarding alleged takings and deprivations of property rights. Since Busse’s takings claim was not ripe because he had not pursued available state remedies and he failed to adequately plead his other federal claims, the district court correctly dismissed all of these claims. As a result, despite Busse’s objections to the contrary, the district court also did not commit an abuse of discretion in not exercising jurisdiction over his state law claims. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Busse’s third amended complaint. AFFIRMED.

David Souter U.S. Supreme Court Justice RE: Lee County [FL] O.R.569/875 – An eminent domain scam of giant proportions Case-fixing in the U.S. Court of Appeals

We are writing to you in the matter of the corruption and case-fixing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Common intelligence dictates that residents use designated streets to get to their lots. Unintelligently, the 11th Circuit cannot tell the difference between a designated street and “unidentified areas”. See Plat Book 3, p. 25 at www.leeclerk.org. In West Peninsular Title Co.1, corrupt Chief Circuit Judge Edmondson co-wrote: “And, plaintiffs’ “arbitrary and capricious” due process claim is ripe. Plaintiffs accused the County of applying an arbitrary and capricious action .. Plaintiffs’ claim was ripe as soon as the County applied the ordinance … See Eide v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 724 n.13(11th Cir. 1990).” “But the County insists that adjoining landowners own the strip parcels, citing Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959), as an alternative to 16.33 Acres.” For Appellees’ bribes, Edmondson now changed his mind and conspired to pervert a platted designated street into an “unidentified area” in order to fix Appellants’ Cases. Here for bribes, ripeness vanished, and justice is for sale in the 11th Circuit. The Appellant(s) also own property in N.H. and wish you the best for your retirement. /s/ Jennifer Franklin Prescott /s/Dr. Jorg Busse

1

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/41/41.F3d.1490.93-4449.93-4104.html Volume 41, The Federal Reporter, 3d Ed. [Nov., 1994 – Jan., 1995]

41 F.3d 1490

Page 1 of 4

« up
This is Google's cache of http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/41/41.F3d.1490.934449.93-4104.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Mar 24, 2009 15:42:24 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more These search terms are highlighted: united states v 16.33 acres Text-only version

41 F.3d 1490 WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO., Absolute, Inc., Marion H. Cooper, for Estate of Alfred R. Cooper, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, Carol A. Roberts, Chair of Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County, Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 93-4104, 93-4449.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Jan. 10, 1995.
Patti A. Velasquez, Asst. County Atty., West Palm Beach, FL, Robert S. Hackleman, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for appellants in No. 93-4104. Sharon M. Pitts, Patti A. Velasquez, Asst. County Atty., West Palm Beach, FL, Robert S. Hackleman, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for appellants in No. 93-4449. Jeffrey A. Aman, Smith, Williams & Bowles, P.A., Tampa, FL, Joan E. O'Dell, Gregory L. Williams, Smith, Williams & Bowles, P.A., Washington, DC, for appellees in both cases. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Before HATCHETT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, MELTON* , Senior District Judge. PER CURIAM:

1

After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants raise several arguments, hoping mainly to void concessions made in district court in the joint pretrial stipulation. The district court is affirmed. The controversy concerns the ownership of strip parcels (roads and ditches) offered by Palm Beach Farms for dedication to Palm Beach County in 1912. A 1976 instrument entitled "Notice of Withdrawal of Platted Roads, Streets, and Other Unexercised Rights" revoked the offer of dedication. In 1986, pursuant to local Ordinance No. 86-18 (the "Ordinance"), defendant Palm Beach County (the

2

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009

41 F.3d 1490

Page 2 of 4

"County"), began a practice of selling easement and right of way interests in property originally acquired through dedication. In return for a "privilege fee," the County issued an abandonment resolution, which, when recorded, transferred ownership of the parcel to the payor of the fee. This dispute began when the County attempted to collect fees in exchange for abandonment resolutions for parcels that, according to plaintiffs, had never been accepted by the County. 3 Plaintiffs, claiming that they were successors in interest to Palm Beach Farms (and thus owners of the strip parcels), challenged the County's practice as an unconstitutional taking--under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments--of their property.1 The County conceded that it never expressly accepted the dedication; but, at trial, the County attempted to show that it had impliedly accepted the dedication by using the strip parcels. The jury found for plaintiffs, deciding that the County had not accepted the 1912 offer of dedication within a reasonable time. The district court entered judgment for plaintiffs: plaintiffs were judged the fee simple owners of the pertinent strip parcels; defendants were enjoined from applying the Ordinance to plaintiffs' property; and plaintiffs were awarded attorney's fees. Defendants appeal. The County now contests plaintiffs' standing, arguing that plaintiffs could not possibly own the strip parcels (and thus have no interest at stake). But given plaintiffs' allegations and the County's stipulations in the district court, the record supports both standing and jurisdiction. A "case or controversy" exists in this case because the parties genuinely disputed ownership of the strip parcels in the district court. The County stipulated to plaintiffs' chain of title, agreeing that plaintiffs were successors in interest to Palm Beach Farms. The controversy was thus limited to a decision about whether the offer of dedication was accepted.2 Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the application of the Ordinance to what they assert is their property. But the County insists that adjoining landowners own the strip parcels, citing Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959), as an alternative to 16.33 Acres. This decision is not about standing: what the County is really arguing is that plaintiffs failed to join indispensable parties. Amicus Boywic Farms agrees, arguing that it was harmed by the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Because the district court could only determine who, as between plaintiffs and the County, had the better claim to the strip parcels, amicus is not bound by the district court's order. It was no abuse of discretion for the district court to refuse to dismiss this case for failure to join indispensable parties. The County, as movant, had the burden "to show the nature of the unprotected interests of the absent parties," 5A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 1359; yet, the County's citation to the record reveals only that it established the existence of adjoining landowners (not the nature of allegedly unprotected interests). And, plaintiffs' "arbitrary and capricious" due process claim is ripe.3 Plaintiffs accused the County of applying an arbitrary and capricious action (asserting ownership to the strip parcels and recording abandonment resolutions which transferred title) to their property. Plaintiffs' claim was ripe as soon as the County applied the ordinance and the petition process (including a $400 nonrefundable application fee) to the undedicated strip parcels. See Eide v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 724 n. 13 (11th Cir.1990). The County argues that no subject matter jurisdiction exists because plaintiffs' claims are so frivolous. But the course of litigation and stance of the County in

4

5

6

7

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009

41 F.3d 1490

Page 3 of 4

district court undercuts its claim of frivolousness. We also note that the pretrial stipulation plainly reads that "[n]either party contests subject matter ... jurisdiction."4 If the County actually thought plaintiffs' claims were frivolous, it should not have so willingly conceded facts giving rise to jurisdiction in the stipulation. Because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' federal claims, the court did not err by including plaintiffs' state claims for declaratory relief--pendent jurisdiction was proper. 8 The County also argues that the district court erred by interpreting the stipulation as a "winner-take-all" proposition. That is, the County says it reserved a right to make several arguments, after the jury's fact finding, by referring to "undisposed of motions" in the stipulation. We disagree. The parties agreed that the jury's conclusion would "be outcome determinative of all of the federal and state claims." The County does not argue that it was unfairly duped into signing the stipulation. And, we owe great deference to the trial judge's interpretation and enforcement of pretrial stipulations. See Morrison v. Genuine Parts Co., 828 F.2d 708 (11th Cir.1987); Hill v. Nelson, 676 F.2d 1371, 1373 n. 8 (11th Cir.1982). In the light of the stipulations, the district court did not err when it refused to entertain the County's post-verdict motions. Defendants raise other arguments, none of which present grounds for reversal. The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
*

9

Honorable Howell W. Melton, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation
1

Application of the Ordinance, according to plaintiffs, put a "cloud" on plaintiffs' title because title to the strip parcels was transferred to the payor of the privilege fee. Plaintiffs' property was, in other words, not transferable so long as the County continued to demand fees for the "abandonment" of property it never owned
2

"[S]tanding cannot be waived and may be asserted at any stage of litigation." Harris v. Evans, 20 F.3d 1118, 1121 n. 4 (11th Cir.1994) (en banc). We disagree with the County's argument that plaintiffs' ownership claim is so obviously frivolous that standing could not possibly exist, regardless of stipulated facts pointing to standing. In support of this claim, the County cites the allegedly "remarkably similar" case of United States v. 16.33 Acres of Land, 342 So.2d 476 (Fla.1977), as binding precedent denying plaintiffs' ownership claim. But 16.33 Acres is distinguishable because in that case the government expressly accepted the offer of dedication. Id. at 479
3

Because we conclude that plaintiffs' arbitrary and capricious due process claim was ripe, we say nothing about whether plaintiffs' additional constitutional claims were ripe. We do note, however, that plaintiffs were not granted relief pursuant to a specific claim. Instead, the County stipulated that plaintiffs would be entitled to the remedies requested if plaintiffs prevailed on any of the disputed fact issues
4

Parties may not stipulate jurisdiction. Bush v. United States, 703 F.2d 491, 494 (11th Cir.1983). And we do not say that jurisdiction was proper because jurisdiction was stipulated. Instead, we look to the record; we affirm the district court's conclusion that

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009

41 F.3d 1490

Page 4 of 4

the stipulated facts give rise to jurisdiction. For example, the County argues frivolousness by pointing to purported transfers--by plaintiffs' predecessors in interest-that the County says are null and void. But the County stipulated to plaintiffs' chain of title; and, the County agreed that it was undisputed that "plaintiffs are the successors in interest to the Palm Beach Farms Company." The record was set in district court
CC∅ | TRANSFORMED BY PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009

6/13/2010

Civil - Small Claims Detail

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

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

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

Attorney: Attorney: Attorney: Attorney:
1/22

6/13/2010

Civil - Small Claims Detail

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

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

6/13/2010

Civil - Small Claims Detail

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

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

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

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

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

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

4/23/2008

5/13/2008

4/28/2008

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

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

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

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

6/13/2010

Civil - Small Claims Detail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6/13/2010

Civil - Small Claims Detail

10/23/2006 10/23/2006 3/14/2007 3/15/2007 3/21/2007 3/23/2007 3/28/2007 3/30/2007 3/30/2007 3/30/2007 4/10/2007 4/11/2007 5/14/2007 5/16/2007 5/16/2007 6/5/2007 6/5/2007 6/5/2007 7/2/2007 8/9/2007 8/14/2007 8/14/2007 8/20/2007 8/27/2007 8/27/2007 8/27/2007 8/27/2007 8/27/2007 9/17/2007 10/19/2007

Motion to Dismiss Motion to Dismiss Document Filed Notice of Service Response Correspondence Correspondence Joinder of Additional Defendant Summons (20 day) Issued Lee County Florida Board of County Commissioners (Served 04/04/2007) Affidavit Motion to Strike Notice of Hearing 5-14-07 @ 9am Minutes Order Granting Motion to strike Correspondence Request Request Request Notice of Appearance Amended Complaint Summons (20 day) Issued Vielhauer, Harold George Summons (20 day) Issued Forsyth, Karen L W (Served 10/27/2008) Motion to Dismiss Amended criminal and civil complaint Document Filed Document Filed Document Filed Motion for Protective Order Notice of Hearing 10-22-07 @ 9am Notice Motion to Consolidate
5/22

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

6/13/2010

Civil - Small Claims Detail

10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/22/2007 10/22/2007 10/29/2007 12/12/2007 12/13/2007 12/14/2007 12/26/2007 1/2/2008 1/16/2008 1/16/2008 1/16/2008 1/31/2008 2/5/2008 2/11/2008 2/11/2008 2/11/2008 2/12/2008 2/15/2008 2/21/2008 2/28/2008 2/29/2008 2/29/2008 2/29/2008 2/29/2008 3/12/2008 3/17/2008 3/18/2008

Document Filed exhibit Document Filed exhibit Motion to Consolidate Minutes Motion to Consolidate Document Filed Order Order Notice of complaint Notice Notice Motion to Amend Complaint Affidavit Amended Complaint Motion to Dismiss Notice Notice Notice Objection Report Disclosure Memorandum in Support Notice of Hearing 4-21-08 @ 10:45am Document Filed Request for Admissions Motion to Strike Notice of Hearing 4-7-08 @ 9:45am Subpoenas Filed Motion for Protective Order Subpoena Served
6/22

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

6/13/2010

Civil - Small Claims Detail

3/18/2008 3/18/2008 3/18/2008 3/18/2008 3/19/2008 3/19/2008 3/20/2008 3/20/2008 3/21/2008 3/24/2008 3/25/2008 3/26/2008 3/31/2008 4/2/2008 4/3/2008 4/4/2008 4/4/2008 4/4/2008 4/4/2008 4/4/2008 4/4/2008 4/4/2008 4/4/2008 4/7/2008 4/7/2008 4/8/2008 4/8/2008 4/8/2008 4/8/2008 4/8/2008 4/8/2008

Subpoena Served Motion to Quash Motion for Summary Judgment Document Filed Notice of Hearing 3-20-08 @ noon Amended Notice of Hearing 4-7-08 @ 10:15am Motion for Hearing Minutes Memorandum Amended Notice of Hearing 3-20-08 @ 12 noon Motion for Order Motion for Order Order Granting Motion Notice of Service Objection Motion to Strike Notice of Filing Notice of Filing Attached Documents Notice of Filing Document Filed Notice of Filing Attached Documents Motion to Strike Notice of Filing Attached Documents Minutes Notice of Filing Attached Documents Notice of Filing Attached Documents Motion for Order Motion to Compel Notice of Hearing 5-12-08 @ 10:15am Motion to Determine Notice of Filing Attached Documents
7/22

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

6/13/2010

Civil - Small Claims Detail

4/8/2008 4/8/2008 4/8/2008 4/9/2008 4/14/2008 4/14/2008 4/14/2008 4/14/2008 4/14/2008 4/14/2008 4/14/2008 4/14/2008 4/14/2008 4/14/2008 4/14/2008 4/16/2008 4/16/2008 4/16/2008 4/21/2008 4/21/2008 4/21/2008 4/21/2008 4/21/2008 4/24/2008 4/24/2008 4/24/2008 4/24/2008 4/24/2008 4/24/2008 4/24/2008

Motion for Order Notice of Service Request for Admissions Notice of Hearing 5-12-08 @ 10:15am Motion for Order Interrogatories Interrogatories Notice of Service of Interrogatories Objection Notice of Service Notice of Filing Motion to Determine Response to Request for Admissions Summons (20 day) Issued Russell, Reagan Kathleen (Served 04/23/2008) Notice of Filing Motion for Leave Motion to Compel Discovery Notice of Case Management Conference Minutes Notice of Filing Deposition Deposition LIsa Becker dated 3-24-08 Notice of Appearance as Co-Counsel Notice of Appearance as Co-Counsel Notice of Case Management Conference Motion to Strike Interrogatories Correspondence Motion to Strike Interrogatories Interrogatories
8/22

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

6/13/2010

4/24/2008 4/24/2008 4/25/2008 4/25/2008 4/25/2008 4/25/2008 4/25/2008 4/28/2008 4/28/2008 4/28/2008 4/28/2008 4/28/2008 4/28/2008 4/29/2008 5/2/2008 5/2/2008 5/2/2008 5/5/2008 5/5/2008 5/5/2008 5/5/2008 5/5/2008 5/5/2008 5/6/2008 5/6/2008 5/6/2008 5/6/2008 5/7/2008 5/9/2008 5/12/2008 5/12/2008

