Water Boarding The Honey Way

WATER BOARDING
The Honey way

TERROR & TORTURE TOOLS
Shut up about Government corruption!
Sanctions instead of Justice

Honey well I will make sure they
they shut up about U.S. corruption
Judge Charlene E. Honeywell

No more Judicial corruption complaints!
SHOW CAUSE why this Court

Should not Shut you Up!
HONEYWELL’S COURT HOUSE OF
Terror
Sanctions
“Frivolity”
Punishment
“Vexatiousness”
SHOW CAUSE why this Court

Should not Shut you Up!
HONEYWELL “SANCTIONS”
DUCT TAPE OF TERROR
6/16/2010 Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin…
L EE COUNTY P ROPERTY A PPRAISER
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 | Tax Estimator ]
OWNERSHIP , LEGAL, S ALES AND DISTRICT DATA ARE FROM THE CURRENT DATABASE . LAND, BUILDING, VALUE AND E XEMPTION DATA ARE FROM THE 2009 ROLL.
PROPERTY DETAILS
OWNER OF RECORD [ VIEWER ] TAX MAP [ PRINT ]

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 DOR CODE

050 - COUNTY / NO FIRE DISTRICT 86 - COUNTIES - OTHER
PROPERTY VALUES (TAX ROLL

EXEMPTIONS ATTRIBUTES
2009)
[H ISTORY CHART ] HOMESTEAD 0 LAND UNITS OF
AC
JUST 1,074,100 WIDOW 0 MEASURE
ASSESSED 1,074,100 WIDOWER 0 TOTAL NUMBER OF
107.41
ASSESSED SOH 1,074,100 0 LAND UNITS
DISABILITY
TAXABLE 0 FRONTAGE 0
WHOLLY 1,074,100
BUILDING 0 DEPTH 0
AGRICULTURE 0
BUILDING INCL. IN BLDG
BEDROOMS
0 VALUE.
FEATURES BATHROOMS
leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?… 1/3
LAND 1,074,100 TOTAL BUILDING SQFT

LAND INCL. IN LAND 1ST YEAR BUILDING ON
0 VALUE.
0
FEATURES TAX ROLL
SOH DIFFERENCE 0 HISTORIC DISTRICT NO
SALES/TRANSACTIONS
SALE OR TRANSACTION DETAILS VACANT /
DATE VERIFIER
PRICE NUMBER TYPE DESCRIPTION IMPROVED
100 12/1/1969 569/875 Add 01 Disqualified (Doc Stamp .70 / SP less th V
$100 / Other Disq)
There are 1 additional parcel(s) with this document
(may have been split after the transaction date)...
07-44-21-01-00001.0000
SOLID WASTE (GARBAGE) ROLL DATA

SOLID WASTE DISTRICT ROLL TYPE CATEGORY UNIT/AREA TAX AMOUNT
007 - Upper Islands - 0 0.00
C OLLECTION DAYS
ELEVATION INFORMATION
FLOOD INSURANCE (FIRM LOOK-UP)
STORM SURGE CATEGORY
RATE CODE COMMUNITY PANEL VERSION DATE
TS 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 ]
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (c) (3)
The Honey way …
Don’t you ever complain again …

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
JUDICIAL DUCT TAPE
DOC. # 186
DOC. # 338
VEXATIOUS
SILENCING PLAINTIFFS
The Honey way …
“O.R. 569/875”
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

6/18/2010 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule…
Search Law School Search Cornell
LII / Lega l Inform a tion Institute

hom e se arch find a la wyer dona te
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

m a in page se arch | civil procedure overvie w
III. PLEA DINGS A ND MOTIONS > Rule 11. Prev | Next
Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
Donations cover only

(a) Signature. Notes
20% of our costs. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least
Law About ... Civil
one attorney of record in the attorney's name — or by a party personally if
Procedure
the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's address, e-mail
Fort Myers address, and telephone number. Unless a rule or statute specifically states
Bankruptcy otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. The Attorneys: reach
Can bankruptcy court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected interested clients by
help you? 790- after being called to the attorney's or party's attention. sponsoring an LII page
4529 File Ch 13
$274.00 upfront
www.trunkettlaw.com (b) Representations to the Court.
By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper —
Ask a Lawyer: whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it — an attorney or
Civil Law unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge,
19 Lawyers Are information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
Online. Ask a circumstances:
Question, Get an
Answer ASAP. (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass,
JustAnswer.com/Law/Civ
cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by
Legal Studies existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or
Brown Mackie reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
College - Get Info
on Our Legal (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so
Studies Programs
www.BrownMackie.edu identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity
for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if
International specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of
Arbitration
information.
Intl Arb Lawyers -
Contact our offices
today for legal (c) Sanctions.
expertise.
www.InternationalArbitra (1) In General.
If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court

determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an
appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the
rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a
law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its
partner, associate, or employee.
(2) Motion for Sanctions.
A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and
must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The
motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented
to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is
withdrawn or appropriately correc ted within 21 days after service or within
another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the
prevailing party the reasonable expenses, inc luding attorney's fees, incurred
for the motion.
www.law.cornell.edu/…/Rule11.htm 1/2
(3) On the Court's Initiative.
On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show
cause why conduct specifically desc ribed in the order has not violated Rule
11(b).
(4) Nature of a Sanction.
A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter
repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.
The sanc tion may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty
into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence,
an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable
attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.
(5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions.
The court must not impose a monetary sanction:
(A) against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2); or
(B) on its own, unless it issued the show-cause order under Rule 11(c)(3)
before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against
the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.
(6) Requirements for an Order.
An order imposing a sanction must describe the sanctioned conduct and

explain the basis for the sanction.
(d) Inapplicability to Discovery.

This rule does not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses,
objections, and motions under Rules 26 through 37.
Prev | Next
about us help terms of use friend us follow us c ontac t us
6/18/2010 FindACase™ | Prescott v. Alejo
Nam e of Court: State:

--
Retrieve Original
Court Records
Court Records Request: Standard service From all Non-
Full Docket 24 Hour Rush Federal 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 well-
grounded 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
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
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.
Charlene Edwards Honeywell
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
“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

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 Jacksonville Judges

United States District Judge Orlando Judges
Ft. Myers Division Ocala Judges
TEL: 239-461-2170 Tampa Judges

FAX: 239-461-2179
Ft. Myers Judges
Biography:
All Judges
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 Federal Court Judges Practice
Honeywell served as a Circuit Court Judge for the Thirteenth Guide
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 Nefertari S. Rigsby Michael A.

