“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).” See Doc. 186, p. 1.
5. Here, the Rules expressly prohibited Defendant Honeywell judicial trickery of “playing
dumb”. Here, Defendant Honeywell knew that no “resolution” [prima facie Government
scam “O.R. 569/875”] could possibly be any title. Only judicial proceedings in a court of law
might have possibly divested the Plaintiffs of the their unimpeachable marketable record title
against their will.
6. Here, Honeywell criminally concealed that in the record absence of any “Lee County” title,
title transaction, court judgment, and platted legal descriptions bogus “land” “parcels” “12-
44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” had never existed and were prima
facie Government forgeries. See 1912 “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat of Survey in Plat Book
3, Page 25. Here, Honeywell fraudulently pretended “lack” of “evidentiary support” even
though the record conclusively evidenced the lack of any “Government ownership” and of
forged “land” “parcels”.
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL THE RECORD EVIDENCE & VIOLATE THE RULES
7. Here, Defendant Honeywell conspired with other Defendants to violate the Rules and
“punish” the Plaintiffs NAZI-style for the criminal purposes of coercing the Plaintiffs to
refrain from prosecuting Government Agents for, e.g., their record crimes, fraud, deliberate
deprivations, conspiracy to defraud and deprive. Here Honeywell knew that under U.S.
public policy, judges are to be equally prosecuted just like any other citizen.
8. Here, the Rules required Defendant Honeywell and the other judicial Defendants to
“construe and administer” the rules “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action and proceeding.” However here, Defendant Honeywell knew
that the other judicial Defendants such as, e.g., Lazzara, Steele, Chappell, Pizzo, Tjoflat, and
2
Black recklessly concealed Government crimes such as the Governmental forgeries of said
sham “land” “parcels”, which ALL Officials knew could not possibly be legally described
under any circumstances.
3
00001.0000”, no more judicial NAZI-tactics, no more judicial sodomy in the Fort Myers
Federal Court house. The Plaintiffs fear for their lives and object to the June 22, 2010, 10:00
a.m. charade. The hearing is for prima facie criminal purposes of CORRUPTION and
extension of the Government crimes on the record. In particular, Defendant Honeywell
admittedly seeks to conceal Government crimes and CORRUPTION and employ
punishment, sanctions, and force NAZI style.
HONEYWELL RECKLESSLY VIOLATED THE MANY RULES
17. Here, Def. Honeywell recklessly violated, e.g., the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “Local
Rules”, and public policy and obstructed justice. Pleading was not a game of trickery, but for
the purpose of just, speedy, and inexpensive adjudication based on the patently clear merits
of record. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 Here, Honeywell’s orders were vexatious acts from hell,
because Honeywell conspired with other Defendants to “shut up”, silence, oppress, and
obliterate the Plaintiffs so that Defendant Government Officials will go unpunished for their
crimes, CORRUPTION, and land robbery on the public record. Over and over again, the
Plaintiffs objected to said Governmental oppression and travesties. In retaliation, Honeywell
threatened and terrorized the Plaintiffs even further.
CORRUPTION: GOVERNMENT GOLIATH versus DAVID JUDICIAL CHARADE
18. Here, the patently clear “Government Goliath versus David” judicial charade and mockery
on the public record has been perpetrated in the fraudulent form of, e.g., “frivolity” and
“vexatiousness” scams in order to sidestep law and order and promote the anarchy and
lawlessness of Government CORRUPTION and said sham titles, “land” “parcels”, and
“frivolity” scams.
19. Here pursuant to the record, “David” held unimpeachable record title, and the Government
“Goliath” did not. That should have been it! However here, “Goliath’s” illegal defense
against the record proof of Government CORRUPTION, fraud, and said fake “land”
“parcels” were false and fraudulent Government assertions of “frivolity” and
“vexatiousness”.
PRIMA FACIE CRIMINALITY OF WELL-PROVEN GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION
20. Ordinary citizens, who criminally fake real property titles and fraudulently claim ownership,
face jail time for, e.g., mortgage fraud. Here, U.S. Government Agents premeditated the
record fraud scheme and installed Honeywell for the criminal purposes of CORRUPTION,
covering up for Government Officials, and concealing said proven fake “land” “parcels”,
titles, and facially fraudulent “Government ownership” “claims”.
21. Here on their faces, Defendant Honeywell’s orders were CORRUPTED “Governmental
trash”, which insulted the intelligence of the American people, Plaintiffs, and any American
real estate professional. Here, the Plaintiffs, title examiners, surveyors, and other real estate
experts did their due diligence, title searches, and jobs, while Defendant CORRUPT
Honeywell kept incoherently rambling about “frivolity” and “vexatiousness” without ever
reviewing said Governmental forgery and fraud evidence. Here, Honeywell’s job description
was NOT sodomizing Plaintiff unimpeachable record landowners, coercing them to refrain
from prosecuting CORRUPT Government Officials, faking “frivolity”, and criminally
concealing said bogus “land” “parcels”, and facially fraudulent “Government ownership”
lies. See, e.g., Florida Bar Title Standards; see 24 C.F.R. § 203.385, Types of satisfactory
title evidence.