Civil - Small Claims Detail Notice of Case Management Conference

Correspondence Interrogatories Deposition Jack N Peterson attached to Notice of Filing Interrogatories Summons (20 day) Issued Vielhauer, Harold George Summons (20 day) Issued Funchess, L Kathryn Motion to Strike Notice of Hearing 6-16-08 @ 3:45pm Motion to Quash Notice of Hearing 6-16-08 @ 3:30pm Response Notice of Hearing 6-16-08 @ 4pm Memorandum Disclosure Disclosure Memorandum Notice Notice of Filing Notice of Filing Order Correspondence Motion for Temporary Injunction Motion for Temporary Injunction Memorandum Notice of Filing Notice of Unavailability for Jorg Busse Order Denying Motion for summary judgment Memorandum and Arguments for Hearing on 5/12/08 Memorandum Minutes
9/22

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

6/13/2010

Civil - Small Claims Detail

5/12/2008 5/13/2008 5/16/2008 5/16/2008 5/19/2008 5/19/2008 5/19/2008 5/19/2008 5/21/2008 5/23/2008 5/23/2008 6/3/2008 6/4/2008 6/4/2008 6/6/2008 6/6/2008 6/6/2008 6/9/2008 6/9/2008 6/9/2008 6/16/2008 6/16/2008 6/16/2008 6/17/2008 6/17/2008 6/19/2008 6/20/2008 6/26/2008 6/26/2008 6/26/2008

Notice of Filing Notice of Filing Attached Documents Notice of Filing Summons Returned with No Indication of Service Notice of Service of Answers to Interrogatories Notice of Filing Attached Documents Notice of Filing Attached Documents Notice of Filing Motion for Order Affidavit of Return of Service - Served Answers to Interrogatories Memorandum of Law Motion to Stay Order Notice Memorandum of Law Notice Memorandum in Support Notice of Cancellation of Hearing 6-16-08 Notice of Hearing Rescheduled 6-16-08 @ 9am Minutes Notice of Filing Notice of Filing Attached Documents Notice of Appeal non final Notice of Filing Attached Documents Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal sent to 2DCA Order Acknowledgment from DCA new case 2D08-3117 non final Order from DCA directing appellant to pay there fees Order from DCA directing appellant to file an amended notice of appeal within 15 days or appeal could be dismissed
10/22

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

6/13/2010

Civil - Small Claims Detail

6/30/2008 7/8/2008 7/8/2008 7/8/2008 7/17/2008 7/17/2008 7/17/2008 7/17/2008 7/17/2008 7/17/2008 7/17/2008 7/21/2008 7/28/2008 7/28/2008 7/30/2008 7/31/2008 8/4/2008 8/4/2008 8/11/2008 8/15/2008 8/21/2008 8/21/2008 8/21/2008 8/21/2008 8/21/2008 8/21/2008 8/22/2008 8/27/2008

Order from DCA appellant has 15 days to show why appeal should not be dismissed Notice of Filing motion for extension of time Notice of Filing Attached Documents Motion for Extension of Time Amended Complaint Summons (20 day) Issued Wilkinson, Kenneth M (Served 07/24/2008) Summons (20 day) Issued Peterson, Jack Neil (Served 07/24/2008) Summons (20 day) Issued Johnson, Sherri L (Served 10/08/2008) Summons (20 day) Issued Collins, Donna Marie (Served 07/24/2008) Summons (20 day) Issued Russell, Reagan Kathleen Acknowledgment from DCA amended new case 2D08-3117 Amended Complaint Order from DCA appellants motion for an extension of time to respond to order dated 6-26-08 is denied appellant has 10 days to file a copy of order being appealed or appeal could be dismissed Notice Motion to Quash Notice of Hearing 9-22-08 @ 9am Notice of federal question jurisdiction and motion for the court's acknowledgement of federal jurisdiction Notice of federal question jurisdiction and motions for acknowledgement of federal jurisdiction in this arbitrary taking Notice of Filing Response Motion to Dismiss Notice of Filing Attached Documents Request for Admissions Motion to Strike Request for Admissions Request for Admissions Request for Admissions Order of Dismissal Motion to Quash
11/22

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

6/13/2010

Civil - Small Claims Detail

8/27/2008 8/29/2008 8/29/2008 8/29/2008 9/2/2008 9/2/2008 9/2/2008 9/2/2008 9/2/2008 9/3/2008 9/3/2008 9/3/2008 9/3/2008 9/3/2008 9/3/2008 9/3/2008 9/3/2008 9/3/2008 9/3/2008 9/3/2008 9/3/2008 9/3/2008 9/4/2008 9/4/2008 9/4/2008 9/4/2008 9/4/2008 9/4/2008 9/4/2008 9/4/2008

Motion to Quash Notice of unavailability and letter of unavailability to counsel for defendant appellee Amended Notice of Hearing 9-22-08 @ 9am Motion or evidentiary hearing oral argument to secure just speedy and inexpensive federal adjudication in favor of appellant in the US Court of appeals for the 11th circuit Interrogatories Request for Production Request for Production Motion for Temporary Injunction Motion to Strike Interrogatories Motion to Quash Request for Admissions Motion to Quash Request for Admissions Motion for Hearing Motion to Strike Interrogatories Notice of Filing Attached Documents Request for Admissions Request for Production Motion to Strike Notice of Filing Attached Documents Request for Admissions Interrogatories Interrogatories Motion to Strike Notice of Change of Address Interrogatories Motion for Hearing Motion to Strike
12/22

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

6/13/2010

Civil - Small Claims Detail

9/4/2008 9/4/2008 9/4/2008 9/4/2008 9/4/2008 9/4/2008 9/5/2008 9/5/2008 9/5/2008 9/5/2008 9/5/2008 9/5/2008 9/5/2008 9/5/2008 9/5/2008 9/5/2008 9/5/2008 9/5/2008 9/5/2008 9/5/2008 9/8/2008 9/10/2008 9/10/2008 9/10/2008 9/10/2008 9/10/2008 9/10/2008 9/11/2008 9/11/2008 9/11/2008

Interrogatories Interrogatories Interrogatories Interrogatories Notice Interrogatories Order of Dismissal Notice of Service Motion to Quash Notice of Change of Address Notice Notice of Service Amended Notice of Hearing 9-22-08 @ 9am Motion for Sanctions Notice Notice Motion for Sanctions Interrogatories Motion to Compel Request for Production Notice of Filing appellants emergency motion in the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Support of his Motion for Sanctions against Defendant JN Peterson Notice of Filing Attached Documents Notice of Filing Amended Notice of Hearing 11-10-08 @ 2:30pm Brief reply brief in the United States Court of appeals for the 11th circuit in support of his emergency motion Request for Admissions Motion emergency motion to enjoin defendants state form trespassing onto lot Request for Admissions Motion to Compel Response to Interrogatories Request for Admissions
13/22

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

6/13/2010

Civil - Small Claims Detail

9/12/2008 9/12/2008

Motion for refferral to mediation and order appointing and directing scheduled mediation Copy of plaintiffs appellants motion to sanction appellee Lee County Appraiswer and Strike Motion to Dismiss Document Filed appellants notice of appellees State Court Pleading and Motion for Determination of Federal subject matter Jurisdiction based on the Undisputed facts in the record Motion Motion to Strike Notice of Filing Attached Documents Motion for Protective Order Notice of Hearing 12-15-08 @ 10am Notice of Federal Jurisdiction in this Case and filing of motion in the US Court of appeals for the 11th Circuit and the United States District Court Motion in Opposition Motion for Protective Order Motion to Quash Notice of Service of Request to Produce Objection Notice of Filing emergency motion in the United States District Court Response to Request for Admissions Motion for the recusal of Judge Lynn Gerald, Jr. and Notice to the Chief Judge Notice Motion for recusal of Judge Lynn Gerald Motion for Order Motion to Dismiss Response to Request for Admissions Response to Request for Admissions Motion to Strike Notice of Service of Answers to Interrogatories Notice of Service of Answers to Interrogatories Response to Request for Admissions

9/15/2008 9/15/2008 9/15/2008 9/16/2008 9/18/2008 9/18/2008 9/18/2008 9/19/2008 9/22/2008 9/22/2008 9/22/2008 9/22/2008 9/22/2008 9/22/2008 9/24/2008 9/24/2008 9/29/2008 9/29/2008 9/29/2008 9/29/2008 9/29/2008 9/30/2008 9/30/2008 9/30/2008 10/1/2008 10/1/2008

Motion to Strike defendant property appraisers amended motion to dismiss or strike and notice of federal jurisdiction to the Chief Judge http://www.leeclerk.org/Civil_Detail.as…

14/22

6/13/2010

Civil - Small Claims Detail

10/1/2008 10/1/2008 10/2/2008 10/2/2008 10/2/2008 10/2/2008 10/10/2008 10/13/2008 10/13/2008 10/13/2008 10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/20/2008 10/20/2008 10/20/2008 10/20/2008 10/20/2008 10/20/2008 10/22/2008 10/23/2008 10/24/2008 10/24/2008 10/24/2008 10/24/2008 10/24/2008 10/24/2008 10/24/2008

Copy of response Request for Admissions Notice Notice Notice Notice Notice of Service of Answers to Interrogatories Response to Request For Production Amended Notice of Hearing 12-15-08 @ 10am Notice of Filing motion for Three Judge Court Panel based on New Evidence of Legal and Factual Error on Record before this Court Order Motion for the recusal of Judge Lynn Gerald Jr and notice to the Chief Judge Notice of Federal Jurisdiction in this Case and filing of motion in the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and the United States District Court Motion for review of Court order by th Chief Judge Notice of Federal Jurisdiction in this Case and filing of Motion in the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and the United States District Court Motion for review of Court Order by the Chief Judge Motion for the Recusal of Judge Lynn Gerald Jr and Notice to the Chief Judge Notice of Federal Jurisdiction in this case and filing of motion in the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and the United States District Court Notice of Hearing 11-17-08 @ 10am Motion to Dismiss Subpoena Issued Notice of Cancellation of Hearing 11-10-08 Notice of Filing emergency motion in the United States District Court Notice of Filing Emergency Motions in the United States District Court Motion to Strike Defendants Motion to Strike or in the Alternative Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint Notice of Service of the Court Ordered Amended Complaint upon Defendant Donna Marie Collins and Emergency Motion to Direct the Clerk to Correct the Docket Notice of Service of the Court Ordered Amended Complaint upon Def JN Peterson by the Lee
15/22

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

6/13/2010

10/24/2008

Civil - Small Claims Detail County Sheriff and Emergency Motion to DIrect the Clerk to Correct the Docket

10/24/2008 10/24/2008 10/24/2008 10/24/2008 10/24/2008 10/24/2008 10/24/2008 10/24/2008 10/24/2008 10/24/2008 11/3/2008 11/3/2008 11/3/2008 11/4/2008 11/4/2008 11/4/2008 11/4/2008 11/4/2008 11/5/2008 11/5/2008 11/5/2008 11/5/2008

Motion for the Recusal of Judge Lynn Gerald Jr and Notice to the Chief Judge Notice of Filing emergency motions in the United Staets District Court Notice of Federal Jurisdiction in this case and Filing of Motion in the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and the United States District Court Notice of Federal Jurisdiction in this Case and Filing of Motion in the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and the United States District Court Notice of Federal Jurisdiction in the case and Filing of Motion in the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and the United States District Court Notice of Federal Jurisdiction in this case and Filing of Motion in the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and the United States District Court Motion for the Recusal of Judge Lynn Gerald Jr and Notice to the Chief Judge Subpoena Issued by the Attorney Subpoena Issued by the Attorney Notice of def appellees improper interference with the proceedings in the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit Motion for the Recusal of Corrupt Circuit Judge Lynn Gerald JR and Notice of Non Serive to the Chief Judge Motion for Recusal in the District Court of appeal of the State of Florida Second District Motion emergency motion for the Recusal of corrupt Circuit Judge Lynn Gerald Jr and Notice of Non Serivce to the Chief Judge Motion energebcy motion for thr Recusal of Corrupt Circuit Judge Lynn Gerald Jr and notice of Non Service to the Chief Judge Motion for Recusal in the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida Second District Motion emergency motion for the recusal of Corrupt Circuit Judge Lynn Gerald Jr and Notice of Non Service to the Chief Judge Correspondence from Dr Jorg Busse to Judge Motion emergency motion for the recusal of Corrupt Circuit Judge Lynn Gerald Jr and Notice of Non Service to the Chief Judge Notice of Filing photographic evidence of criminal trespass onto private lot 15a in private undedicated Cayo Costa Notice of Filing response to docketed compaint of judicial misconduct no 110890108 pursuant 28USC 351 in the United States Court of Appeals Notice of Filing Complaint of Judicial Misconduct # 110890108 pursuant to 28USC 351 in the United States Court of Appeals Notice of Filing Letter of Intent to Sue

Notice of Filing Photographic Evidence of criminal destruction of plaintiff appellants Private 11/5/2008 http://www.leeclerk.org/Civil_Detail.as…

16/22

6/13/2010

11/5/2008

Civil - Small Claims Detail property in private undedicated Cayo Costa

11/6/2008 11/6/2008 11/6/2008 11/6/2008 11/6/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008 11/12/2008 11/12/2008 11/12/2008 11/12/2008

Response to defendants appellees Lee County Motion for Protective Order after Illegal Seizure of Appellants Priviate Property in Private Cayo Casta Notice of Service of Answers to Interrogatories Response to Request For Production Answers to Interrogatories Notice of Appeal non final Notice of Filing letter of intent to sue the Lee County Sherif and Charles J Ferrante Complaint to Chief Judge G. Keith cary regarding Corrupt Circuit Judge Lynn Gerald Jr and Forged Documents O R 569/875 Response to 11-5-08 Order Denying Motion to Disqualify and Emergency Motion for the Recusal of Lynn Gerald Jr Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal sent to 2DCA Order Denying Motion to disqualify Complaint to Chief Judge G. Keith Cary regarding Corrupt Circuit Judge Lynn Gerald Jr and Forged Documents O R 569/875 Motion for Extension of Time to respond to unserved order by corrupt Judge Lynn Gerald Jr allegedly filed on 10-17-08 and th forged resolution draft O R 569/875 Notice of Filing of 11-6-08 Official Receipt no ODFM-2008-201657 by Lee County Clerk of Courts and E Docket Regarding Appeal from Corrupty Judge Gerald Jr's Office Notice of Filing of 11-8-08 letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation Regarding Corrupt Circuit Judge Lynn Gerald Jr and Forged Document O R 569/875 Notice of Filing letter of intent to sue Chad Lach for deliberate deprivations of his constitutional rights under the 14th 4th and 5th amendments criminal trespass and life theatening fires in Private Cayo Costa under color of forged Notice of letter to the New York Times regarding Corrupt Circuit Judge Lynn Gerald Jr and forged document Notice letter to News Press regarding corrupt Circuit Judge Lynn Geralnd Jr and forged documents Notice of filing of production of Lee County Community Parks by defendant Lee County regarding corrupt Circuit Judge Lynn Gerald Jr and forged document Notice of Filing production of Cayo Costa State Park by defendants State of Florida regarding corrupt Circuit Judge Gerald Jr and forged documents Copy of defendants property appraisers response to request for production Amended Complaint Summons (20 day) Issued Steele, John E (Served 11/18/2008) Summons (20 day) Issued Gerald, Lynn, Jr. (Served 11/18/2008)
17/22

11/13/2008

11/13/2008 11/13/2008 11/13/2008 11/13/2008 11/13/2008 11/13/2008 11/14/2008 11/14/2008