Judicial Assistant Law Clerk Pusateri
239-461-2170 239-461-2173 Law Clerk
Odd Numbered Cases 239-461-2174
Even Numbered Cases
Joy Stancel Libby Figgers

Court Reporter Courtroom Deputy
239-461-2064 239-461-2005
…googleusercontent.com/search?q=ca… 1/2
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
24 - Housing and Urban Development> CHAPTER II--OFFICE OF Search Justia
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. CASE NO. 2:09-cv-791-FTM-36-SPC
ROGER ALEJO, et al,
Defendants.
/
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:
1
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.
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

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

T AX YEAR 2009

[ 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 ]
PROPERTY DETAILS

LEE COUNTY
PO BOX 398
FORT MYERS FL 33902
SITE ADDRESS
GOVT LOT
CAPTIVA FL 33924
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ALL UNNUMBERED AND
ACCRETED LANDS


2009)
AC
107.41
DISABILITY
WHOLLY 1,074,100
BUILDING 0 DEPTH 0
AGRICULTURE 0
BEDROOMS
0 VALUE.
FEATURES BATHROOMS

0 VALUE.
0
FEATURES TAX ROLL
SALES/TRANSACTIONS
DATE VERIFIER
$100 / Other Disq)
07-44-21-01-00001.0000

C OLLECTION DAYS
TS 125124 0192 F 8/28/2008
[ 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 ]
Nam e of Court: State:

--
Retrieve Original
Court Records
Court Records Request: Standard service From all Non-
Full Docket 24 Hour Rush Federal 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 well-
grounded 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
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.
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
Tax Year 2009

Lee County Property Appraiser
Property Data for Parcel 07-44-21-01-00001.0000
Next Lower Parcel Number Next Higher
Parcel Number Tax Estimator Tax Bills Print
Property Details
Owner Of Record [ Viewer ] Tax Map [ Print ]
LEE COUNTY
PO BOX 398
FORT MYERS FL 33902
Site Address
CAYO COSTA
CAPTIVA FL 33924
Legal Description
ALL UN-NUMBERED + UN-
DESIGNATED LOTS IN CAYO
COSTA + LT K BLK 32
Classification / DOR Code

COUNTIES - OTHER / 86 [ Pictometry Aerial Viewer ]
Property Values (2009 Tax Roll) Exemptions Attributes
Homestead 0 Land Units of Measure AC

Just 91,700
Additional Homestead 0 Total Number of Land Units 9
Assessed 91,700
Widow 0 Frontage 0
Portability Applied 0
Widower 0 Depth 0
Assessed SOH 91,700
Disability 0 Total Number of Buildings 0
Taxable 0
Wholly 91,700 Total Bedrooms 0
Building 0
Senior 0 Total Bathrooms 0
Building Features 0 Incl. in bldg value
Agriculture 0 Total Buildings Sq Ft 0
Land 91,700 1st Year Building on Tax Roll 0
Land Features 0 Incl. in bldg value Historic District No
SOH Difference 0
Taxing Authorities
Sales / Transactions
Sale Price Date OR Number Verifier Type Description Vacant/Improved
Sales disqualified as a result of examination of the deed

5,000.00 11/01/1996 2761/690 Add 03 V
Disqualified (Interest Sales / Court Docs / Government)
Sales disqualified as a result of examination of the deed

100.00 12/01/1969 569/875 Add 01 V
Disqualified (Doc Stamp .70 / SP less th $100 / Other Disq)
Parcel Numbering History

Prior STRAP Renumber Reason Renumber Date
07-44-21-00-00001.0000 Split (From another Parcel)
07-44-21-01-00032.0000 Combined (With another parcel-Delete Occurs) 07/02/1997
Solid Waste (Garbage) Roll Data
Elevation Information
Flood Insurance [ FIRM Look-up ]
Storm Surge Category
Rate Code Community Panel Version Date
TS 125124 0211 F 8/28/2008
Appraisal Details
Land
Land Tracts
Use Code Use Code Description Number of Units Unit of Measure
8600 County Owned, Offices, Library, Government Bldg 9 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
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 Date Filed: 12/04/2009

Assigned to: Judge Charlene E. Honeywell Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Case in other court: 09-16203-H Jurisdiction: Federal Question
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 # Docket Text

12/01/2009 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)
12/01/2009 2 Filing fee: For new case $ 350.00, receipt number 726644 (lh) [Transferred from flsd
on 12/4/2009.] (Entered: 12/02/2009)
12/04/2009 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)
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 1/19
“O.R. 569/875”
Court Case No. Filed NOS Closed
Name
1 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2009cv00041 01/23/2009 890 02/11/2009
2 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2010cv00089 02/09/2010 440
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 # 12-44-20-
01-00015.015A] 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:

“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
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
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
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
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 above-
cited 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
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
GOVERNMENTAL TRICKERY & DECEPTION:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-14846 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 21, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 08-00364-CV-FTM-29-SPC
JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT,

JORG BUSSE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants-
Cross-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-Appellee-
Cross-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
1
The complaint named the following defendants (herein collectively “the Appellees”): (1)
the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund; (2) the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks; (3) Lee County,
Florida; (4) the Board of Lee County Commissioners; (5) Jack N. Peterson, Lee County
2
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.
2
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
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
(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
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
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
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. 2003-
402.
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
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
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. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d
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
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. (Id. at ¶¶ 16, 27.)
-3-
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. (Id. at
¶17.) 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 grabbed private accreted land and
easements. (Id. at ¶18.) Plaintiff asserts that defendants took
his accretions onto the riparian gulf front Lot 15A without
authority, justification, due process of law, public notice,
hearing, vote count, or compensation, and that this unauthorized
unconstitutional taking injured plaintiff and destroyed his
property value. (Id. at ¶19.)
Count 3 sets forth a state law claim for trespass. Plaintiff
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 4 alleges a conspiracy to fabricate, fraud and
malfeasance. 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. (Id. at ¶24.)
Plaintiff also asserts that defendant denied agricultural
classification to his accreted lot. (Id.) 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. (Id.) Plaintiff describes the agreement as
being to assist the unconstitutional confiscation of the
accretions. (Id. at ¶25.) Plaintiff also asserts that the County
Appraiser made incompetent valuation reports which were
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. (Id.)
-5-
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. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that defendants conspired
to misrepresent the extent of the Army Corps of Engineers’
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
through the Fourteenth Amendment. Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New
York City, 438 U.S. 104, 121-23 (1978). The Third Amended
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.
1
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-
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 Clause until the owner has unsuccessfully
attempted to obtain just compensation through the procedures
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.” Agripost, LLC v. Miami-Dade County, Fla.,
F.3d , 2008 WL 1790434 (11th Cir. 2008). Without having
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
Constitution, and do not include property rights. Greenbriar
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. Greenbriar
Village, 345 F.3d at 1263-64. Therefore, those portions of counts
in the Third Amended Complaint which attempt to assert a
substantive due process takings claim or conspiracy will be
dismissed.
-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
County, Fla., 338 F.3d 1288, 1294 (11th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff
asserted that the Resolution effecting the taking of more than 200
acres other than his 2.5 acres. This is sufficient to constitute
a legislative act. See, e.g., Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of
Equalization, 239 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
compared to a public owner such as a government unit. Therefore,
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
Indemnity Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2000). Therefore
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
Fed. Appx. 885, 892 (11th Cir. 2007). Since none of plaintiff’s
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. Section 403
relates to the creation of an obstruction not 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
basis for jurisdiction because it was repealed in 1976. Assuming
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. These standards relate to real estate
appraisals utilized in connection with federally related
transactions, 12 U.S.C. § 1331, and no such transaction was
involved in this case. Additionally, in Florida the 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. Parrish v. Nikolits, 86 F.3d 1088, 1091 n.2
(11th Cir. 1996).
Therefore, the 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. Read liberally, the Third Amended
Complaint may be read to 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 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state
claims. 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.) The dismissal of the state claims will be without
prejudice. Crosby v. Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339, 1352 (11th Cir. 1999).
Having 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.
-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 5th day of
May, 2008.
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
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAR 5, 2009
No. 08-13170
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar
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 non-
designated 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
1
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.
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 pre-
trial. See Raney, 370 F.3d at 1089. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse
4
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.
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.1490.93-