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

6/13/2010

Civil - Small Claims Detail

11/14/2008 11/14/2008 11/14/2008 11/17/2008 11/17/2008 11/17/2008 11/17/2008 11/17/2008 11/19/2008 11/19/2008 11/20/2008 11/20/2008 11/20/2008 11/20/2008 11/20/2008 11/20/2008 11/24/2008 11/25/2008 11/25/2008 11/25/2008 11/25/2008 11/25/2008 11/25/2008 11/25/2008 11/25/2008 11/25/2008 11/26/2008 12/1/2008 12/1/2008

Summons (20 day) Issued Scott, Mike (Served 11/18/2008) Notice of Cancellation of hearing Notice of unavailability from 12-15-08 thru 1-10-09 Notice of Filing requests for Admissions upon Defendant Donna marie Collins Summons (20 day) Issued Green, Charlie (Served 11/19/2008) Summons (20 day) Issued Owen, David W (Served 11/18/2008) Summons (20 day) Issued Janes, Bob (Served 11/18/2008) Minutes Copy of emergency motion for injunction and judical notice of binding legal precedent Copy of emergency motion for the recusal of corrupt defendant Lynn Gerald Jr based defendant Ken Wilkinsons Admissions Notice of return of service and receipts Lee County Sheriffs Office Notice of Filing self authenticating public record San Carlos on the Gulf Plat of Survey in Supprt of Defendants Arbitrary Capricious Denial of appellants Equal Riparian rights Summons (20 day) Issued Lach, Chad (Served 12/01/2008) Summons (20 day) Issued Carta, Steven W (Served 11/24/2008) Copy of emergency motion for injunction and Judical notice of binding legal precedent Copy of emergency motion for the recusal of corrupt defendant Lynn Gerald Jr based on defendant Ken Wilkinsons admissions Notice of Hearing 11-25-08 at 11:45am Summons (20 day) Issued Brigham, Tony Prince Summons (20 day) Issued Chappell, Sheri Polster Memorandum regarding evidentiary hearing as to defendant John E. Stelles Fraudulent Claim Order Denying Motion to disqualify Notice of Filing execution of summons upon defendant Lynn Gerald Jr Notice of Filing return of service upon defendant David M Owen Motion for injuction and sanctions against corrupt defendant Lynn Gerald Jr Request for Admissions Request for Admissions Order from DCA Request for Admissions Acknowledgment from DCA new case 08-5797 non final
18/22

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

6/13/2010

Civil - Small Claims Detail

12/1/2008 12/1/2008 12/1/2008 12/1/2008 12/1/2008 12/1/2008 12/1/2008 12/2/2008 12/2/2008 12/2/2008 12/2/2008 12/3/2008 12/3/2008 12/3/2008 12/3/2008 12/4/2008 12/5/2008 12/5/2008 12/8/2008 12/8/2008 12/8/2008 12/8/2008 12/8/2008 12/8/2008 12/8/2008 12/8/2008 12/8/2008 12/8/2008 12/8/2008

Amended Notice of Hearing 12-4-08 at 9:30am Motion for Sanctions Request for Admissions Order from DCA directing appellant to pay there fees Summons (20 day) Issued Chappell, Sheri Polster Motion to compel Notice of Cancellation of Hearing Request for Admissions Request for Admissions Motion for Disqualification Notice of Service of Interrogatories Notice of non service and cancellation of hearing 12-4-08 Notice of their response to defendant appellee Wilkinsons Cross Appeal in the US Court of Appeals 11th Circuit regarding the Fraud of Lee County Motion to Dismiss Motion to Dismiss Minutes Notice of Removal to US District Court Notice of Removal to US District Court Order from DCA appellants emergency motion for injunction and sanctions against corrupt defendant Lynn Gerald jr is denied Motion to Dismiss Motion to Dismiss Motion to Dismiss Motion to Dismiss Order Granting Motion to Disqualify Judge Lynn Gerald Jr Request for Admissions (Appellant) upon Sherri L Johnson Motion to Dismiss Memorandum in Support (Appellant) of their motion(s) for disqualification Request for Admissions (Appellant) upon Reagan K Russell Request for Admissions (Appellant) upon Kenneth M Wilkinson
19/22

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

6/13/2010

Civil - Small Claims Detail

12/8/2008 12/9/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/19/2008 12/29/2008 1/12/2009 1/16/2009 6/29/2009 8/7/2009 8/10/2009 8/10/2009 8/10/2009 8/11/2009 8/12/2009 8/12/2009 8/14/2009 8/14/2009 8/21/2009 8/21/2009 8/21/2009 8/21/2009 8/28/2009 8/28/2009 8/28/2009 8/28/2009 8/28/2009 8/28/2009 8/28/2009

Motion to Dismiss Notice of Cancellation of Hearing 12-4-08 Request for Admissions Request for Admissions Notice of fraud and govermental corruption to Chief Judge Keith Cary (copy) Notice of Cancellation of Hearing 11-17-08 Order of Dismissal Order from DCA dated 12-24-08 and filed 12-29-08 is now final Order from DCA appellants motion for judicial notice of said brief is denied Notice Notice of Appeal 2D09-3829 Notice of fraud on courts and disositive judgment Notice of fraud on courts and disositive judgment Notice of fraud on courts and disositive judgment Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal sent to 2DCA Notice of fraud on courts and disositive judgment Notice of fraud on courts and disositive judgment Notice of Appeal evidence III copy provided to the Judge Notice of Appeal Evidence II copy provided to the Judge Acknowledgment from DCA 2D09-3829 Order from DCA appellant has 15 days to show cause why appeal should not be dismissed 09-3829 Order from DCA directing appellant to pay the fees 09-3829 Order from DCA directing appellant to file an amended notice of appeal within 15 days 093829 Motion -to enjoin State of Florida from trespassing Motion -to enjoin Florida Park Rangers from arson Motion -to enjoin State of Florida from arson Motion -to enjoin Lee County from trespassing Motion -to enjoin K M Wilkinson from concealing Motion to Set Aside Notice
20/22

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

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

CLOSED

U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:08-cv-00899-UA-MAP
Busse et al v. State Of Florida et al Assigned to: Judge Unassigned Judge Referred to: Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo Case in other court: 09-10464D 09-10745D 09-10746D 09-10747D 09-13376H 09-14292H 09-14293H 09-14294H 09-14295H 09-14296H 09-14297-H 20th Judicial Circuit, Lee County, 06-CA3185 Cause: 28:1442 Notice of Removal Plaintiff Dr. Jorg Busse represented by Jorg Busse P.O. Box 7561 Naples, Fl 34101-7561 239/595-7074 PRO SE Date Filed: 12/05/2008 Date Terminated: 02/04/2009 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff Jennifer Franklin Prescott represented by Jennifer Franklin Prescott P.O. Box 845 Palm Beach, FL 33480-0845 561/400-3295 PRO SE

V. Defendant
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 1/29

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

State Of Florida

represented by Linda Kathryn Funchess Florida Department of Environmental Protection MS 35 3900 Commonwealth Blvd Tallahassee , FL 32399-3000 850/245-2242 Fax: 850/245-2296 Email: kathy.funchess@dep.state.fl.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Reagan Kathleen Russell Florida Department of Environmental Protection* MS 35 3900 Commonwealth Blvd Tallahassee , FL 32399-3000 Email: reagan.russell@dep.state.fl.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Department of Environmental Protection represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Division of Recreation and Parks represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Dept. Of Agriculture Defendant Division of Forestry
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 2/29

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

Defendant Lee County, Florida represented by Jack Neil Peterson Lee County Attorney's Office 2115 Second St PO Box 398 Ft Myers , FL 33902 239/335-2236 Fax: 239/335-2118 Email: peterj@leegov.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Lee County Fire Department Defendant Lynn Gerald, Jr. represented by Sabrina E. Redd Office of the Attorney General Suite 1100 501 E Kennedy Blvd Tampa , FL 33602 813/233-2880 Fax: 813/233-2886 Email: sabrina.redd@myfloridalegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant John E. Steele represented by M. Kent Anderson US Attorney's Office - TNE Suite 301 1110 Market St Chattanooga , TN 37402 423/752-5140 Email: Kent.Anderson@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Sean Flynn US Attorney's Office - FLM* Suite 3200 400 N Tampa St Tampa , FL 33602 813/274-6335 Email: sean.flynn2@usdoj.gov
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 3/29

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

TERMINATED: 12/24/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant Sheri Polster Chappell represented by M. Kent Anderson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Sean Flynn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/24/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson represented by John Joseph Renner Lee County Attorney's Office 2115 Second St. P.O. Box 398 Ft. Myers , FL 33901 239/533-2236 Fax: 239/485-2118 Email: rennerjj@leegov.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Sherri L. Johnson Dent & Johnson, Chartered 3415 Magic Oak Lane Sarasota , FL 34232 941/952-1070 Email: sjohnson@dentjohnson.com TERMINATED: 08/05/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Amy K. Tuck Farrington Dent & Johnson, Chartered 3415 Magic Oak Lane Sarasota , FL 34232 941/952-1070 Fax: 941/952-1094 Email: atuck@dentjohnson.com
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 4/29

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

TERMINATED: 08/05/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jack Neil Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant Sherri L. Johnson represented by Sherri L. Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Amy K. Tuck Farrington (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant Jim Dent Defendant Jack N. Peterson Defendant Donna Marie Collins Defendant David M. Owen Defendant Charlie Green Defendant Reagan K. Russell represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Tom Beason represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 5/29

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

Harold G. Vielhauer

represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant L. Kathy Funchess represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Karen L.W. Forsyth Defendant Mike Scott Defendant Charles J. Ferrante Defendant Susan Bailey Defendant Charles B. "Barry& Stevens represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Chad Lach represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Steven W. Carta represented by Steven Carta Henderson & Carta 1619 Jackson St PO Box 1906 Ft Myers , FL 33902-1906 239/332-3366 Fax: 239/332-7082 Email: scarta117@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY
6/29

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

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Defendant Barry R. Hillmyer Defendant Toby Prince Brigham Defendant S. William Moore Defendant Brigham & Moore, LLP Defendant Menelaos Papalas Defendant Rex Shevitski Defendant Circuit Judge Anderson represented by M. Kent Anderson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Circuit Judge Carnes represented by M. Kent Anderson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Circuit Judge Barkett represented by M. Kent Anderson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Clerk of Lee County Clerks represented by Steven Carta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 7/29

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

Lee County Attorney Defendant W. W. Wilhelm Defendant J. Broomfield

Date Filed 12/05/2008

#

Docket Text

1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 20th Judicial Circuit, Lee County, Florida, case number 06-CA-003185 filed in State Court on 07/31/06. filed by John E. Steele and Sheri Polster Chappell.(kma) (Entered: 12/08/2008) 2 COURT ORDERED AMENDED COMPLAINT filed in the 20th Judicial Court, Lee County, FL on 11/13/2008 against all defendants with Jury Demand filed by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: # 1 Main Document, # 2 Main Document, # 3 Main Document, # 4 Main Document)(kma) (Entered: 12/08/2008) 3 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to waive compliance with Local Rule 4.2 (b) by John E. Steele and Sheri Polster Chappell. (kma) (Entered: 12/08/2008) 4 MOTION for extension of time to file answer or otherwise plead re 2 Complaint by John E. Steele and Sheri Polster Chappell. (kma) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier. (Entered: 12/08/2008) 5 NOTICE of pendency of related cases re per Local Rule 1.04(d) by John E. Steele and Sheri Polster Chappell. Related case(s): yes (kma) (Entered: 12/08/2008) 6 STANDING ORDER: Filing of documents that exceed twenty-five pages. Signed by All Divisional Judges on 08/20/08. (kma) (Entered: 12/08/2008) 7 ORDER OF RECUSAL: Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier, Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell, and Judge John E. Steele recused. The Clerk shall reassign the case to the next available District Judge and Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 12/9/2008. (RKM) (Entered: 12/09/2008) 8 Case reassigned per order of recusal to the Unassigned Judge and Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo. New case number: 2:08-cv-899-FtM-99MAP. (kma) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo. (Entered: 12/10/2008) 14 MOTION to compel defendants J.E. Steele and S. Polster Chappell to comply with applicable state and federal law by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(drn) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo. (Entered: 12/12/2008) Summons issued as to Division of Forestry, Lee County Fire Department, Tom Beason, Harold G. Vielhauer, State Of Florida, Menelaos Papalas, Dept. Of Agriculture. (drn) (Entered: 12/12/2008)
8/29

12/05/2008

12/05/2008 12/05/2008

12/05/2008 12/08/2008 12/09/2008

12/10/2008

12/10/2008

12/10/2008

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

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

12/11/2008

9 NOTICE of pendency of related cases re 6 Standing Order re: 25 pages per Local Rule 1.04(d) by Lee County, Florida. Related case(s): Yes (Peterson, Jack) (Entered: 12/11/2008) 10 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re 2 Complaint by Lee County, Florida. (Peterson, Jack) (Entered: 12/11/2008) 11 MOTION to dismiss Amended Complaint by Lee County, Florida. (Peterson, Jack) (Entered: 12/11/2008) 12 ORDER granting 3 Motion to waive compliance with Local Rule 4.02(b). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 12/11/2008. (JMF) (Entered: 12/11/2008) 15 MOTION to compel defendants J.E. Steele and S. Polster Chappell to comply with applicable state and federal law by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo. (Entered: 12/12/2008) 13 ORDER granting 4 Motion for extension of time to answer or respond. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 12/12/2008. (JMF) (Entered: 12/12/2008) 16 MOTION to compel defendants J.E. Steele and S. Polster Chappell to comply with applicable state and federal law by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(drn) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo. (Entered: 12/12/2008) 17 MOTION to strike down O.R. 569/875 pursuant to 11th Circuit binding precedent and law of the case by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 12/12/2008) 18 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically motion to determine jurisdiction of this and the Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District, Case 2D08-5797, MOTION for clarification by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 12/12/2008) 19 NOTICE of service of interrogatories upon defendant, John E. Steele by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 12/12/2008) 20 NOTICE of filing of proposed orders to Hon. Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo, and Dec. 10, 2008 Summons in case removed by recused defendant John E. Steele from lower state court while on appeal by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 12/12/2008) 21 PLAINTIFF APPELLANTS' MOTION to strike down "O.R. 569/875" pursuant to 11th Circuit binding precedent and 'Law of the Case': e.g. by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(kma) (Entered: 12/12/2008) 22 MOTION to compel defendant J.E. Steele and S. Polster Chappell to comply with applicable state and federal law, and notice of filing of signed notice of appeal in related case 2:08-cv-364-FtM-JES-SPC by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
9/29

12/11/2008 12/11/2008 12/11/2008 12/11/2008

12/12/2008

12/12/2008

12/12/2008

12/12/2008

12/12/2008 12/12/2008

12/12/2008

12/12/2008

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

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(kma) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo. (Entered: 12/12/2008) 12/12/2008 23 PLAINTFF APPELLANTS' NOTICE of filing of brief in related action, U.S. Court o Appeals, 11th Circuit, in support of proposed orders in case "removed" by recused defendant John E. Steele from lower state court while on appeal (2D08-5797) by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(kma) (Entered: 12/12/2008) 24 RETURN of service executed on 12/01/08 by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott as to Chad Lach. (kma) (Entered: 12/12/2008) 25 Amended MOTION to dismiss Amended Complaint Or For More Definite Statement by Steven W. Carta. (Carta, Steven) (Entered: 12/16/2008) 26 Amended MOTION to dismiss Amended Complaint by Clerk of Lee County Clerks. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certified copy of List of Clerk of Courts)(Carta, Steven) (Entered: 12/16/2008) 27 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for injunctive relief from defendant appellees' life-threatening fires in the residential private Cayo Costa subdivision by Jorg Busse. (kma) (Entered: 12/17/2008) 28 NOTICE of filing of defendant K. M. Wilkinson's "First Request for Admissions" and fraudulent fake "Exhibit A" by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott (kma) (Entered: 12/18/2008) 30 MOTION for relief from and review of this court's orders, and notice of fraud, corruption, and conspiracy under "O.R. 569/875" pursuant to 42 USC 1983,1985 by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (kma) (Entered: 12/18/2008) 31 NOTICE of filing of their response brief in related action, U.S. Court of Appeals, for the 11th Circuit, to be construed as memorandum that this court has juridiction over appellants' Ripe 42 USC 1983, 1985 causes of action, and "arbitrary and capricious" due process, equal protection, and other ripe federal claims under Eide v. Sarasota County by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(kma) (Entered: 12/18/2008) 29 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Order directing pro se plaintiffs to cease and desist contacting parties represented by counsel by John E. Steele, Sheri Polster Chappell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Flynn, Sean) (Entered: 12/18/2008) 32 MOTION for protective order staying discovery by John E. Steele, Sheri Polster Chappell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Flynn, Sean) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo. (Entered: 12/18/2008) 33 Notice of substitution of AUSA. M. Kent Anderson substituting for Sean Flynn, Assistant United States Attorney. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Letter of Appointment of AUSA M. Kent Anderson)(Anderson, M.) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
10/29

12/12/2008 12/16/2008 12/16/2008

12/17/2008

12/17/2008

12/17/2008

12/17/2008

12/18/2008

12/18/2008

12/18/2008

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

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

12/18/2008

34 NOTICE of Special Appearance of Counsel Appearance by M. Kent Anderson on behalf of Circuit Judge Anderson, Circuit Judge Carnes, Circuit Judge Barkett (Anderson, M.) (Entered: 12/18/2008) 35 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Motion for Injunctive Relief by Defendants District Court Judge Steele and Magistrate Judge Chappell and Memorandum in Support by John E. Steele, Sheri Polster Chappell. (Anderson, M.) (Entered: 12/18/2008) 36 EMERGENCY MOTION to clarify purported "removal", orders, and rule violations, and memorandum of no judicial immunity by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (kma) (Entered: 12/19/2008) 37 MOTION to compel defendant Charlie Green to produce and certify by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (kma) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo. (Entered: 12/19/2008) 38 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 37 Motion to compel Defendant Charlie Green To Produce And Certify filed by Clerk of Lee County Clerks. (Carta, Steven) (Entered: 12/19/2008) 39 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin defendant Appellees' Green and Carta from claiming 'grant' of 'said (uncertain) lands' and 'accretions' under forged and unenforceable 'O.R. 569/875' by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (kma) (Entered: 12/22/2008) 40 NOTICE of fiing of their pleading as to the judicial misconduct of defendant U.S. District Judges John E. Steele and S. Polster Chappell in related case no. 2:08-cv-364JES-SPC, now on appeal (08-14846-FF) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott (kma) (Entered: 12/22/2008) 41 NOTICE of federal jurisdiction based on (defective) 'removal' and 11th Circuit jurisprudence, EMERGENCY MOTION to remand, and memorandum as to remand, removal defects, and lack of immunity by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (kma) (Entered: 12/22/2008) 42 EMERGENCY MOTION to compel defendant Charlie Green to produce and certify by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (kma) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo. (Entered: 12/22/2008) 43 EMERGENCY MOTION for clarify purported 'removal', orders, and rule violations, and memorandum of no judicial immunity by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (kma) (Entered: 12/22/2008) 44 NOTICE of federal jurisdication based on (defective) 'removal' and 11th Circuit jurisprudence, EMERGENCY MOTION to remand, and memorandum as to remand, removal defects, and lack of immunity by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (kma) (Entered: 12/22/2008) 45 EMERGENCY MOTION to strike and deny motion to enlarge time to respond by
11/29

12/18/2008

12/19/2008

12/19/2008

12/19/2008

12/22/2008

12/22/2008

12/22/2008

12/22/2008

12/22/2008

12/22/2008

12/22/2008

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

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

defendants Judge John E. Steele and Magistrate Judge S. Polster Chappell by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (kma) (Entered: 12/22/2008) 12/22/2008 46 MOTION to dismiss Amended complaint by Reagan K. Russell, Tom Beason, Harold G. Vielhauer, L. Kathy Funchess, Charles B. "Barry& Stevens, Chad Lach, Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks. (Russell, Reagan) (Entered: 12/22/2008) 47 MOTION for Sean P. Flynn to withdraw as attorney by John E. Steele, Sheri Polster Chappell. (Flynn, Sean) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo. (Entered: 12/22/2008) 48 MOTION for sanctions under the court's inherent powers and Rule 11 against the U.S. Attorney and memorandum by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(SLU) (Entered: 12/24/2008) 49 MOTION to strike and deny 35 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Motion for Injunctive Relief by Defendants District Court Judge Steele and Magistrate Judge Chappell and Memorandum in Support by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(SLU) (Entered: 12/24/2008) 50 ENDORSED ORDER granting 47 Motion to withdraw as attorney. The Clerk is directed to terminate Assistant United States Attorney Sean P. Flynn as counsel of record and substitute Assistant United States Attorney M. Kent Anderson as counsel of record for Defendants United States District Judge John E. Steele and United States Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 12/24/2008. (JMF) (Entered: 12/24/2008) 51 MOTION for protective order and Objections to Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions by Reagan K. Russell, Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, Department of Environmental Protection. (Russell, Reagan) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo. (Entered: 12/29/2008) 52 ORDER to Show Cause as to Plaintiffs; denying 16 Motion to compel; denying 17 Motion to strike ; denying 18 Motion ; denying 18 Motion for clarification; denying 21 Motion to strike ; denying 22 Motion to compel; denying 27 Motion ; granting 29 Motion ; denying 30 Motion to review; granting 32 Motion for protective order; granting 35 Motion ; denying 36 Motion for clarification; denying 37 Motion to compel; denying 39 Motion ; denying 42 Motion to compel; denying 43 Motion for clarification; denying 45 Motion to strike ; granting 51 Motion for protective order; denying 14 Motion to compel; denying 15 Motion to compel. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 12/30/2008. (JMF) (Entered: 12/30/2008) 53 RESPONSE in opposition re 44 MOTION to remand filed by John E. Steele, Sheri Polster Chappell. (Anderson, M.) (Entered: 12/30/2008) 54 NOTICE of Appearance by Sabrina E. Redd on behalf of Lynn Gerald, Jr (Attachments: # 1 Motion to Dismiss)(Redd, Sabrina) (Entered: 01/02/2009) 55 MOTION for recusal of Mark A. Pizzo, MOTION for relief from order re 52 Order on
12/29

12/22/2008

12/23/2008

12/23/2008

12/24/2008

12/29/2008

12/30/2008

12/30/2008 01/02/2009 01/02/2009

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

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

motion to compel, Order on motion to strikeOrder on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on motion for clarification, Order on motion to review, Order on motion for protective order by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/04/2009) 01/02/2009 56 MOTION for relief from order re 52 Order on motion to compel, Order on motion to strike, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on motion for clarification, Order on motion to review, Order on motion for protective order by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (drn). (Entered: 01/04/2009) 57 MOTION for relief from order re 52 Order on motion to compel, Order on motion to strike, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on motion for clarification, Order on motion to review, Order on motion for protective order, MOTION to review re 52 Order on motion to compel,Order on motion to strike, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on motion for clarification, Order on motion to review, Order on motion for protective order by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/04/2009) 58 MOTION to strike 46 MOTION to dismiss Amended complaint by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/5/2009: # 2 Motion) (BES). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/5/2009: # 3 Exhibit) (BES). Modified on 1/5/2009 (BES). (Entered: 01/04/2009) 59 ORDER denying 55 Motion for recusal; denying 55 Motion for relief from judgment; denying 56 Motion for relief from judgment; denying 57 Motion for relief from judgment; denying 57 Motion to review and denying 58 motion to strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 1/5/2009. (DK) (Entered: 01/05/2009) 60 ORDER directing Plaintiffs to appear before Honorable Mark A. Pizzo on January 8, 2009, at 9:15 a.m. in Courtroom 11B of the Sam Gibbons United States Courhouse, Tampa, FL to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for violating Court's order dated December 30, 2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 1/5/2009. (DK) (Entered: 01/05/2009) 61 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to accept as true the indisputable fact and allegation that sham O.R. 569/875 was not passed and for judicial notice of fraud/misrepresentation under O.R. 569/875 by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/05/2009) 62 MOTION for relief from order re 52 Order on motion to compel, Order on motion to strike, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on motion for clarification, Order on motion to review, Order on motion for protective order based on the fraudulent allegation of a resolution and notice of fraud and misrepresentation under O.R. 569/875 by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/05/2009) 63 NOTICE of corruption and conspiracy by Mark A. Pizzo under color of passed resolution O.R. 569/875 by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
13/29

01/02/2009

01/02/2009

01/05/2009

01/05/2009

01/05/2009

01/05/2009

01/05/2009

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

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

01/05/2009 01/05/2009 01/05/2009 01/05/2009 01/07/2009

64 CRIMINAL PROSECUTION of corrupt Judges John E. Steele and Mark A. Pizzo filed by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/05/2009) 65 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott (No filing fee paid). (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/05/2009) 66 ENDORSED ORDER denying 61 Motion emergency motion for miscellaneous relief. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 1/5/2009. (DK) (Entered: 01/05/2009) 67 ENDORSED ORDER denying 62 Motion for relief from judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 1/5/2009. (DK) (Entered: 01/05/2009) 68 RESPONSE to motion re 48 MOTION for sanctions filed by John E. Steele, Sheri Polster Chappell, Circuit Judge Anderson, Circuit Judge Carnes, Circuit Judge Barkett. (Anderson, M.) (Entered: 01/07/2009) 69 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for judicial notice of binding 11th Circuit precedent, misconduct by Mark A. Pizzo, unauthorized sham O.R. 569/875 by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/07/2009) 70 EMERGENCY MOTION for injunctive relief from corrupt Mark A. Pizzo's claim of a passed resolution official policy of unauthorized fake O.R. 569/875 (Doc. #52)by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 01/07/2009) 71 EMERGENCY MOTION for leave of court to supplement their complaint under Fed. R.Civ.P.15 and memorandum by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/07/2009) 72 NOTICE of supplemental complaint and prosecution of defendant corrupt Mark A. Pizzo and unauthorized forged O.R. 569/875 re 2 Complaint by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/07/2009) 73 MOTION for default judgment against defendant corrupt recused John E. Steele and memorandum by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/07/2009) 74 MOTION for sanctions and disqualification because objectively sham O.R. 569/875 was never passed and memorandum by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/07/2009) 75 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo: Miscellaneous Hearing held on 1/8/2009. (DIGITAL) Court Reporter: Linda Starr (JMF) (Entered: 01/08/2009) TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 65 Notice of interlocutory appeal. (kma) (Entered: 01/08/2009) 76 ORDER that the Plaintiffs, Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott, are directed to
14/29

01/07/2009

01/07/2009

01/07/2009

01/07/2009

01/07/2009

01/07/2009

01/08/2009

01/08/2009

01/09/2009

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

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

appear before United States District Judge Richard A. Lazzara on January 30, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 15B of the Sam Gibbons United States Courthouse, 801 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33602 to show why they should not be adjudged in contempt for the reasons certified in the Order. The Clerk is directed to mail certified copies of the order to the Plaintiffs at the addresses listed. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 1/9/2009. (JMF) (Entered: 01/09/2009) 01/09/2009 77 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to declare O.R. 569/875 invalid and confiscatory under Florida and Federal Law, MOTION for panel review by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/09/2009) 78 EMERGENCY MOTION for panel review by the District Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and notice of criminal misconduct and corruption by Mark Allan Pizzo under color of unauthorized forged and invalid O.R. 569/875 by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/09/2009) 79 EMERGENCY MOTION for recusal of corrupt defendant Mark Allan Pizzo under 28 U.S.C. 455 and memorandum by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 01/09/2009) 83 AFFIDAVIT of Jorg Busse in support of judgment against defendant appellees and criminal prosecution of corrupt defendants John Edwin Steele and Mark Allan Pizzo by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 01/12/2009) 84 PLAINTIFF appellants' memorandum as to defendant Appellees' lack of qualified immunity, fraud, obstruction of justice and failure to outline indisputable facts and remand. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits) (drn) (Entered: 01/12/2009) 80 ORDER regarding hearing to be held before the undersigned on 1/30/09. Plaintiffs required to appear. Mailing instructions for clerk. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 1/12/2009. (SKH) (Entered: 01/12/2009) 81 NOTICE OF HEARING: Show Cause Hearing scheduled Friday, January 30, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Richard A. Lazzara. (SKH) (Entered: 01/12/2009) 82 EMERGENCY MOTION for panel review, and notice of false certification of facts by defendant Mark Allan Pizzo and MOTION to strike falsified report and certification by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/12/2009) 86 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically judicial notice of their notice of unavailability by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/13/2009) 87 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for a password for electronic filing by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/13/2009) 88 MOTION for copies of transcript of miscellaneous hearing on 1/8/09 by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo. (Entered: 01/13/2009)
15/29

01/09/2009

01/09/2009

01/09/2009

01/09/2009

01/12/2009

01/12/2009 01/12/2009

01/12/2009

01/12/2009 01/12/2009

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

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

01/12/2009

89 MOTION for panel review of order by defendant corrupt Mark Allan Pizzo and memorandum by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 01/13/2009) 90 NOTICE of filing of their judicial complaint of misconduct or disability against defendant Mark Allan Pizzo in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 01/13/2009) 85 ENDORSED ORDER denying 82 Motion to review and denying 82 Motion to strike. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 1/13/2009. (SKH) (Entered: 01/13/2009) 91 ENDORSED ORDER denying 86 Motion for Misc. Relief re: Notice of Unavailability; denying 87 Motion for ECF Password; denying 88 Motion for copies of hearing transcripts; and denying 89 Motion for panel review. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 1/14/2009. (SKH) (Entered: 01/14/2009) 92 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for judicial notice of the 3/31/08 response to Plaintiffs' request for admissions by defendant Appellees State of Florida by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/16/2009) 93 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for judicial notice of the 3/31/08 response to Plaintiffs' request for admissions by defendant Appellees State of Florida that no signatures appear on the face of O.R. 569/875 by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/16/2009) 94 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for judicial notice of their attached 11/14/08 notice of unavailability by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/16/2009) 95 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for judicial notice of the 10/30/07 Lee County initial disclosures in the first case 2:07-cv-228-FtM-JES-SPC by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/16/2009) 96 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically judicial notice of the 2008 survey of their platted gulf-front property which controverts the fraud under color of unauthorized confiscatory and invalid forged O.R. 569/875 by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/16/2009) 97 ENDORSED ORDER denying 92 appellant's motion for judicial notice as unnecessary. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 1/16/2009. (DMB) (Entered: 01/16/2009) 98 ENDORSED ORDER denying 93 appellant's motion for judicial notice as unncessary. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 1/16/2009. (DMB) (Entered: 01/16/2009) 99 AFFIDAVIT of Jennifer Franklin Prescott in support of judgments against defendant appellees and their criminal prosecution by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 01/16/2009) 100 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically judicial notice of the 3/31/08 response to
16/29