4449.93-4104.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
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.
2 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
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.
4 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.
5 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).
6 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).
7 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
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.
9 Defendants raise other arguments, none of which present grounds for reversal.
The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
Honorable Howell W. Melton, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of
Florida, sitting by designation
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
"[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
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
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
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
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: 06-CA-003185

Uniform Case Number: 362006CA0031850001CH
Case Type: CA Declaratory Judgment
Sub Case Type:
Judge: Gerald, Lynn, Jr.
Filed Date: 7/31/2006
Disposition: Other
Disposition Date: 12/5/2008
Plaintiffs
Lay, Janet Attorney: Janet Lay
Busse, Jorg Attorney: Jorg Busse
Roesch Family Attorney: Roesch Family
Ruzicka, Gerald E Attorney: Gerald E Ruzicka
Carroll Family Attorney: Carroll Family
Defendants
Beason, Tom Attorney:
Lee County Property Appraisers Office Attorney:
Turner, John Attorney:
Norman, Reginald Attorney:

http://www.leeclerk.org/Civil_Detail.as… 1/22
Papalas, Menelaos Attorney:
Brigham, Tony Prince Attorney:
Moore, S William Attorney:
Brigham Moore LLP Attorney:
Peterson, Jack Neil Attorney:
Owen, David W Attorney:
Vielhauer, Harold George Attorney:
Godfrey, Lynda Attorney:
Russell, Reagan Kathleen Attorney:
Funchess, L Kathryn Attorney:
Funchess, L Kathryn Attorney:
Johnson, Sherri L Attorney: Amy Kathryn Tuck Farrington
Collins, Donna Marie Attorney:
Chappell, Sheri Polster Attorney:
Steele, John E Attorney:
Gerald, Lynn Attorney: Richard Michael Prendergast
Scott, Mike Attorney: John Westbrook Lewis
Green, Charlie Attorney: Steven William Carta
Lach, Chad Attorney:
Carta, Steven W Attorney: Steven William Carta
State of Florida Attorney: Linda Kathryn Funchess
State of Florida Attorney: Reagan Kathleen Russell
Bush, John Ellis Attorney:
Armstrong, Eva Attorney:
Forsyth, Karen L W Attorney:
Jones, Timothy Attorney:
Janes, Bob Attorney:
Bigelow, A Brian Attorney:
Judath, Ray Attorney:
Hall, Tammy Attorney:
Lee County Florida Attorney:
Board of Lee County Commissioners Attorney:
Mann, Frank Attorney:
Stilwell, Donald D Attorney:
Wilkinson, Kenneth M Attorney: Sherri Lynn Johnson
Service Events
Event Service Response Return

Service Text Name
Date Date Due Date Date
Summons (20
7/31/2006 State of Florida 8/8/2006 8/28/2006 8/16/2006
day) Issued
Summons (20
10/3/2006 State of Florida 10/18/2006 11/8/2006 3/14/2007
day) Issued
Summons (20 Lee County Florida Board of

3/30/2007 4/4/2007 4/24/2007 4/5/2007
day) Issued County Commissioners
Summons (20
8/14/2007 Forsyth, Karen L W 10/27/2008 11/17/2008 10/28/2008
day) Issued
Summons (20
8/14/2007 Vielhauer, Harold George
day) Issued
Summons (20
4/14/2008 Russell, Reagan Kathleen 4/23/2008 5/13/2008 4/28/2008
day) Issued
Summons (20
4/25/2008 Vielhauer, Harold George
day) Issued
Summons (20
4/25/2008 Funchess, L Kathryn
day) Issued
Summons (20
7/17/2008 Johnson, Sherri L 10/8/2008 10/28/2008 10/24/2008
day) Issued
Summons (20
7/17/2008 Collins, Donna Marie 7/24/2008 8/13/2008 7/25/2008
day) Issued
Summons (20
7/17/2008 Peterson, Jack Neil 7/24/2008 8/13/2008 7/25/2008
day) Issued
Summons (20
7/17/2008 Wilkinson, Kenneth M 7/24/2008 8/13/2008 7/25/2008
day) Issued
Summons (20
7/17/2008 Russell, Reagan Kathleen
day) Issued
Summons (20
11/14/2008 Steele, John E 11/18/2008 12/8/2008 11/19/2008
day) Issued
Summons (20
11/14/2008 Gerald, Lynn, Jr. 11/18/2008 12/8/2008 11/19/2008
day) Issued
Summons (20
11/14/2008 Scott, Mike 11/18/2008 12/8/2008 11/19/2008
day) Issued
Summons (20
11/17/2008 Green, Charlie 11/19/2008 12/9/2008 11/20/2008
day) Issued
Summons (20
11/17/2008 Janes, Bob 11/18/2008 12/8/2008 11/19/2008
day) Issued
Summons (20
11/17/2008 Owen, David W 11/18/2008 12/8/2008 11/19/2008
day) Issued
Summons (20
11/20/2008 Carta, Steven W 11/24/2008 12/15/2008 11/25/2008
day) Issued
Summons (20
11/20/2008 Lach, Chad 12/1/2008 12/22/2008 12/3/2008
day) Issued
Summons (20
11/25/2008 Brigham, Tony Prince
day) Issued
Summons (20
11/25/2008 Chappell, Sheri Polster
day) Issued
Summons (20
12/1/2008 Chappell, Sheri Polster
day) Issued
Docket Lines
Docket
Docket Text
Date
7/31/2006 Petition
7/31/2006 Civil Cover Sheet
7/31/2006 Summons (20 day) Issued State of Florida (Served 08/08/2006)
8/14/2006 Notice of Appearance
8/16/2006 Petition
8/16/2006 Motion to Dismiss
8/29/2006 Correspondence
9/6/2006 Motion for Temporary Injunction
10/3/2006 Summons (20 day) Issued State of Florida (Served 10/18/2006)
10/3/2006 Amended Petition

3/14/2007 Document Filed
3/15/2007 Notice of Service
3/21/2007 Response
3/30/2007 Joinder of Additional Defendant
Summons (20 day) Issued Lee County Florida Board of County Commissioners (Served
3/30/2007
04/04/2007)
3/30/2007 Affidavit
4/10/2007 Motion to Strike
4/11/2007 Notice of Hearing 5-14-07 @ 9am
5/14/2007 Minutes
5/16/2007 Order Granting Motion to strike
6/5/2007 Request
6/5/2007 Request
6/5/2007 Request
7/2/2007 Notice of Appearance
8/9/2007 Amended Complaint
8/14/2007 Summons (20 day) Issued Vielhauer, Harold George
8/14/2007 Summons (20 day) Issued Forsyth, Karen L W (Served 10/27/2008)
8/20/2007 Motion to Dismiss Amended criminal and civil complaint
8/27/2007 Motion for Protective Order
9/17/2007 Notice
10/19/2007 Motion to Consolidate

10/19/2007 Document Filed exhibit
10/19/2007 Document Filed exhibit
10/22/2007 Minutes
12/12/2007 Order
12/13/2007 Order
12/14/2007 Notice of complaint
12/26/2007 Notice
1/2/2008 Notice
1/16/2008 Motion to Amend Complaint
1/16/2008 Affidavit
2/5/2008 Notice
2/11/2008 Notice
2/11/2008 Notice
2/11/2008 Objection
2/12/2008 Report
2/15/2008 Disclosure
2/21/2008 Memorandum in Support
2/28/2008 Notice of Hearing 4-21-08 @ 10:45am
2/29/2008 Request for Admissions
3/12/2008 Subpoenas Filed
3/18/2008 Subpoena Served
3/18/2008 Subpoena Served
3/18/2008 Motion to Quash
3/18/2008 Motion for Summary Judgment
3/19/2008 Notice of Hearing 3-20-08 @ noon
3/19/2008 Amended Notice of Hearing 4-7-08 @ 10:15am
3/20/2008 Motion for Hearing
3/20/2008 Minutes
3/21/2008 Memorandum
3/24/2008 Amended Notice of Hearing 3-20-08 @ 12 noon
3/25/2008 Motion for Order
3/31/2008 Order Granting Motion
4/3/2008 Objection
4/4/2008 Notice of Filing
4/4/2008 Notice of Filing Attached Documents
4/7/2008 Minutes
4/8/2008 Motion to Compel
4/8/2008 Motion to Determine

4/14/2008 Interrogatories
4/14/2008 Notice of Service of Interrogatories
4/14/2008 Objection
4/14/2008 Motion to Determine
4/14/2008 Response to Request for Admissions
4/14/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Russell, Reagan Kathleen (Served 04/23/2008)
4/16/2008 Motion for Leave
4/16/2008 Motion to Compel Discovery
4/16/2008 Notice of Case Management Conference
4/21/2008 Minutes
4/21/2008 Notice of Filing Deposition
4/21/2008 Deposition LIsa Becker dated 3-24-08
4/21/2008 Notice of Appearance as Co-Counsel
4/21/2008 Notice of Appearance as Co-Counsel
4/25/2008 Deposition Jack N Peterson attached to Notice of Filing
4/25/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Vielhauer, Harold George
4/25/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Funchess, L Kathryn
4/28/2008 Notice of Hearing 6-16-08 @ 3:45pm
4/28/2008 Notice of Hearing 6-16-08 @ 3:30pm
4/28/2008 Response
4/28/2008 Notice of Hearing 6-16-08 @ 4pm
5/2/2008 Disclosure
5/2/2008 Disclosure
5/2/2008 Memorandum
5/5/2008 Notice
5/5/2008 Order
5/6/2008 Memorandum
5/6/2008 Notice of Unavailability for Jorg Busse
5/7/2008 Order Denying Motion for summary judgment
5/9/2008 Memorandum and Arguments for Hearing on 5/12/08
5/12/2008 Minutes
5/16/2008 Summons Returned with No Indication of Service
5/19/2008 Notice of Service of Answers to Interrogatories
5/23/2008 Affidavit of Return of Service - Served
5/23/2008 Answers to Interrogatories
6/3/2008 Memorandum of Law
6/4/2008 Motion to Stay
6/4/2008 Order
6/6/2008 Notice
6/6/2008 Memorandum of Law
6/6/2008 Notice
6/9/2008 Memorandum in Support
6/9/2008 Notice of Cancellation of Hearing 6-16-08
6/9/2008 Notice of Hearing Rescheduled 6-16-08 @ 9am
6/16/2008 Minutes
6/17/2008 Notice of Appeal non final
6/19/2008 Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal sent to 2DCA
6/20/2008 Order
6/26/2008 Acknowledgment from DCA new case 2D08-3117 non final
6/26/2008 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
6/26/2008
appeal could be dismissed
6/30/2008 Order from DCA appellant has 15 days to show why appeal should not be dismissed
7/8/2008 Notice of Filing motion for extension of time
7/8/2008 Motion for Extension of Time
7/17/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Wilkinson, Kenneth M (Served 07/24/2008)
7/17/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Peterson, Jack Neil (Served 07/24/2008)
7/17/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Johnson, Sherri L (Served 10/08/2008)
7/17/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Collins, Donna Marie (Served 07/24/2008)
7/17/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Russell, Reagan Kathleen
7/17/2008 Acknowledgment from DCA amended new case 2D08-3117
Order from DCA appellants motion for an extension of time to respond to order dated 6-26-08
7/28/2008 is denied appellant has 10 days to file a copy of order being appealed or appeal could be
dismissed
7/28/2008 Notice
Notice of federal question jurisdiction and motion for the court's acknowledgement of federal
8/4/2008
jurisdiction
Notice of federal question jurisdiction and motions for acknowledgement of federal

8/4/2008
jurisdiction in this arbitrary taking
8/11/2008 Notice of Filing Response
8/22/2008 Order of Dismissal
8/29/2008 Notice of unavailability and letter of unavailability to counsel for defendant appellee
8/29/2008 Amended Notice of Hearing 9-22-08 @ 9am
Motion or evidentiary hearing oral argument to secure just speedy and inexpensive federal
8/29/2008
adjudication in favor of appellant in the US Court of appeals for the 11th circuit
9/2/2008 Request for Production
9/4/2008 Notice of Change of Address
9/4/2008 Notice
9/5/2008 Notice of Change of Address
9/5/2008 Notice
9/5/2008 Motion for Sanctions
9/5/2008 Notice
9/5/2008 Notice
9/5/2008 Motion to Compel
Notice of Filing appellants emergency motion in the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in
9/8/2008
Support of his Motion for Sanctions against Defendant JN Peterson
9/10/2008 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
9/10/2008
emergency motion
9/10/2008 Motion emergency motion to enjoin defendants state form trespassing onto lot
9/11/2008 Motion to Compel Response to Interrogatories