01/12/2009

01/13/2009 01/14/2009

01/16/2009

01/16/2009

01/16/2009

01/16/2009

01/16/2009

01/16/2009 01/16/2009 01/16/2009

01/16/2009

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

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

Plaintiffs' request for admissions by Defendant Appellees State of Florida by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/20/2009) 01/16/2009 101 MOTION for panel review of Defendant Richard A. Lazzara's arbitrary and abusive orders and memorandum by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/20/2009) 102 AFFIDAVIT of Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorg Busse in support of supplemental complaint against Defendant Richard A. Lazzara and his prosecution by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/20/2009) 103 MOTION for leave of court to supplement their complaint against defendant corrupt Judge R. A. Lazzara for panel review of any and all orders and memorandum by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/20/2009) 104 RESPONSE to clearly erroneous order [Doc. 52] and MOTION to strike 52 Order on motion to compel, Order on motion to strike, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on motion for clarification, Order on motion to review, Order on motion for protective order as overborad under procup. and memorandum by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/20/2009) 105 MOTION for recusal of Richard A. Lazzara, MOTION for panel review of any and all orders, and memorandum by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/20/2009) 106 MOTION to strike 52 Order on motion to compel, Order on motion to strike,Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on motion for clarification, Order on motion to review, Order on motion for protective order as overbroad under procup. P. Appellants' motion to strike unauthorized forged O.R. 569/875 which was confiscatory, uneforceably vague and invalid and memorandum by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/20/2009) 109 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for judicial notice of final order in John Lay and Janet Lay vs. Dept. of Environmental Protection, DOAH Case No. 01-1541, 01-1542, and DEP Case No. 01-0860, 01-0876, which controverts the fraud under color of unauthorized confiscatory and invalid forged O.R. 569/875 by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/20/2009) 110 AFFIDAVIT of Jennifer Franklin Prescott in support of judgments against defendant appellees and their criminal prosecution by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/20/2009) 111 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically judicial notice of final order in John Lay and Janet Lay vs. Dept. of Environmental Protection, DOAH Case No. 01-1541, 011542, and DEP Case No. 01-0860, 01-0876, which controverts the fraud under color of unauthorized confiscatory and invalid forged O.R. 569/875 by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/20/2009) 112 MOTION to strike 52 Order on motion to compel, Order on motion to strike, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on motion for clarification, Order on motion
17/29

01/16/2009

01/16/2009

01/16/2009

01/16/2009

01/16/2009

01/16/2009

01/16/2009

01/16/2009

01/16/2009

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

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

to review, Order on motion for protective order as overbroad under Procup, P. Appellants' motion to strike unauthorized forged O.R. 569/875 which was confiscatory, unenforceably vague and invalid and memorandum by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/20/2009) 01/16/2009 113 AFFIDAVIT of Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorg Busse in support of judgment on the merits and/or as a matter of law in favor of Plaintiff Appellants, and in support of recusal of Def. M.A. Pizzo and R.A. Lazzara by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/20/2009) 107 ENDORSED ORDER denying as unnecessary 94 motion for judicial notice; denying as unnecessary 95 motion for judicial notice ; denying as unnecessary 96 motion for judicial notice; denying as unnecessary 100 motion for judicial notice. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 1/20/2009. (DMB) (Entered: 01/20/2009) 108 ENDORSED ORDER denying 101 motion for panel review of Defendant Richard A. Lazzara's arbitrary and abusive orders. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 1/20/2009. (DMB) (Entered: 01/20/2009) 114 ORDER denying 103 Motion to Supplement; denying 104 Motion to Strike; denying 106 Motion to Strike; denying 109 Motion for Judicial Notice; denying 111 Motion for Judicial Notice; and denying 112 Motion to Strike Orders. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 1/20/2009. (SKH) (Entered: 01/20/2009) 115 ORDER ATTACHED denying 105 Motion for recusal; denying 105 Motion for panel review. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 1/20/2009. (SKH) (Entered: 01/20/2009) 116 MOTION to Appear Telephonically to Hearing on January 30, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. by Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, Department of Environmental Protection. (Russell, Reagan) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo. (Entered: 01/20/2009) 122 MOTION for judgment on the merits against Defendant Appellees State of Florida, R.K. Russell, H.G. Vielhauer, T. Beason and K. Funchess in favor of Plaintiff Appellants by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/22/2009) 123 SUPPLEMENT re 65 Notice of interlocutory appeal and memorandum by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/22/2009) 117 EMERGENCY MOTION for recusal, MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to cancel hearing by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/21/2009) 118 MEMORANDUM in support re 117 Motion for recusal, Motion for miscellaneous relief filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/21/2009) 119 ENDORSED ORDER granting 116 Motion to Appear Telephonically. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara for Unassigned Judge on 1/21/2009. (CCB) (Entered: 01/21/2009) 120 ENDORSED ORDER: Upon due consideration, Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal (Dkt. 117) is denied for the same reasons the Court denied a previous motion for recusal by
18/29

01/20/2009

01/20/2009

01/20/2009

01/20/2009

01/20/2009

01/20/2009

01/20/2009 01/21/2009 01/21/2009 01/21/2009 01/21/2009

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

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

order entered January 20, 2009, at docket 115. Plaintiff's Motion to Cancel Hearing (Dkt. 117) is likewise denied. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara for Unassigned Judge on 1/21/2009. (CCB) (Entered: 01/21/2009) 01/21/2009 124 MOTION for recusal of defendant R.A. Lazzara, MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically cancellation of hearing based on concocted litigious history and unauthorized threats of Rule 11 sanctions by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/22/2009) 125 NOTICE of filing of their judicial complaint of misconduct or disability against defendant Richard A. Lazzara in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/22/2009) 121 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 2 Complaint filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 1/22/2009. (JMF) (Entered: 01/22/2009) 126 ENDORSED ORDER denying Motion for Judgment (Dkt. 122) and denying Motion for Recusal and miscellaneous relief (Dkt. 124). Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara for Unassigned Judge on 1/22/2009. (CCB) (Entered: 01/22/2009) 127 MOTION to Appear Telephonically to Hearing on January 30, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. by John E. Steele, Sheri Polster Chappell, Circuit Judge Anderson, Circuit Judge Carnes, Circuit Judge Barkett. (Anderson, M.) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo. (Entered: 01/23/2009) 128 ENDORSED ORDER granting 127 Motion to Appear Telephonically. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara for Unassigned Judge on 1/23/2009. (CCB) (Entered: 01/23/2009) 129 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to cancel hearing, MOTION for recusal by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (kma) (Entered: 01/23/2009) 131 MEMORANDUM in support as to cancellation of hearing and unauthorized rule 11 sanctions re 129 Motion for miscellaneous reliefMotion for recusal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/26/2009) 132 NOTICE of filing of lawsuit against Richard A. Lazzara, Mark Allan Pizzo, John Edwin Steele, Sheri Polster Chappell, United States of America, Reagan K. Russell, State of Florida, Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Sherri L. Johnson, Jack N. Peterson, Donna Marie Collins, David M. Owen, Lee County, Florida, Toby P. Brigham, S. William Moore, Brigham & Moore, LLP, M. Papalas, et al. by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/26/2009) 133 JUDICIAL COMPLAINT against defendants Richard A. Lazzara and Mark Allan Pizzo filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.(drn) (Entered: 01/26/2009) 134 NOTICE of filing of their judicial complaint of misconduct or disability against Defendant Richard A. Lazzara in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
19/29

01/21/2009

01/22/2009

01/22/2009

01/23/2009

01/23/2009 01/23/2009

01/23/2009

01/23/2009

01/23/2009 01/23/2009

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

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

01/23/2009 01/23/2009

135 SUPPLEMENTAL notice re 65 Notice of interlocutory appeal and memorandum by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/26/2009) 136 MOTION for judgment on the merits against Defendant Appellees State of Florida, R.K. Russell, H.G. Vielhauer, T. Beason, and K. Funchess in favor of Plaintiff Appellants by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/26/2009) 130 ENDORSED ORDER: Upon due consideration, Plaintiffs' Motion to Cancel Hearing and for Recusal (Dkt. 129) is denied based on the Court's prior order entered January 20, 2009, at docket 115. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara for Unassigned Judge on 1/26/2009. (CCB) (Entered: 01/26/2009) 137 ENDORSED ORDER denying 136 Motion for Judgment. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara for Unassigned Judge on 1/26/2009. (CCB) (Entered: 01/26/2009) TRANSMITTAL to USCA forwarding certified copy of 123 Supplement with updated docket sheet re 65 Notice of interlocutory appeal (kma) (Entered: 01/27/2009) 138 MOTION to strike 121 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 2 Complaint by defendant Mark Allan Pizzo, because "case fixing" is illegal as set forth in J.F. Prescott et al. v. R.A. Lazzara, et al. filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/27/2009) 139 MOTION for sanctions against defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/27/2009) 140 MOTION for sanctions against defendant Sherri L. Johnson by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/27/2009) 141 NOTICE of filing of Plaintiffs' motion to enjoin illegal "case fixing" and give full faith and credit to Lay v. State of Florida by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/27/2009) 142 NOTICE of filing of complaint of serial "case fixing", corruption and conspiracy in the Middle District of Florida to the Chief U.S. Circuit Judges by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/27/2009) 143 ENDORSED ORDER denying 138 Motion to Strike and denying [139 & 140] Motions for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara for Unassigned Judge on 1/27/2009. (CCB) (Entered: 01/27/2009) 144 EMERGENCY MOTION to strike 121 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 2 Complaint because defendant Pizzo refused to give full faith and credit to J. Lay v. and J. Lay v. State of Florida and conspired to fix the cases filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/29/2009) 145 EMERGENCY MOTION for recusal of defendant "case fixing" Judges M.A. Pizzo and R.A. Lazzara, MOTION to strike 121 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 2 Complaint filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/29/2009) 149 OBJECTION re 121 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 2 Complaint and
20/29

01/26/2009

01/26/2009 01/27/2009 01/27/2009

01/27/2009 01/27/2009 01/27/2009

01/27/2009

01/27/2009

01/29/2009

01/29/2009

01/29/2009

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

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

arbitrary and capricious fabrication of "passed resolution" filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/30/2009) 01/29/2009 151 NOTICE of service of complaints upon def. corrupt Judges Richard A. Lazzara and Mark A. Pizzo (Case No: 2:09-cv-41-FtM) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/30/2009) 146 ENDORSED ORDER denying 144 Motion to Strike; denying 145 Motion for Recusal; and denying 145 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara for Unassigned Judge on 1/30/2009. (CCB) (Entered: 01/30/2009) 147 ORDER ATTACHED, following hearing this day, that the Court will delay any ruling on sanction for Plaintiff's failure to appear until after 10-day period for filing objections to 121 Judge Pizzo's 1/22/09 Report and Recommendation has expired. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 1/30/2009. (DMB) (Entered: 01/30/2009) 148 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Richard A. Lazzara: Show Cause Hearing held on 1/30/2009. Court Reporter: Claudia Spangler-Fry (MSS) (Entered: 01/30/2009) 150 MOTION to strike 81 Notice of Hearing, 121 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 2 Complaint filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/30/2009) 152 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for equitable relief invalidation of forged, unauthorized and invalid O.R. 569/875, and for recusal and removal of case fixing defendant judges, and Plaintiffs' objections to illegal case fixing and memorandum by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/02/2009) 153 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin enforcement of invalid O.R. 569/875 and for recusal and removal of case fixing defendant Judges and Plaintiffs' objections to illegal case fixing, MOTION for recusal by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 02/02/2009) 154 ENDORSED ORDER denying 152 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for equitable relief invalidation of forged, unauthorized and invalid O.R. 569/875, and for recusal and removal of case fixing defendant judges, and Plaintiffs' objections to illegal case fixing and memorandum by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 2/2/2009. (DMB) (Entered: 02/02/2009) 155 ENDORSED ORDER denying 153 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin enforcement of invalid O.R. 569/875 and 153 EMERGENCY MOTION for recusal and removal of case fixing defendant Judges and Plaintiffs' objections to illegal case fixing. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 2/2/2009. (DMB) (Entered: 02/02/2009) 157 NOTICE OF APPEAL from "case fixing", objections and motion for recusal of defendant corrupt Judges Lazzara and Pizzo by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
21/29

01/30/2009

01/30/2009

01/30/2009

01/30/2009

02/02/2009

02/02/2009

02/02/2009

02/02/2009

02/02/2009

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

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 02/02/2009 02/02/2009 158 MOTION for recusal of defendant corrupt Judges Lazzara and Pizzo by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 159 NOTICE OF APPEAL from "case fixing" and objections to criminal "case fixing" and def. Pizzo's "report" by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 160 OBJECTIONS to criminal "case fixing" and def. Pizzo's "report" re 121 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 2 Complaint filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 161 OBJECTIONS to criminal "case fixing" and imposition of unauthorized sanctions and notice of appeal. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 162 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 163 MOTION for recusal and notice of indisputable evidence of case fixing and objections by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 164 OBJECTION filed by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott.(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 165 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically full faith and credit of John Lay and Janet Lay v. State of Florida and very strong objections to factually and legally impossible reports (Doc. 121) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 166 OBJECTIONS re 121 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 2 Complaint filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 167 MOTION for recusal of defendant corrupt judges based on indisputable evidence of case fixing, MOTION to strike 80 Order, 121 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 2 Complaint filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott, 13 Order on motion for extension of time to answer by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 168 OBJECTIONS filed by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 169 NOTICE of criminal complaints of case fixing to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 170 OBJECTIONS to criminal "case fixing" and imposition of unauthorized sanctions and notice of appeal. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 171 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
22/29

02/02/2009

02/02/2009 02/02/2009 02/02/2009 02/02/2009 02/02/2009

02/02/2009

02/02/2009

02/02/2009 02/02/2009

02/02/2009 02/02/2009

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

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

02/02/2009 02/02/2009 02/02/2009

173 MOTION to strike hearing and 121 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 2 Complaint filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 175 OBJECTIONS filed by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 176 MOTION for mandatory recusal of defendant partial and corrupt Judges R.A. Lazzara and M.A. Pizzo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455 and memorandum that said defendants cannot dismiss plaintiff's complaint by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 177 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 178 MOTION for recusal of defendant corrupt Judges Lazzara & Pizzo by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 179 OBJECTIONS filed by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 180 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 181 OBJECTIONS to criminal "case fixing" and re 121 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 2 Complaint filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 156 NOTICE by Mike Scott Notice of filing Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Filed in State Court December 8, 2008 with Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Lewis, John) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 172 MOTION for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 by Kenneth M. Wilkinson. (Johnson, Sherri) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 174 MOTION for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 by Sherri L. Johnson. (Johnson, Sherri) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 182 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for full faith and credit of John Lay and Janet Lay v. State of Florida and very strong objections to factually and legally impossible resports by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 183 OBJECTION re 121 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 2 Complaint filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 184 MOTION for recusal and notice of indisputable evidence of case fixing and objections by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009) 185 OBJECTIONS filed by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
23/29