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
9/12/2008
Motion to Dismiss
Document Filed appellants notice of appellees State Court Pleading and Motion for
9/15/2008 Determination of Federal subject matter Jurisdiction based on the Undisputed facts in the
record
9/15/2008 Motion
Notice of Federal Jurisdiction in this Case and filing of motion in the US Court of appeals for
9/18/2008
the 11th Circuit and the United States District Court
9/19/2008 Motion in Opposition
9/22/2008 Notice of Service of Request to Produce
9/22/2008 Objection
9/22/2008 Notice of Filing emergency motion in the United States District Court
9/24/2008 Motion for the recusal of Judge Lynn Gerald, Jr. and Notice to the Chief Judge
9/24/2008 Notice
9/29/2008 Motion for recusal of Judge Lynn Gerald
Motion to Strike defendant property appraisers amended motion to dismiss or strike and
10/1/2008
notice of federal jurisdiction to the Chief Judge
10/1/2008 Copy of response
10/2/2008 Notice
10/2/2008 Notice
10/2/2008 Notice
10/2/2008 Notice
10/13/2008 Response to Request For Production
Notice of Filing motion for Three Judge Court Panel based on New Evidence of Legal and
10/13/2008
Factual Error on Record before this Court
10/17/2008 Order
10/17/2008 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
10/20/2008
10/20/2008 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
10/20/2008
10/20/2008 Motion for review of Court Order by the Chief Judge
10/20/2008 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
10/20/2008
10/24/2008 Subpoena Issued
10/24/2008 Notice of Filing emergency motion in the United States District Court
10/24/2008 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
10/24/2008
Amended Complaint
Notice of Service of the Court Ordered Amended Complaint upon Defendant Donna Marie
10/24/2008
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
10/24/2008
10/24/2008
County Sheriff and Emergency Motion to DIrect the Clerk to Correct the Docket
10/24/2008 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
10/24/2008
Notice of Federal Jurisdiction in this Case and Filing of Motion in the US Court of Appeals for
10/24/2008
Notice of Federal Jurisdiction in the case and Filing of Motion in the US Court of Appeals for
10/24/2008
Notice of Federal Jurisdiction in this case and Filing of Motion in the US Court of Appeals for
10/24/2008
10/24/2008 Subpoena Issued by the Attorney
10/24/2008 Subpoena Issued by the Attorney
Notice of def appellees improper interference with the proceedings in the US Court of Appeals
10/24/2008
for the 11th Circuit
Motion for the Recusal of Corrupt Circuit Judge Lynn Gerald JR and Notice of Non Serive to the
11/3/2008
Chief Judge
11/3/2008 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
11/3/2008
of Non Serivce to the Chief Judge
Motion energebcy motion for thr Recusal of Corrupt Circuit Judge Lynn Gerald Jr and notice of
11/4/2008
Non Service to the Chief Judge
11/4/2008 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
11/4/2008
of Non Service to the Chief Judge
11/4/2008 Correspondence from Dr Jorg Busse to Judge
Motion emergency motion for the recusal of Corrupt Circuit Judge Lynn Gerald Jr and Notice
11/4/2008
of Non Service to the Chief Judge
Notice of Filing photographic evidence of criminal trespass onto private lot 15a in private
11/5/2008
undedicated Cayo Costa
Notice of Filing response to docketed compaint of judicial misconduct no 110890108 pursuant

11/5/2008
28USC 351 in the United States Court of Appeals
Notice of Filing Complaint of Judicial Misconduct # 110890108 pursuant to 28USC 351 in the
11/5/2008
United States Court of Appeals
11/5/2008 Notice of Filing Letter of Intent to Sue
Notice of Filing Photographic Evidence of criminal destruction of plaintiff appellants Private

11/5/2008
11/5/2008
property in private undedicated Cayo Costa
Response to defendants appellees Lee County Motion for Protective Order after Illegal Seizure
11/6/2008
of Appellants Priviate Property in Private Cayo Casta
11/6/2008 Response to Request For Production
11/6/2008 Answers to Interrogatories
11/6/2008 Notice of Appeal non final
11/10/2008 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
11/10/2008
Forged Documents O R 569/875
Response to 11-5-08 Order Denying Motion to Disqualify and Emergency Motion for the
11/10/2008
Recusal of Lynn Gerald Jr
11/10/2008 Order Denying Motion to disqualify
Complaint to Chief Judge G. Keith Cary regarding Corrupt Circuit Judge Lynn Gerald Jr and
11/12/2008
Forged Documents O R 569/875
Motion for Extension of Time to respond to unserved order by corrupt Judge Lynn Gerald Jr
11/12/2008
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

11/12/2008
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
11/12/2008
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
11/13/2008 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
11/13/2008
forged document
Notice letter to News Press regarding corrupt Circuit Judge Lynn Geralnd Jr and forged
11/13/2008
documents
Notice of filing of production of Lee County Community Parks by defendant Lee County
11/13/2008
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
11/13/2008
corrupt Circuit Judge Gerald Jr and forged documents
11/13/2008 Copy of defendants property appraisers response to request for production
11/14/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Steele, John E (Served 11/18/2008)
11/14/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Gerald, Lynn, Jr. (Served 11/18/2008)
11/14/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Scott, Mike (Served 11/18/2008)
11/14/2008 Notice of Cancellation of hearing
11/14/2008 Notice of unavailability from 12-15-08 thru 1-10-09
11/17/2008 Notice of Filing requests for Admissions upon Defendant Donna marie Collins
11/17/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Green, Charlie (Served 11/19/2008)
11/17/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Owen, David W (Served 11/18/2008)
11/17/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Janes, Bob (Served 11/18/2008)
11/17/2008 Minutes
11/19/2008 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
11/19/2008
defendant Ken Wilkinsons Admissions
11/20/2008 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
11/20/2008
Supprt of Defendants Arbitrary Capricious Denial of appellants Equal Riparian rights
11/20/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Lach, Chad (Served 12/01/2008)
11/20/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Carta, Steven W (Served 11/24/2008)
11/20/2008 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
11/20/2008
defendant Ken Wilkinsons admissions
11/24/2008 Notice of Hearing 11-25-08 at 11:45am
11/25/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Brigham, Tony Prince
11/25/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Chappell, Sheri Polster
11/25/2008 Memorandum regarding evidentiary hearing as to defendant John E. Stelles Fraudulent Claim
11/25/2008 Order Denying Motion to disqualify
11/25/2008 Notice of Filing execution of summons upon defendant Lynn Gerald Jr
11/25/2008 Notice of Filing return of service upon defendant David M Owen
11/25/2008 Motion for injuction and sanctions against corrupt defendant Lynn Gerald Jr
11/26/2008 Order from DCA
12/1/2008 Acknowledgment from DCA new case 08-5797 non final

12/1/2008 Amended Notice of Hearing 12-4-08 at 9:30am
12/1/2008 Order from DCA directing appellant to pay there fees
12/1/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Chappell, Sheri Polster
12/1/2008 Motion to compel
12/1/2008 Notice of Cancellation of Hearing
12/2/2008 Motion for Disqualification
12/2/2008 Notice of Service of Interrogatories
12/3/2008 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
12/3/2008
Appeals 11th Circuit regarding the Fraud of Lee County
12/4/2008 Minutes
12/5/2008 Notice of Removal to US District Court
12/5/2008 Notice of Removal to US District Court
Order from DCA appellants emergency motion for injunction and sanctions against corrupt
12/8/2008
defendant Lynn Gerald jr is denied
12/8/2008 Order Granting Motion to Disqualify Judge Lynn Gerald Jr
12/8/2008 Request for Admissions (Appellant) upon Sherri L Johnson
12/8/2008 Memorandum in Support (Appellant) of their motion(s) for disqualification
12/8/2008 Request for Admissions (Appellant) upon Reagan K Russell
12/8/2008 Request for Admissions (Appellant) upon Kenneth M Wilkinson
12/10/2008 Notice of fraud and govermental corruption to Chief Judge Keith Cary (copy)
1/12/2009 Order from DCA dated 12-24-08 and filed 12-29-08 is now final
1/16/2009 Order from DCA appellants motion for judicial notice of said brief is denied
6/29/2009 Notice
8/7/2009 Notice of Appeal 2D09-3829
8/10/2009 Notice of fraud on courts and disositive judgment
8/14/2009 Notice of Appeal evidence III copy provided to the Judge
8/14/2009 Notice of Appeal Evidence II copy provided to the Judge
8/21/2009 Acknowledgment from DCA 2D09-3829
Order from DCA appellant has 15 days to show cause why appeal should not be dismissed
8/21/2009
09-3829
8/21/2009 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 09-
8/21/2009
3829
8/28/2009 Motion -to enjoin State of Florida from trespassing
8/28/2009 Motion -to enjoin Florida Park Rangers from arson
8/28/2009 Motion -to enjoin State of Florida from arson
8/28/2009 Motion -to enjoin Lee County from trespassing
8/28/2009 Motion -to enjoin K M Wilkinson from concealing
8/28/2009 Motion to Set Aside
8/28/2009 Notice
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 Date Filed: 12/05/2008

Assigned to: Judge Unassigned Judge Date Terminated: 02/04/2009
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo Jury Demand: Both
Case in other court: 09-10464D Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
09-10745D Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
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-CA-
3185
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
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
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
Defendant
Board of Trustees of the Internal represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell
Improvement Trust Fund (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Department of Environmental represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell
Protection (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Division of Recreation and Parks represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Dept. Of Agriculture
Defendant
Division of Forestry
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
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
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
Sean Flynn
US Attorney's Office - FLM*
Suite 3200
400 N Tampa St
Tampa , FL 33602
813/274-6335
Email: sean.flynn2@usdoj.gov
TERMINATED: 12/24/2008
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Sheri Polster Chappell represented by M. Kent Anderson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Sean Flynn
LEAD ATTORNEY
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
Sherri L. Johnson
Dent & Johnson, Chartered
3415 Magic Oak Lane
Sarasota , FL 34232
941/952-1070
Email: sjohnson@dentjohnson.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
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
Jack Neil Peterson

Defendant
Sherri L. Johnson represented by Sherri L. Johnson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Amy K. Tuck Farrington

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
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Tom Beason represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Harold G. Vielhauer represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
L. Kathy Funchess represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell
LEAD ATTORNEY
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
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Chad Lach represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell
LEAD ATTORNEY
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
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
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Circuit Judge Carnes represented by M. Kent Anderson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Circuit Judge Barkett represented by M. Kent Anderson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Clerk of Lee County Clerks represented by Steven Carta
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Lee County Attorney
Defendant
W. W. Wilhelm
Defendant
J. Broomfield
Date Filed # Docket Text