02/02/2009 02/02/2009 02/02/2009 02/02/2009 02/02/2009

02/03/2009

02/03/2009 02/03/2009 02/03/2009

02/03/2009

02/03/2009

02/03/2009

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

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

02/04/2009

186 ORDER ATTACHED adopting 121 Report and Recommendations, dismissing case with prejudice and directing clerk to enter judgment for Defendants, to terminate pending motions/deadlines, and to not accept pleadings as directed by the attached order. Signed by Judge Lazzara on 2/4/2009. (CCB) (Entered: 02/04/2009) 187 JUDGMENT in favor of Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, Brigham & Moore, LLP, Clerk of Lee County Clerks, Department of Environmental Protection, Dept. Of Agriculture, Division of Forestry, Division of Recreation and Parks, Lee County Attorney, Lee County Fire Department, Lee County, Florida, State Of Florida, Barry R. Hillmyer, Chad Lach, Charles B. "Barry& Stevens, Charles J. Ferrante, Charlie Green, Circuit Judge Anderson, Circuit Judge Barkett, Circuit Judge Carnes, David M. Owen, Donna Marie Collins, Harold G. Vielhauer, J. Broomfield, Jack N. Peterson, Jim Dent, John E. Steele, Karen L.W. Forsyth, Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lynn Gerald, Jr, Menelaos Papalas, Mike Scott, Reagan K. Russell, Rex Shevitski, S. William Moore, Sheri Polster Chappell, Sherri L. Johnson, Steven W. Carta, Susan Bailey, Toby Prince Brigham, Tom Beason, W. W. Wilhelm against Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse (Signed by Deputy Clerk). (drn) (Entered: 02/04/2009) USCA appeal fees received $ 455 receipt number F011989 re 65 Notice of interlocutory appeal filed by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott. USCA #0910464D (kma) (Entered: 02/10/2009) TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 157 Notice of appeal. (kma) (Entered: 02/11/2009) TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 159 Notice of appeal. (kma) (Entered: 02/11/2009) TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 162 Notice of appeal. (kma) (Entered: 02/11/2009) TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 171 Notice of appeal. (kma) (Entered: 02/11/2009) TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 177 Notice of appeal. (kma) (Entered: 02/11/2009) TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 180 Notice of appeal. (kma) (Entered: 02/11/2009) TRANSMITTAL to USCA forwarding certified copy of docket sheet indicating payment of appellate fees in re 65 Notice of interlocutory appeal USCA number: 0924/29

02/04/2009

02/05/2009

02/11/2009

02/11/2009

02/11/2009

02/11/2009

02/11/2009

02/11/2009

02/11/2009

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

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

10464D. (kma) (Entered: 02/11/2009) 02/13/2009 188 TRANSCRIPT information form filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott before Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell for pretrial proceeding held 11/07/09 in 2:07cv-228; before Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo for hearing held 01/08/09 ; and, before Judge Richard A. Lazzara for hearing held 01/30/09. USCA number: 09-10464D. (kma) (Entered: 02/18/2009) 189 COURT REPORTER ACKNOWLEDGMENT by Claudia Spangler-Fry re 180 Notice of appeal Estimated transcript filing date: No Financial Arrangements made for cost of transcript. USCA number: 09-10464-D. (CS) (Entered: 02/19/2009) 190 COURT REPORTER ACKNOWLEDGMENT by Linda Starr re 180 Notice of appeal Estimated transcript filing date: No Financial Arrangements made for cost of transcripts. USCA number: 09-10464-D. (SAH) (Entered: 02/24/2009) USCA appeal fees received $ 455 receipt number F012059 re 162 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott (kma) (Entered: 02/26/2009) 191 COURT REPORTER ACKNOWLEDGMENT by Claudia Spangler-Fry re 180 Notice of appeal Estimated transcript filing date: 3/26/09. USCA number: 09-10464-D. (CS) (Entered: 02/26/2009) TRANSMITTAL to USCA forwarding certified copy of updated docket sheet indicating payment of filing fee re 162 Notice of appeal USCA number: 09-10747D. (kma) (Entered: 02/26/2009) 195 TRANSCRIPT information form filed by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott for proceedings held on 01/08/09 before Judge Mark A Pizzo and 01/30/09 before Judge Richard A. Lazzara re 159 Notice of appeal. USCA number: 09-10746D. (kma) (Entered: 03/04/2009) 196 TRANSCRIPT information form filed by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott for proceedings held on 01/08/09 before Judge Mark A. Pizzo and 01/30/09 before Judge Richard A. Lazzara re 157 Notice of appeal. USCA number: 09-10745D. (kma) (Entered: 03/04/2009) 198 COURT REPORTER ACKNOWLEDGMENT by Martina Reporting Services re 65 Notice of interlocutory appeal Estimated transcript filing date: 03/19/09. USCA number: 09-10464D. (kma) (Entered: 03/05/2009) 192 TRANSCRIPT of Show Cause/Contempt Hearing held on 1/30/09 before Judge Richard A. Lazzara re 180 Notice of appeal. Court Reporter Claudia Spangler-Fry, Telephone number 813/301-5575. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER or purchased through the Court Reporter. Redaction Request due 3/25/2009, Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/6/2009, Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/2/2009. (CS) (Entered: 03/04/2009) 193 NOTIFICATION that transcript has been filed by Claudia Spangler-Fry re: 180 Notice
25/29

02/19/2009

02/23/2009

02/23/2009 02/26/2009

02/26/2009

02/27/2009

02/27/2009

03/03/2009

03/04/2009

03/04/2009

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

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

of appeal (CS) (Entered: 03/04/2009) 03/04/2009 194 NOTICE to counsel of filing of OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the court reporter or view the document at the clerk's office public terminal. Court Reporter: Claudia Spangler-Fry (CS) (Entered: 03/04/2009) 197 TRANSCRIPT information form filed by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott for proceedings held on 01/08/09 before Judge Mark A. Pizzo and 01/30/09 before Judge Richard A. Lazzara re 162 Notice of appeal. USCA number: 09-10747D. (kma) (Entered: 03/04/2009) USCA appeal fees received $ 455 receipt number F012106 re 157 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott (kma) (Entered: 03/05/2009) USCA appeal fees received $ 455 receipt number F012107 re 159 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott (kma) (Entered: 03/05/2009) TRANSMITTAL to USCA forwarding certified copy of updated docket sheet indicating payment of appellate fees re 157 Notice of appeal USCA number: 09-10745. (kma) (Entered: 03/05/2009) TRANSMITTAL to USCA forwarding certified copy of updated docket sheet indicating payment of appellate fees re 159 Notice of appeal USCA number: 09-10746. (kma) (Entered: 03/05/2009) 199 TRANSCRIPT of Show Cause Proceeding held on 8 JANUARY 2009 before Judge MARK A. PIZZO re 159 Notice of appeal, 157 Notice of appeal. Court Reporter/Transcriber LINDA STARR, Telephone number 813-301-5252. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER or purchased through the Court Reporter. Redaction Request due 4/10/2009, Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/20/2009, Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/18/2009. (LS) (Entered: 03/20/2009) 200 NOTICE to counsel of filing of OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the court reporter or view the document at the clerk's office public terminal. Court Reporter: Linda Starr (LS) (Entered: 03/20/2009) 201 COURT REPORTER ACKNOWLEDGMENT and NOTIFICATION of filing by Linda Starr re 65 Notice of interlocutory appeal. USCA number: 09-10464D. (kma) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
26/29

03/04/2009

03/04/2009 03/04/2009 03/05/2009

03/05/2009

03/20/2009

03/20/2009

03/20/2009

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

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

04/01/2009

202 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) dismissing, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction as to 65 Notice of interlocutory appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. EOD: 03/30/09; USCA number: 09-10464-D. (slp) (Entered: 04/01/2009) 203 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) dismissing, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction as to 157 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. EOD: 03/31/09; USCA number: 09-10745-D. (slp) (Entered: 04/03/2009) 204 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) dismissing, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction as to 159 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. EOD: 03/31/09; USCA number: 09-10746-D. (slp) (Entered: 04/03/2009) 206 ORDER of USCA dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdictionas to 162 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. EOD: 03/31/09; USCA number: 0910747D. (kma) (Entered: 04/03/2009) 205 NOTIFICATION that transcript has NOT been filed by Martina Reporting Services See note on document USCA number: 09-10464D (kma) (Entered: 04/03/2009) TRANSMITTAL to USCA forwarding certified 205 with updated docket sheet (kma) (Entered: 04/03/2009) 207 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 187 Judgment by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(SLU) (Entered: 06/30/2009) TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 207 Notice of appeal. (slp) (Entered: 07/01/2009) 208 NOTICE OF APPEAL from bribery, case-fixing, fraudulently begotten judgment(s) and rulings, and fraud on the court under false pretenses that forged "land" "claim" O.R. 569/875 was a "resolution" by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 07/07/2009) TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 208 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 07/08/2009) 209 Unopposed MOTION to substitute attorney by Kenneth M. Wilkinson. (Johnson, Sherri) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo. (Entered: 07/30/2009) 210 ENDORSED ORDER granting 209 Motion to substitute attorney. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 8/4/2009. (JMF) (Entered: 08/04/2009) 211 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 187 Judgment by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 08/10/2009) 212 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 187 Judgment by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 08/10/2009)
27/29

04/02/2009

04/02/2009

04/02/2009

04/03/2009 04/03/2009 06/29/2009 07/01/2009

07/07/2009

07/08/2009

07/30/2009 08/04/2009 08/07/2009 08/07/2009

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

11/2/2009

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…

08/10/2009 08/10/2009 08/12/2009 08/12/2009 08/18/2009

213 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 187 Judgment by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 08/11/2009) 214 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 187 Judgment by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 08/11/2009) 215 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 187 Judgment by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 08/12/2009) 216 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 187 Judgment by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits(drn) (Entered: 08/12/2009) TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 211 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 08/18/2009) TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 212 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 08/18/2009) TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 213 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 08/18/2009) TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 214 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 08/18/2009) TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 215 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 08/18/2009) TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 216 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 08/18/2009) 217 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) dismissing non-consolidated appeals, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction as to 207 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
28/29

08/18/2009

08/18/2009

08/18/2009

08/18/2009

08/18/2009

09/14/2009

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

6/16/2010
L EE COUNTY P ROPERTY A PPRAISER

Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin…

PROPERTY DATA FOR PARCEL 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0 T AX YEAR 2009
Parcel data is available for the following tax years: [ 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 ]
[ Next Lower Parcel Number | Next Higher Parcel Number | Display Tax Bills on this Parcel |
OWNERSHIP , LEGAL, S ALES
AND

Tax Estimator
FROM THE

]

DISTRICT DATA ARE

FROM THE CURRENT DATABASE .

LAND, BUILDING, VALUE

AND

E XEMPTION DATA ARE

2009 ROLL.

PROPERTY DETAILS
OWNER OF RECORD LEE COUNTY PO BOX 398 FORT MYERS FL 33902 SITE ADDRESS GOVT LOT CAPTIVA FL 33924 LEGAL DESCRIPTION CAYO COSTA PB 3 PG 25 ALL UNNUMBERED AND ACCRETED LANDS [ PICTOMETRY AERIAL VIEWER ] TAXING DISTRICT 050 - COUNTY / NO FIRE DISTRICT PROPERTY VALUES (TAX ROLL 2009) ISTORY C HART ] [H 1,074,100 JUST 1,074,100 ASSESSED 1,074,100 ASSESSED SOH TAXABLE BUILDING BUILDING FEATURES 0 0 0
INCL.
IN BLDG VALUE.

[ VIEWER ] TAX MAP [ PRINT ]

DOR CODE 86 - COUNTIES - OTHER

EXEMPTIONS HOMESTEAD WIDOW WIDOWER DISABILITY WHOLLY AGRICULTURE 0 0 0 0 1,074,100 0

ATTRIBUTES LAND UNITS OF MEASURE TOTAL NUMBER OF LAND UNITS FRONTAGE DEPTH BEDROOMS BATHROOMS AC 107.41 0 0

leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?…

1/3

6/16/2010

Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin…

LAND LAND 0 FEATURES SOH DIFFERENCE

1,074,100
INCL.
IN LAND VALUE.

0

TOTAL BUILDING SQFT 1ST YEAR BUILDING ON TAX ROLL HISTORIC DISTRICT

0 NO

SALES/TRANSACTIONS
SALE PRICE DATE OR NUMBER VERIFIER Add TRANSACTION DETAILS TYPE DESCRIPTION 01 Disqualified (Doc Stamp .70 / SP less th $100 / Other Disq)
There are 1 additional parcel(s) with this document (may have been split after the transaction date)...

VACANT / IMPROVED V

100 12/1/1969 569/875

07-44-21-01-00001.0000

SOLID WASTE (GARBAGE) ROLL DATA
SOLID WASTE DISTRICT 007 - Upper Islands C OLLECTION DAYS ROLL TYPE CATEGORY UNIT/AREA 0 TAX AMOUNT 0.00

ELEVATION INFORMATION
STORM SURGE CATEGORY TS FLOOD INSURANCE (FIRM LOOK-UP) RATE CODE COMMUNITY 125124 PANEL 0192 VERSION F DATE 8/28/2008

Please contact Lee County DCD at 239-533-8597 option 4 to verify your flood zone status.

[ Show ]

APPRAISAL DETAILS

TRIM (proposed tax) Notices are available for the following tax years: [ 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 ] [ Next Lower Parcel Number | Next Higher Parcel Number ] [ New Query | Parcel Queries Page | Lee PA Home ]
leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?… 2/3

6/16/2010

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule…

Search Law School

Search Cornell
dona te

LII

hom e / Lega l Inform a tion Institute

se arch

find a la wyer

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
m a in page se arch | civil procedure overvie w

VI. TRIA LS > Rule 44.

Prev | Next

Rule 44.

Proving an Official Record (a) Means of Proving.
(1) Domestic Record. Each of the following evidences an official record — or an entry in it — that is otherwise admissible and is kept within the United States, any state, district, or commonwealth, or any territory subject to the administrative or judicial jurisdiction of the United States: (A) an official publication of the record; or (B) a copy attested by the offic er with legal custody of the record — or by the officer's deputy — and accompanied by a certificate that the officer has custody. The certificate must be made under seal: (i) by a judge of a court of record in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept; or (ii) by any public officer with a seal of office and with official duties in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept. (2) Foreign Record. (A) In General. Each of the following evidences a foreign official record — or an entry in it — that is otherwise admissible: (i) an official publication of the record; or (ii) the record — or a c opy — that is attested by an authorized person and is accompanied either by a final certification of genuineness or by a certification under a treaty or convention to which the United States and the country where the record is located are parties. (B) Final Certification of Genuineness. A final c ertific ation must certify the genuineness of the signature and official position of the attester or of any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness relates to the attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness relating to the attestation. A final certification may be made by a secretary of a United States embassy or legation; by a consul general, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States; or by a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned or accredited to the United States. (C) Other Means of Proof. If all parties have had a reasonable opportunity to investigate a foreign record's authenticity and ac curacy, the court may, for good cause, either: (i) admit an attested copy without final certification; or (ii) permit the record to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without a final c ertific ation. Notes Law About ... Civil Procedure

Donations cover only 20% of our costs.

Online Certification Flexible Certificate Programs To Fit Your Schedule. Start Today.
Phoenix.edu

Attorneys: reach interested clients by sponsoring an LII page

(b) Lack of Record.
A written statement that a diligent searc h of designated records revealed no record or entry of a specified tenor is admissible as evidence that the records contain no such record or entry. For domestic records, the statement must be

www.law.cornell.edu/…/Rule44.htm

1/2

6/16/2010

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule…
authenticated under Rule 44(a)(1). For foreign records, the statement must comply with (a)(2)(C)(ii).

(c) Other Proof.
A party may prove an offic ial record — or an entry or lack of an entry in it — by any other method authorized by law. Prev | Next

about us

help

terms of use

friend us

follow us

c ontac t us

www.law.cornell.edu/…/Rule44.htm

2/2

FIXER’S FRAUD FOILED BY Fed.R.Civ.P. 44

Judge Charlene E. Honeywell

PUBLIC CORRUPTION COMPLAINT

Judge Charlene E. Honeywell:
Stop your “vexatious” games of terror! Stop your “frivolous” lies! Don’t “Honey” the American People! Show them the missing Complaint pages. Don’t criminally deprive the Plaintiffs! Prove title to facially forged “parcels”: “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”, and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”.

On June 22, 2010 …
PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 25 (1912)

TRANSCRIPT OF 11/17/2009 ROGER ALEJO PERJURY PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS DR. BUSSE & FRANKLIN PRESCOTT: [VAB RECORD: 1:05:23 – 1:05:33; YOU TUBE: 1:54 - 2:04]

“Is our riparian Gulf-front land parcel, ending on 015A [Parcel # 12-44-2001-00015.015A] bounded by the natural boundary of the Gulf of Mexico? YES or NO?”
Defendant Special Magistrate LORI L. RUTLAND: [VAB RECORD: 1:05:34 – 1:05:42; YOU TUBE: 2:05 – 2:12]

“Mr. Alejo, does the property have the Gulf of Mexico next to it? Is it right up next to the Gulf of Mexico?”
Defendant ROGER ALEJO: [VAB RECORD: 1:05:42 – 1:05:43; YOU TUBE: 2:13 – 2:15]

“YES, Ma’am.” ROGER ALEJO’S PERJURY & FRAUD ON YOU TUBE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYp-Mb242D0

FIXER: Honey well just pay me and I’ll fix it

Judge Charlene E. Honeywell

6/16/2010

Official site of the U.S. District Court f…

This is Google's cache of http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/judicialInfo/FtMyers/JgHoneywell.htm. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on May 24, 2010 07:27:49 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more These search terms are highlighted: charlene edwards honeywell
Text-only version

The Honorable Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge
Ft. Myers Division

Jacksonville Judges Orlando Judges Ocala Judges Tampa Judges Ft. Myers Judges

TEL: 239-461-2170 FAX: 239-461-2179

Biography:
Charlene Edwards Honeywell is a United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida. She was appointed by President Obama in November 2009. Prior to that appointment, Judge Honeywell served as a Circuit Court Judge for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Tampa, Florida. She was appointed to that position by Governor Jeb Bush in 2000. Judge Honeywell graduated from Howard University, cum laude, in May 1979 and from the University of Florida's Levin College of Law in 1981. From 1982 to 1985, she served in the Tallahassee Public Defender's Office, first, as an appellate attorney and then as a trial attorney. Judge Honeywell then spent two years as an assistant public defender in the Tampa Public Defender's office. From 1987 to 1994, she worked as an Assistant City Attorney for the City of Tampa, where she was the chief of the litigation department. Judge Honeywell also spent six years as a litigation attorney and shareholder at the Tampa law firm Hill, Ward & Henderson. In 1994, Judge Honeywell served as a County Court Judge for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in Florida. Chambers Staff: Bettye G. Samuel Judicial Assistant 239-461-2170 Nefertari S. Rigsby Law Clerk 239-461-2173
Odd Numbered Cases

All Judges

Federal Court Judges Practice Guide

Michael A. Pusateri Law Clerk 239-461-2174
Even Numbered Cases

Joy Stancel Court Reporter 239-461-2064

Libby Figgers Courtroom Deputy 239-461-2005
1/2

…googleusercontent.com/search?q=ca…

FIXER: Honey well just pay me and I’ll fix it
Just call me … … I always have a “resolution”:
• “VEXATIOUS” • VANISHING COMPLAINTS • “FRIVOLOUS” …

Judge Charlene E. Honeywell

CERTIFIED DELIVERY

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EQUAL COURT ACCESS 7. Again, the Plaintiffs move for equal court access in this electronic Court. For the criminal purpose of extending and concealing Governmental fraud and extortion scheme O.R. 569/875”, this Court has obstructed the pro se Plaintiffs’ electronic Court access. Here, electronic court access is the only practical court access from remote parts of the world where mail is unavailable. JUDICIAL CRIMES & OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 8. In Doc. # 338, p. 12, Civil Rights Case # 2:07-cv-228-FtM-JES-SPC, Defendant crooked Judge John Edwin Steele expressly verbalized his obstruction of justice and prejudice: “The copy of the Resolution attached to the Third Amended Complaint establishes that it was signed, executed, and duly recorded in the public records, and plaintiff will not be allowed to assert otherwise.”

3

Honey well that Gulf spill ain’t any emergency…

Judge Charlene E. Honeywell

6/16/2010
L EE COUNTY P ROPERTY A PPRAISER

Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin…

PROPERTY DATA FOR PARCEL 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0 T AX YEAR 2009
Parcel data is available for the following tax years: [ 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 ]
[ Next Lower Parcel Number | Next Higher Parcel Number | Display Tax Bills on this Parcel |
OWNERSHIP , LEGAL, S ALES
AND

Tax Estimator
FROM THE

]

DISTRICT DATA ARE

FROM THE CURRENT DATABASE .

LAND, BUILDING, VALUE

AND

E XEMPTION DATA ARE

2009 ROLL.

PROPERTY DETAILS
OWNER OF RECORD LEE COUNTY PO BOX 398 FORT MYERS FL 33902 SITE ADDRESS GOVT LOT CAPTIVA FL 33924 LEGAL DESCRIPTION CAYO COSTA PB 3 PG 25 ALL UNNUMBERED AND ACCRETED LANDS [ PICTOMETRY AERIAL VIEWER ] TAXING DISTRICT 050 - COUNTY / NO FIRE DISTRICT PROPERTY VALUES (TAX ROLL 2009) ISTORY C HART ] [H 1,074,100 JUST 1,074,100 ASSESSED 1,074,100 ASSESSED SOH TAXABLE BUILDING BUILDING FEATURES 0 0 0
INCL.
IN BLDG VALUE.

[ VIEWER ] TAX MAP [ PRINT ]

DOR CODE 86 - COUNTIES - OTHER

EXEMPTIONS HOMESTEAD WIDOW WIDOWER DISABILITY WHOLLY AGRICULTURE 0 0 0 0 1,074,100 0

ATTRIBUTES LAND UNITS OF MEASURE TOTAL NUMBER OF LAND UNITS FRONTAGE DEPTH BEDROOMS BATHROOMS AC 107.41 0 0

leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?…

1/3

6/16/2010

Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin…

LAND LAND 0 FEATURES SOH DIFFERENCE

1,074,100
INCL.
IN LAND VALUE.

0

TOTAL BUILDING SQFT 1ST YEAR BUILDING ON TAX ROLL HISTORIC DISTRICT

0 NO

SALES/TRANSACTIONS
SALE PRICE DATE OR NUMBER VERIFIER Add TRANSACTION DETAILS TYPE DESCRIPTION 01 Disqualified (Doc Stamp .70 / SP less th $100 / Other Disq)
There are 1 additional parcel(s) with this document (may have been split after the transaction date)...

VACANT / IMPROVED V

100 12/1/1969 569/875

07-44-21-01-00001.0000

SOLID WASTE (GARBAGE) ROLL DATA
SOLID WASTE DISTRICT 007 - Upper Islands C OLLECTION DAYS ROLL TYPE CATEGORY UNIT/AREA 0 TAX AMOUNT 0.00

ELEVATION INFORMATION
STORM SURGE CATEGORY TS FLOOD INSURANCE (FIRM LOOK-UP) RATE CODE COMMUNITY 125124 PANEL 0192 VERSION F DATE 8/28/2008

Please contact Lee County DCD at 239-533-8597 option 4 to verify your flood zone status.

[ Show ]

APPRAISAL DETAILS

TRIM (proposed tax) Notices are available for the following tax years: [ 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 ] [ Next Lower Parcel Number | Next Higher Parcel Number ] [ New Query | Parcel Queries Page | Lee PA Home ]
leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?… 2/3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
[“TRANSFERRED” FROM: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION]

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE, Plaintiffs, versus Reassigned Case # 2:09-CV-00791-CEH-SPC

ROGER ALEJO; KENNETH M. WILKINSON; JACK N. PETERSON; ROGER DESJARLAIS; LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; LEE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD; LORI L. RUTLAND; STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND; STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; CHAD LACH; CHARLES “BARRY” STEVENS; REAGAN KATHLEEN RUSSELL; KAREN B. HAWES; ROGER DESJARLAIS; CHARLIE GREEN; BOB JANES; BRIAN BIGELOW; RAY JUDAH; TAMMY HALL; FRANK MANN; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY(S); SEAN P. FLYNN; E. KENNETH STEGEBY; DAVID P. RHODES; A. BRIAN ALBRITTON; CYNTHIA A. PIVACEK; JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.; STEVEN CARTA; MIKE SCOTT; HUGH D. HAYES; GERALD D. SIEBENS; STATE OF FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL; WILLIAM M. MARTIN; PETERSON BERNARD; SKIP QUILLEN; TOM GILBERTSON, RYAN LENGERICH, NEWS PRESS, Defendants. NOTICE OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION ____________________________________________________________________________/ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF DEFENDANT CROOKED JUDGE CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL PUBLIC NOTICE & PUBLICATIONS OF JUDICIAL CORRUPTION & CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL U.S. FRAUD

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF CORRUPT JUDGE HONEYWELL

U.S. CORRUPTION SPILL

OBAMA & O.R. 569/875

“RECKLESS …
4

CRIMINAL EMERGENCIES IN HONEYWELL’S CORRUPTED COURT 1. Honeywell’s CONTEMPT of the LAW has been an EMERGENCY. 2. NOT even READING Plaintiffs’ Complaint was an EMERGENCY. 3. Idiotically attaching a facially fraudulent “lien” against real property, which Government purportedly owned blew the lid on judicial and Governmental CORRUPTION and was an EMERGENCY … 4. Criminally concealing prima facie Governmental forgeries of non-existent, un-platted, and legally un-described “land” “parcels” such as here, e.g., “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “0744-21-01-00001.0001”. See Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912). 5. Fraudulent judicial pretenses that the adjudication of fundamental property rights and ownership was purportedly a “legislative function” and could be done by “resolution” or “law” outside a court of law were of course EMERGENCIES and threats to America’s democracy. See Florida Attorney General Opinion, AGO 78-125. 6. Letting anyone scribble a “claim” on a piece of paper for the CRIMINAL purposes of ROBBING hundreds of Acres of pristine Gulf-front lands [fake parcels” “12-44-20-0100000.00A0”; and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”] under facially fraudulent pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness” were prima facie EMERGENCIES. See Governmental scam “O.R. 569/875”. 7. Here, said judicial anarchy, lawlessness, corruption, and robbery were EMERGENCIES. 8. Deliberately disrupting the judicial proceedings with facially fake claims of a “resolution” [“O.R. 569/875”], “vexatiousness”, and “frivolity” prior to any legitimate “final” determinations” were EMERGENCIES. 9. U.S. Judges accepting Defendants’ bribes were EMERGENCIES.

2

10. Deliberate and premeditated judicial perversions of Florida’s Uniform Title Standards, Florida’s Marketable Record Title Act, Eminent Domain Statutes, and Constitution were extraordinary EMERGENCIES. 11. Criminally concealing fraudulent and forged Lee County “SALES/TRANSACTIONS”, “O.R. 569/875” was an EMERGENCY:

“O.R. 569/875”

12. Here, no intelligent, honest, and competent judge in Honeywell’s shoes could have possibly NOT seen said EMERGENCIES and the threats of Governmental CORRUPTION to democracy in the U.S. 13. Here, no competent, intelligent, and honest judge in Honeywell’s shoes could have possibly NOT seen the EMERGENCIES of Honeywell’s facially idiotic, arbitrary, capricious, and corrupted orders … 14. Crooked Judges like Ms. Honeywell “see” things differently, because corruption and/or bribes disrupt fair and just vision of law and the facts:

Ms. Honeywell, perhaps the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is not an emergency …

3

“O.R. 569/875”
Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Court Case No. Filed NOS Closed 890 440 440 440 440 440 440 440 02/04/2009 05/06/2008 06/04/2009 07/25/2008 11/05/2009 02/11/2009 BUSSE, JORG flmdce BUSSE, JORG flmdce BUSSE, JORG flmdce BUSSE, JORG flmdce BUSSE, JORG flmdce BUSSE, JORG flmdce BUSSE, JORG flmdce BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2009cv00041 01/23/2009 2:2010cv00089 02/09/2010 2:2007cv00228 04/10/2007 2:2009cv00341 05/26/2009 2:2008cv00364 05/07/2008 2:2009cv00602 09/11/2009 2:2009cv00791 12/04/2009 2:2008cv00899 12/05/2008

5

Charlene Edwards Honeywell

FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE
U.S. PUNISHMENT & ‘SANCTIONS’

U.S. COVER-UP OF SCAM O.R. 569/875:

U.S. JUDICIAL CASE FIXING: DEPRIVE – DEFRAUD – DENY DISALLOW – DISMISS
U.S. JUDICIAL FRIVOLITY SCAM

FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE
SECRETS OF U.S. JUDICIAL TERROR

SECRET 1: Judicial bribery & corruption are customary and TYPICAL. SECRET 2: U.S. democracy is DEAD. Don’t be a naïve sheep! SECRET 3: Any faith in U.S. justice is your foe. There is NONE, so deal with it! SECRET 4: Facts, law, reason, logic CANNOT possibly stop the judicial case fixing machine. SECRET 5: Lawyers play along to get along – Don’t waste your money & time! SECRET 6: The Mafia is cute compared to the U.S. judicial gang. They even wear colors. SECRET 7: Expect terror & threats as if you were in Nazi Germany. Watch for the smell of gas! SECRET 8: Trained for terror, only the most corrupt judges succeed on America’s benches. SECRET 9: NOTHING favorable will ever happen in your case – Face reality & STOP being a fool! SECRET 10: By agreement, pro se Plaintiffs will NEVER win any important or critical case. SECRET 11: America is NOT what you have been brain washed to believe: Spell CORRUPTION! SECRET 12: Do NOT appear in court or party with the Mafia. Plain and short, it could be unhealthy. SECRET 13: Property, life, and freedom mean LESS in America than in China. Go travel and see! SECRET 14: Before you disappear, leave lots of information. Someone might read it. Good luck!

God bless America, Anarchy, BP, Corruption, and Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell.

6/16/2010
L EE COUNTY P ROPERTY A PPRAISER

Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin…

PROPERTY DATA FOR PARCEL 12-44-20-01-00015.015A T AX YEAR 2009
Parcel data is available for the following tax years: [ 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 ]
[ Next Lower Parcel Number | Next Higher Parcel Number | Display Tax Bills on this Parcel |
OWNERSHIP , LEGAL, S ALES
AND

Tax Estimator
FROM THE

]

DISTRICT DATA ARE

FROM THE CURRENT DATABASE .