12/05/2008 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)
12/05/2008 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)
12/05/2008 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)
12/05/2008 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)
12/05/2008 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)
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)
12/09/2008 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)
12/10/2008 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)
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)
12/10/2008 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)
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)
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)
12/11/2008 11 MOTION to dismiss Amended Complaint by Lee County, Florida. (Peterson, Jack)
(Entered: 12/11/2008)
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)
#(1) Exhibits)(drn) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo. (Entered:
12/12/2008)
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)
# 1 Exhibits)(drn) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo. (Entered:
12/12/2008)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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.
(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)
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)
12/16/2008 25 Amended MOTION to dismiss Amended Complaint Or For More Definite Statement
by Steven W. Carta. (Carta, Steven) (Entered: 12/16/2008)
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)
12/17/2008 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)
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)
12/17/2008 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)
12/17/2008 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
12/19/2008 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)
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)
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)
12/22/2008 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)
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-364-
JES-SPC, now on appeal (08-14846-FF) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott
(kma) (Entered: 12/22/2008)
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)
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)
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)
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)
12/22/2008 45 EMERGENCY MOTION to strike and deny motion to enlarge time to respond by
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)
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)
12/23/2008 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)
12/23/2008 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)
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)
12/29/2008 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)
12/30/2008 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)
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)
01/02/2009 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)
01/02/2009 55 MOTION for recusal of Mark A. Pizzo, MOTION for relief from order re 52 Order on
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)
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)
01/02/2009 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)
01/05/2009 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
01/05/2009 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)
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)
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)
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)
01/07/2009 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
01/08/2009 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)
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)
01/09/2009 76 ORDER that the Plaintiffs, Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott, are directed to
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)
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.
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)
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)
01/09/2009 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
01/12/2009 87 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for a password for electronic filing by
01/12/2009 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)
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)
01/12/2009 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)
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)
01/14/2009 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)
01/16/2009 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
01/16/2009)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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.
01/16/2009 100 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically judicial notice of the 3/31/08 response to
Plaintiffs' request for admissions by Defendant Appellees State of Florida by Jorg Busse,
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)
01/16/2009 102 AFFIDAVIT of Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorg Busse in support of
supplemental complaint against Defendant Richard A. Lazzara and his prosecution by
01/16/2009 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)
01/16/2009 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)
01/16/2009 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)
01/16/2009 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
01/16/2009 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,
01/16/2009 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)
01/16/2009 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, 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)
01/16/2009 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
01/20/2009 123 SUPPLEMENT re 65 Notice of interlocutory appeal and memorandum by Jorg Busse,
Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
01/21/2009 117 EMERGENCY MOTION for recusal, MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically
to cancel hearing by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
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)
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)
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
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)
01/21/2009 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,
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)
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)
01/23/2009 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)
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)
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)
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,
01/23/2009 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)
01/23/2009 133 JUDICIAL COMPLAINT against defendants Richard A. Lazzara and Mark Allan
Pizzo filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.(drn) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
01/23/2009 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,
01/23/2009 135 SUPPLEMENTAL notice re 65 Notice of interlocutory appeal and memorandum by
01/23/2009 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)
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)
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)
01/27/2009 TRANSMITTAL to USCA forwarding certified copy of 123 Supplement with updated
docket sheet re 65 Notice of interlocutory appeal (kma) (Entered: 01/27/2009)
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)
01/27/2009 139 MOTION for sanctions against defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson by Jorg Busse,
01/27/2009 140 MOTION for sanctions against defendant Sherri L. Johnson by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
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)
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
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)
01/29/2009 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
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)
01/29/2009 149 OBJECTION re 121 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 2 Complaint and
arbitrary and capricious fabrication of "passed resolution" filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
02/02/2009 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)
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
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)
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)
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.
Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
02/02/2009 158 MOTION for recusal of defendant corrupt Judges Lazzara and Pizzo by Jorg Busse,
02/02/2009 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.
02/02/2009 160 OBJECTIONS to criminal "case fixing" and def. Pizzo's "report" re 121 REPORT AND
02/02/2009 161 OBJECTIONS to criminal "case fixing" and imposition of unauthorized sanctions and
notice of appeal. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
02/02/2009 162 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid.
02/02/2009 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)
02/02/2009 164 OBJECTION filed by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott.(drn) (Entered:
02/03/2009)
02/02/2009 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)
02/02/2009 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)
02/02/2009 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
02/02/2009 168 OBJECTIONS filed by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered:
02/03/2009)
02/02/2009 169 NOTICE of criminal complaints of case fixing to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by
02/03/2009)
02/02/2009 170 OBJECTIONS to criminal "case fixing" and imposition of unauthorized sanctions and
notice of appeal. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
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)
02/02/2009 175 OBJECTIONS filed by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered:
02/03/2009)
02/02/2009 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)
02/02/2009 178 MOTION for recusal of defendant corrupt Judges Lazzara & Pizzo by Jorg Busse,
02/02/2009 179 OBJECTIONS filed by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott (Attachments: #(1)
02/02/2009 181 OBJECTIONS to criminal "case fixing" and re 121 REPORT AND
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)
02/03/2009 172 MOTION for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 by Kenneth M. Wilkinson. (Johnson,
Sherri) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
02/03/2009 174 MOTION for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 by Sherri L. Johnson. (Johnson, Sherri)
(Entered: 02/03/2009)
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)
02/03/2009 183 OBJECTION re 121 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 2 Complaint filed by
02/03/2009)
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)
02/03/2009 185 OBJECTIONS filed by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1)
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)
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)
02/05/2009 USCA appeal fees received $ 455 receipt number F011989 re 65 Notice of
interlocutory appeal filed by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott. USCA #09-
10464D (kma) (Entered: 02/10/2009)
to USCA re 157 Notice of appeal. (kma) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
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: 09-
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 2:07-
cv-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)
02/19/2009 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)
02/23/2009 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)
02/23/2009 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)
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)
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)
02/27/2009 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)
proceedings held on 01/08/09 before Judge Mark A. Pizzo and 01/30/09 before Judge
(Entered: 03/04/2009)
03/03/2009 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)
03/04/2009 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)
03/04/2009 193 NOTIFICATION that transcript has been filed by Claudia Spangler-Fry re: 180 Notice
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)
proceedings held on 01/08/09 before Judge Mark A. Pizzo and 01/30/09 before Judge
(Entered: 03/04/2009)
indicating payment of appellate fees re 157 Notice of appeal USCA number: 09-10745.
(kma) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
indicating payment of appellate fees re 159 Notice of appeal USCA number: 09-10746.
(kma) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
03/20/2009 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
04/02/2009 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: 09-
10747D. (kma) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
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)
04/03/2009 TRANSMITTAL to USCA forwarding certified 205 with updated docket sheet (kma)
(Entered: 04/03/2009)
06/29/2009 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)
to USCA re 207 Notice of appeal. (slp) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
07/07/2009 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)
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)
07/30/2009 209 Unopposed MOTION to substitute attorney by Kenneth M. Wilkinson. (Johnson,
Sherri) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo. (Entered: 07/30/2009)
08/04/2009 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)
Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 08/10/2009)
Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 08/10/2009)
Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits(drn) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
09/14/2009 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

T AX YEAR 2009

[ 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 ]
PROPERTY DETAILS

LEE COUNTY
PO BOX 398
FORT MYERS FL 33902
SITE ADDRESS
GOVT LOT
CAPTIVA FL 33924
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ALL UNNUMBERED AND
ACCRETED LANDS


2009)
AC
107.41
DISABILITY
WHOLLY 1,074,100
BUILDING 0 DEPTH 0
AGRICULTURE 0
BEDROOMS
0 VALUE.
FEATURES BATHROOMS

0 VALUE.
0
FEATURES TAX ROLL
SALES/TRANSACTIONS
DATE VERIFIER
$100 / Other Disq)
07-44-21-01-00001.0000

C OLLECTION DAYS
TS 125124 0192 F 8/28/2008
[ 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 ]
Search Law School Search Cornell
LII / Lega l Inform a tion Institute

hom e se arch find a la wyer dona te
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
Donations cover only

(a) Means of Proving. Notes
20% of our costs. (1) Domestic Record.
Law About ... Civil
Each of the following evidences an official record — or an entry in it — that Procedure
Online is otherwise admissible and is kept within the United States, any state,
Certification district, or commonwealth, or any territory subject to the administrative or Attorneys: reach
Flexible judicial jurisdiction of the United States: interested clients by
Certificate
Programs To Fit sponsoring an LII page
(A) an official publication of the record; or
Your Schedule.
Start Today. (B) a copy attested by the offic er with legal custody of the record — or by
Phoenix.edu
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.
(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
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
FIXER’S FRAUD FOILED
BY Fed.R.Civ.P. 44

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 # 12-44-20-
01-00015.015A] bounded by the natural boundary of the Gulf of Mexico?
YES or NO?”
Defendant Special Magistrate LORI L. RUTLAND:

“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:

“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

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 Jacksonville Judges

United States District Judge Orlando Judges
Ft. Myers Division Ocala Judges
TEL: 239-461-2170 Tampa Judges

FAX: 239-461-2179
Ft. Myers Judges
Biography:
All Judges
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 Federal Court Judges Practice
Honeywell served as a Circuit Court Judge for the Thirteenth Guide
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 Nefertari S. Rigsby Michael A.