LAND, BUILDING, VALUE

AND

E XEMPTION DATA ARE

2009 ROLL.

PROPERTY DETAILS
OWNER OF RECORD BUSSE JORG + PRESCOTT JENNIFER F T/C PO BOX 1126 NAPLES FL 34106 SITE ADDRESS ACCESS UNDETERMINED CAPTIVA FL 33924 LEGAL DESCRIPTION CAYO COSTA PB 3 PG 25 LOT 15A [ PICTOMETRY AERIAL VIEWER ] TAXING DISTRICT 050 - COUNTY / NO FIRE DISTRICT PROPERTY VALUES (TAX ROLL 2009) [ HISTORY CHART ] 32,000 JUST 32,000 ASSESSED 32,000 ASSESSED SOH 32,000 TAXABLE 0 BUILDING BUILDING 0
INCL.
IN BLDG

[ VIEWER ] TAX MAP [ PRINT ]

DOR CODE 00 - VACANT RESIDENTIAL

EXEMPTIONS HOMESTEAD WIDOW WIDOWER DISABILITY WHOLLY AGRICULTURE 0 0 0 0 0 0

ATTRIBUTES LAND UNITS OF MEASURE TOTAL NUMBER OF LAND UNITS FRONTAGE DEPTH BEDROOMS BATHROOMS LT 1.00 50 135

leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?…

1/3

6/16/2010

FEATURES

0

Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin…
VALUE.

TOTAL BUILDING SQFT 1ST YEAR BUILDING ON TAX ROLL HISTORIC DISTRICT 0 NO

LAND LAND 0 FEATURES SOH DIFFERENCE

32,000
INCL.
IN LAND VALUE.

0

SALES/TRANSACTIONS
SALE PRICE DATE OR NUMBER VERIFIER Add Add Add TRANSACTION DETAILS TYPE DESCRIPTION 01 Disqualified (Doc Stamp .70 / SP less th $100 / Other Disq) 06 Qualified (Fair Market Value / Arms Length / One STRAP #) 02 Qualified (Multiple STRAP # / 0609I)
There are 3 additional parcel(s) with this document (may have been split after the transaction date)...

VACANT / IMPROVED V V V

100 4/16/2008 2008000101396 142,500 4/30/2004 250,000 9/19/2002 4300/474 3739/4150

12-44-20-01-00014.0130, 07-4421-01-00034.0120, 07-44-21-0100034.0130 9,000 1/1/1996 2670/4117 Add 06 Qualified (Fair Market Value / Arms Length / One STRAP #) V

PARCEL NUMBERING HISTORY
CREATION DATE - 1/1/1992

PRIOR STRAP 12-44-20-01-00015.011A

RENUMBER REASON Split (From another Parcel)

RENUMBER DATE

SOLID WASTE (GARBAGE) ROLL DATA
SOLID WASTE DISTRICT 007 - Upper Islands C OLLECTION DAYS ROLL TYPE CATEGORY UNIT/AREA 0 TAX AMOUNT 0.00

ELEVATION INFORMATION
STORM SURGE CATEGORY
leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?…

FLOOD INSURANCE (FIRM LOOK-UP) RATE CODE COMMUNITY PANEL VERSION DATE
2/3

6/16/2010

Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin…

1

125124

0192

F

8/28/2008

Please contact Lee County DCD at 239-533-8597 option 4 to verify your flood zone status.

[ Show ]

APPRAISAL DETAILS

TRIM (proposed tax) Notices are available for the following tax years: [ 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 ] [ Next Lower Parcel Number | Next Higher Parcel Number ] [ New Query | Parcel Queries Page | Lee PA Home ]
This page was last updated on

leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?…

3/3

Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads

Page 1 of 6

This is Google's cache of http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/390349EE42BDFAC385256593005C0A0A. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Apr 23, 2009 23:14:42 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more These search terms are highlighted: united states v 16.33 acres Text-only version

Florida Attorney General Advisory Legal Opinion
Number: AGO 78-125 Date: October 24, 1978 Subject: Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads

David B. Higginbottom City Attorney Frostproof QUESTION: Is a municipality authorized by law to require abutting landowners who request vacation of a public street to prove a revesionary interest in the property and pay for the proportionate costs of an appraisal and for the proportionate appraised value of such property interest as conditions to the vacation? SUMMARY: A municipality possesses no authority under the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act to require property owners whose land abuts a dedicated public street to 'prove a reversionary interest' or any other property interest or property right in the streetbed prior to and as a condition to the vacation of such street. The determination and adjudication of property rights is a judicial function which may not be exercised by the legislative branches of government; hence any such exercise by a municipality does not constitute a lawful exercise of a municipal governmental power for a municipal purpose. In addition, while the vacation of streets in the public interest or when the streets are no longer required for public use is a legislative function which may be performed by a municipality, a municipality possesses neither statutory nor constitutional authority to exact payment for or otherwise interfere with the property rights of landowners whose property abuts a public street as conditions to or in exchange for the exercise of its power to vacate streets no longer required for public use.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie...

4/30/2009

Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads

Page 2 of 6

Your letter advises that the Frostproof City Council has adopted a 'motion' which reads as follows: [I]n the future a qualified appraiser [shall] be used by the city to set the value of a street (to become property) when requested for closure. The person or persons making the request would have to bear the expense of the appraisal and proof of a reversionary clause. They would be notified and bills [sic] for the appraised property value before actual closing of the street could take place. Payment to be made on date of actual closing. Section 2(b), Art. VIII, State Const., provides in pertinent part: Municipalities shall have governmental, corporate and proprietary powers to enable them to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions and render municipal services, and may exercise any power for municipal purposes except as otherwise provided by law. (Emphasis supplied.) Statutory implementation of the broad grant of home rule is provided by Ch. 166, F. S., the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act. Section 166.051(1), F. S., of that act states in relevant part that 'municipalities . . . may exercise may power for municipal purposes, except when expressly prohibited by law.' (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, it is clear that the only limitation upon the exercise of power by a municipality is that it must be exercised for a municipal purpose. State v. City of Sunrise, 354 So.2d 1206, 1209 (Fla. 1977). Although the phrase 'municipal purposes' is not defined by the constitution, it is defined by s. 166.021(2), F. S., as 'any activity or power which may be exercised by the state or its political subdivisions.' But see City of Miami Beach v. Forte Towers, Inc., 305 So.2d 764, 765-769 (Fla. 1974) (Dekle, J., concurring), in which Justice Dekle observed: It is not the definition of municipal purposes found in . . . s. 166.021(2) that grants power to the municipality . . . but rather the provision of . . . s. 166.021(1) which expressly empowers municipalities to 'exercise any power for municipal purposes, except when expressly prohibited by law.' It is a fundamental principal in this state that the determination and adjudication of property rights is a judicial function which cannot be performed by the Legislature. Hillsborough County v. Kensatt, 144 So. 393 (Fla. 1932); State Plant Board v. Smith, 110 So.2d 401 (Fla. 1959); Daniels v. State Road Dept., 170 So.2d 846 (Fla. 1964). Legislation which constitutes an invasion of the

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie...

4/30/2009

Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads

Page 3 of 6

province of the judiciary is invalid. Thursby v. Stewart, 138 So. 742 (Fla. 1931); Simmons v. State, 36 So.2d 207 (Fla. 1948). Thus, while the vacation of streets is a legislative function which may be validly delegated to municipalities (see Sun Oil Company v. Gerstein, 206 So.2d 439, 440 (3 D.C.A. Fla., 1968), AGO 075-171), no legislative body (whether state, county, or municipal) is authorized to invade private property rights or require abutting property owners to prove a reversionary or any other interest in real property as a condition to the vacation of a public street. Accordingly, the action taken by the Frostproof City Council does not constitute a municipal purpose; and, therefore, it is outside the scope of municipal home rule powers possessed by the municipality. Moreover, under the general rule, the interest acquired in land by a municipal corporation for street purposes is held in trust for the benefit of all the public, regardless of whether the corporation owns the fee or has merely an interest therein. Sun Oil Company v. Gerstein, supra; 30 Am. Jur.2d Highways Streets and Bridges s. 159. A municipality is empowered to vacate streets only when the vacation is in the public interest or when the street is no longer required for public use and convenience. 64 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations s. 1668. Consequently, in AGO 078-118, I noted, as a caveat, with respect to the vacation of county roads: [I]f the general public is using the roads and streets in question (including public service vehicles such as garbage trucks, police, fire or emergency vehicles), then the county should not close or vacate the roads or streets in question as such vacation would be injurious to the public welfare or violate individual property rights. Applying these principles to your inquiry, it is clear that the city council should not undertake to vacate any streets in the absence of a determination that the general public would benefit from the vacation or that such streets are no longer required for the public use and convenience. As to whether a municipality is authorized to exact charges or payments from abutting landowners as a condition to or in exchange for the vacation of a public street, it is necessary to analyze the property interests possessed by the public and the abutting or adjoining landowners in public streets. Recently, in AGO's 078-63, 078-88, and 078-118, I examined the elements and effect of the dedication of property for public use. There are two basic requirements to the existence of a valid dedication to the public. First, there must be a clearly manifested intention by the owner of the property to dedicate it to public use. Second, the public, through its authorized agents, must clearly show its intent to accept the dedication. City of

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie...

4/30/2009

Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads

Page 4 of 6

Miami v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 84 So. 726 (Fla. 1920); Roe v. Kendrick, 200 So. 394 (Fla. 1941). An offer of dedication to the public may be accomplished by making and recording a plat and selling lots with reference thereto. See, e.g., Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Worley, 38 So. 618 (Fla. 1905); Miami Beach v. Undercliff Realty and Investment Co., 21 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1945); and see, s. 177.081, F. S. However the dedication to the public is accomplished, it is clear that such dedication does not have the effect of transferring legal title from the grantor to the public. To the contrary, the fee remains in the grantor (or his grantees) while the public acquires only a right of easement in trust, so long as the dedicated land is used for the intended purpose of the dedication. Attorney General Opinion 078-118. Unless otherwise specifically provided in the conveyance, the legal title of the grantor in the dedicated property passes to the grantees of those lots sold with reference to a plat, which lots abut the dedicated streets. Their title extends to the center of the street subject to the public easement. Walker v. Pollack, 74 So.2d 886 (Fla. 1954); Smith v. Horn, 70 So. 435 (Fla. 1915); New Fort Pierce Hotel Co. v. Phoenix Tax Title Corp., 171 So. 525 (Fla. 1936); United States v. 16.33 Acres of Land in County of Dade, 342 So.2d 476, 480 (Fla. 1977); cf. Emerald Equities v. Hutton, 357 So.2d 1071 (2 D.C.A. Fla., 1978). Therefore, a street in which the public has only an easement when properly vacated ceases to be a street; the abutting landowners continue to hold fee simple title to the center of the vacated roadbed unencumbered by the easement. Smith v. Horn, supra; Robbins v. White, 42 So. 841, 843-844 (Fla. 1907); AGO 078-118. See also s. 177.081(1), F. S., providing that every plat of a subdivision filed for record must contain a dedication by the developer; s. 177.081(2), F. S., providing that all streets, rights-of-way, and public areas shown on plats approved by the affected local governments shall be deemed dedicated to the public for the uses and purposes stated in such plat, unless otherwise stated therein by the dedicator; s. 177.085(1), F. S., providing that when any landowner subdivides his land and dedicates streets or roadways on the plat but reserves unto the dedicator the reversionary interests in the dedicated streets or roadways, and thereafter conveys abutting lots, such conveyance carries with it the reversionary interest in the abutting street to the center line, unless the landowner clearly provides otherwise in the conveyance; and s. 177.085(2), F. S., providing that prior holders of any interest in the reversionary rights in the streets and roads in recorded plats of subdivided lots, other than the owners of abutting lots, 'shall have 1 year from July 1, 1972, to institute suit . . . to establish or enforce the right,' and that, if no such action is instituted within that time, any

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie...

4/30/2009

Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads

Page 5 of 6

right, title, or interest and all right of reversion shall be barred and unenforceable. With regard to the instant inquiry, therefore, it is apparent that the Frostproof City Council does not 'own' streets which have been dedicated to public use. Cf. AGO 078-118 in which this office concluded that a county was not authorized to convey or transfer ownership and control of dedicated streets to a 'homeowners association' since the county possessed no legal title in the property which it could convey or transfer. Under such circumstances, there would appear to be no legal basis upon which the city could require abutting fee owners to pay to secure property interests which they already possess. See McQuillin Municipal Corporations s. 30.189, at 123 (3rd rev. ed. 1977), stating: 'A municipality is not entitled to compensation for loss of a public easement in streets in which it does not own the fee.' Accord: Lockwood & Strickland Co. v. City of Chicago, 117 N.E. 81, 82 (Ill. 1917), in which the court held, among other things: [I]t would be beyond the power of the city to grant or convey to a private person or corporation the ground embraced in a vacated street or alley. Whether a city owns the fee in an alley or merely an easement, when it is vacated because no longer needed for public use, the law disposes of the reversionary interest, and the reversionary rights cannot be granted or conveyed by the city. . . . Whether the alley was no longer needed for public use, and whether the public interest would be subserved by its vacation, could not be made to depend on how much the city could get for its action. The legislative powers of a city must be exercised for the public benefit, but that does not authorize a municipality to sell or bargain legislation as a means of obtaining revenue. The State Constitution provides that all natural persons shall have the inalienable right 'to acquire, possess and protect property . . ..' Section 2, Art. I, State Const. Additionally, s. 9, Art. I, State Const., provides that no person 'shall be deprived of . . . property without due process of law . . ..' Section 6, Art. X, State Const., states that '[n]o private property shall be taken except for a public purpose and with full compensation therefor . . ..' Thus, the acquisition, possession, enjoyment, use, and alienation of property and property rights are controlled by constitutional law and the common law. Moreover, the term 'property' for purposes of the abovecited constitutional provisions includes more than the abutting landowner's fee simple title. As stated in Seldon v. City of Jacksonville, 10 So. 457, 459 (Fla. 1891): There is incident to abutting property, or its ownership, even

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie...

4/30/2009

Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads

Page 6 of 6

where the abutter's fee or title does not extend to the middle of the street, but only to its boundary, certain property rights which the public generally do not possess. They are the right of egress and ingress from and to the lot by the way of the street, and the right of light and air which the street affords. Viewing property to be not the mere corporal subject of ownership, but as being all the rights legally incidental to the ownership of such subject, which rights are generally said to be those of user, exclusion, and disposition, or the right to use, possess, and dispose of, . . . we are satisfied that the rights just mentioned are within the meaning of the word 'property,' as it is used in this constitutional provision. [10 So. 457, 459 (1891) (construing s. 12, Declar. Rts., State Const. 1885, in part a predecessor of s. 6, Art. X, State Const.).] See also Lutterloh v. Mayor and Council of Town of Cedar Keys, 15 Fla. 306, 308 (1875); City of Miami v. East Coast Ry. Co. , 84 So. 726, 729 (Fla. 1920); McCorquodale v. Keyton, 63 So.2d 906 (Fla. 1956); Monell v. Golfview Road Association, 359 So.2d 2 (4 D.C.A. Fla., 1978). Accordingly, it has been held that the rights of abutting or adjacent purchasers depend on principles of law applicable to private property rather than public dedication since these rights depend upon a 'private easement implied from sale with reference to a plat showing streets [etc.]' rather than upon any dedication to the public generally. Burnham v. Davis Islands, Inc., 87 So.2d 97, 100 (Fla. 1956). An abutting landowner may be entitled to compensation from a public body when it vacates a public street for consequent loss of access to such landowner's property on the theory that a property right has been taken without compensation. See Pinellas County v. Austin, 323 So.2d 6, 8 (2 D.C.A. Fla., 1975). If follows, then, that the several property interests of abutting landowners are subject to constitutional protection. Clearly the attempt by a municipality to usurp private property rights or property interests or to barter or sell such property rights as conditions to or in exchange for the exercise of its legislative power to vacate streets no longer required for public use, does not constitute a municipal purpose and is outside the scope of municipal home rule powers. Prepared by: Patricia R. Gleason Assistant Attorney General

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie...

4/30/2009