Judicial Assistant Law Clerk Pusateri
239-461-2170 239-461-2173 Law Clerk
Odd Numbered Cases 239-461-2174
Even Numbered Cases
Joy Stancel Libby Figgers

Court Reporter Courtroom Deputy
239-461-2064 239-461-2005
…googleusercontent.com/search?q=ca… 1/2
FIXER:
Honey well just pay me and I’ll fix it
Just call me …
… I always have a “resolution”:
• “VEXATIOUS”
• VANISHING COMPLAINTS
• “FRIVOLOUS” …

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…


T AX YEAR 2009

[ 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 ]
PROPERTY DETAILS

LEE COUNTY
PO BOX 398
FORT MYERS FL 33902
SITE ADDRESS
GOVT LOT
CAPTIVA FL 33924
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ALL UNNUMBERED AND
ACCRETED LANDS


2009)
AC
107.41
DISABILITY
WHOLLY 1,074,100
BUILDING 0 DEPTH 0
AGRICULTURE 0
BEDROOMS
0 VALUE.
FEATURES BATHROOMS

0 VALUE.
0
FEATURES TAX ROLL
SALES/TRANSACTIONS
DATE VERIFIER
$100 / Other Disq)
07-44-21-01-00001.0000

C OLLECTION DAYS
TS 125124 0192 F 8/28/2008
[ 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 ]
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 “07-
44-21-01-00001.0001”. 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” “12-44-20-01-
00000.00A0”; 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”
Court Case No. Filed NOS Closed
Name
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.
PROPERTY DATA FOR PARCEL 12-44-20-01-00015.015A

T AX YEAR 2009

[ 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 ]
PROPERTY DETAILS

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

050 - COUNTY / NO FIRE DISTRICT 00 - VACANT RESIDENTIAL

2009)
[ HISTORY CHART ] HOMESTEAD 0 LAND UNITS OF MEASURE LT
JUST 32,000 WIDOW 0 TOTAL NUMBER OF LAND
1.00
ASSESSED 32,000 WIDOWER 0 UNITS
ASSESSED SOH 32,000 DISABILITY 0 FRONTAGE 50
TAXABLE 32,000 WHOLLY 0 DEPTH 135
BUILDING 0 AGRICULTURE 0 BEDROOMS
BUILDING INCL. IN BLDG BATHROOMS
0
0 VALUE.
FEATURES TOTAL BUILDING SQFT
LAND 32,000 1ST YEAR BUILDING ON TAX
0
LAND INCL. IN LAND ROLL
0 VALUE.
FEATURES HISTORIC DISTRICT NO
SOH DIFFERENCE 0
SALES/TRANSACTIONS
SALE TRANSACTION DETAILS VACANT /
DATE OR NUMBER VERIFIER
PRICE TYPE DESCRIPTION IMPROVED
100 4/16/2008 2008000101396 Add 01 Disqualified (Doc Stamp .70 / SP V
less th $100 / Other Disq)
142,500 4/30/2004 4300/474 Add 06 Qualified (Fair Market Value / V
Arms Length / One STRAP #)
250,000 9/19/2002 3739/4150 Add 02 Qualified (Multiple STRAP # / 06- V
09I)
There are 3 additional parcel(s) with this
document (may have been split after the
transaction date)...
12-44-20-01-00014.0130, 07-44-
21-01-00034.0120, 07-44-21-01-
00034.0130
9,000 1/1/1996 2670/4117 Add 06 Qualified (Fair Market Value / V
Arms Length / One STRAP #)
PARCEL NUMBERING HISTORY

CREATION DATE - 1/1/1992
PRIOR STRAP RENUMBER REASON RENUMBER DATE

12-44-20-01-00015.011A Split (From another Parcel)

C OLLECTION DAYS
1 125124 0192 F 8/28/2008
[ 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 ]
This page was last updated on
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
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.
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
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
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
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 above-
cited 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
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

Water Boarding The Honey Way

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Water Boarding The Honey Way

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WATER BOARDING

The Honey way

Shut up about Government corruption!

Sanctions instead of Justice

Judge Charlene E. Honeywell

SHOW CAUSE why this Court

SHOW CAUSE why this Court

L EE COUNTY P ROPERTY A PPRAISER

PROPERTY DATA FOR PARCEL 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0

Parcel data is available for the following tax years:

OWNER OF RECORD [ VIEWER ] TAX MAP [ PRINT ]

[ PICTOMETRY AERIAL VIEWER ]

TAXING DISTRICT DOR CODE

PROPERTY VALUES (TAX ROLL

LAND 1,074,100 TOTAL BUILDING SQFT

SOLID WASTE (GARBAGE) ROLL DATA

[ Show ] APPRAISAL DETAILS

[ Next Lower Parcel Number | Next Higher Parcel Number ]

[ New Query | Parcel Queries Page | Lee PA Home ]

Don’t you ever complain again …

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EQUAL COURT ACCESS

JUDICIAL CRIMES & OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

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

U.S. JUDICIAL CASE FIXING:

U.S. JUDICIAL FRIVOLITY SCAM

Search Law School Search Cornell

LII / Lega l Inform a tion Institute

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

III. PLEA DINGS A ND MOTIONS > Rule 11. Prev | Next

Donations cover only

If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court

(2) Motion for Sanctions.

(4) Nature of a Sanction.

(5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions.

The court must not impose a monetary sanction:

(A) against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2); or

(6) Requirements for an Order.

An order imposing a sanction must describe the sanctioned conduct and

(d) Inapplicability to Discovery.

about us help terms of use friend us follow us c ontac t us

Nam e of Court: State:

Buy Document Now

Docket Number available at www.versuslaw.com

March 25, 2010

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT; JORG BUSSE, PLAINTIFFS,

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.

Buy Document Now

Powered by VersusLaw, Inc.

Home | Advertise | About | Feedback | Terms | Privacy Policy | FAQ

SECRET 1: Judicial bribery & corruption are customary and TYPICAL.

SECRET 2: U.S. democracy is DEAD. Don’t be a naïve sheep!

God bless America, Anarchy, BP, Corruption, and

SEE YOU AT SODOM …

and stick your “piece of property” …

Judge Charlene E. Honeywell

This is Google's cache of http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/judicialInfo/FtMyers/JgHoneywell.htm. It is

The Honorable Charlene Edwards Honeywell Jacksonville Judges

Ft. Myers Division Ocala Judges

TEL: 239-461-2170 Tampa Judges

Charlene Edwards Honeywell is a United States District Judge

Judge Honeywell graduated from Howard University, cum laude, in

Bettye G. Samuel Nefertari S. Rigsby Michael A.

Joy Stancel Libby Figgers