22. Here, crooked Honeywell did not explain on the Court records why she deliberately
concealed the record absence of any title evidence in the name of “Lee County, FL” and why
4
she is not a CORRUPT Government criminal, who extended said Government “land
robbery” scams of record and conspired to fix Plaintiffs’ Cases.
GOVERNMENT CONCEALMENT OF CORRUPTION & BOGUS “LAND” “PARCELS”
23. In the record absence of any Lee County title evidence, and in the record presence of facially
CORRUPT and fraudulent “claims” of “Government ownership” of said spurious “land”
“parcels”, Defendant Honeywell’s and the other judicial Defendants’ facially false pretenses
of “frivolity” were for criminal purposes of, e.g., extortion, deliberate premeditated
deprivations, cover-up, and conspiracy to defraud. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242.
24. As judicial “decision maker”, Defendant Honeywell conspired with other Defendants and
Government Officials and Defendants to steamroll, oppress, and terrorize the Plaintiffs by
criminal means of denigrating them as “vexatious” and “obstruct” the record evidence of
Government CORRUPTION as “frivolous”.
25. Here, Honeywell followed in the recorded footsteps of her fellow judicial Defendants and
betrayed the Plaintiff record title holders and American people who naively believed that she
would respect and uphold the law: No intelligent and valid legal argument in support of the
record Governmental fraudulent pretenses of “frivolity”, “vexatiousness”, and “lack of
jurisdiction” was ever made or could have possibly been made. Here, Honeywell merely
followed Government “marching orders” to continue the record Government pattern and
policy of CORRUPTION & concealment under fraudulent pretenses of “vexatiousness” and
“frivolity”.
26. The judicial Defendants, Government Officials, and Honeywell were utterly incapable of
defending against Plaintiffs’ well-proven allegations of Government CORRUPTION, fake
titles, “land” “parcels”, and said mockery of justice since 2006. Here for years over and over
again, this Court victimized the pro se Plaintiffs and shut them up [and thousands of other
pro se Plaintiffs] under the record pattern and policy of falsely pretending “frivolity” and
“vexatiousness”. Here like a CORRUPT NAZI Court, this Court obstructed any chance of
justice as if the Plaintiffs were Jews in NAZI Germany.
VEXTIOUS HISTORY OF GOVERNMENTAL PATTERN OF CORRUPTION
27. Government CORRUPTION explained why Honeywell is the latest “whore” in a string of
CORRUPT Defendant Government Officials who all, one after another, and again and again,
have concealed, and conspired to conceal, said prima facie foolish fabrications of bogus
“land” “parcels”, a “resolution”, “law”, “condemnation-by-resolution” without any judicial
eminent domain due process.
28. No matter strongly Defendant Honeywell expressed her intent to cover up for other
Government Officials, her record judicial horseshit and CORRUPT acts of deception and
trickery had no legal basis and/or justification. Here, Defendant Honeywell expressly stated
her criminal intent to fix Plaintiffs’ claims for relief from, e.g., Governmental and judicial
CORRUPTION:
“The Court will also hear argument on the USAO Defendants' Motion for Pre-filing
Injunction, Monetary Sanctions, And Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 149).” Id., p. 2.
29. Here, the USAO Defendants never made any “argument” responsive to Plaintiffs’ record
evidence of Governmental CORRUPTION and facially fraudulent “claims” of Government
“land” ownership and title. No single “defense” in response to Plaintiffs’ claims and causes
existed on the record. By not presenting any legitimate defense and/or response, whatsoever,
the Defendants admitted Plaintiffs’ well-proven assertions under the Rules.
5
30. Disjointedly, Honeywell rambled about “sanctions”, and “sanctions against them [Plaintiffs]
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (c) (3) (Doc. 126)”, but not once did she respond to Plaintiffs
claims for relief and address any single relevant and material legal issue as has been the
pattern in this Court since 2007.
CONCEALMENT OF CORRUPTION CLAIMS BY MEANS OF “FRIVOLITY” SCAM
31. This Case turns on Government and judicial CORRUPTION and independent de novo
review, which Honeywell has been obstructing to the best of her CORRUPTION skills. In
their related pleadings, the Plaintiffs had demanded Orders directing Defendant Honeywell to
SHOW CAUSE
a. why she is not concealing Government CORRUPTION such as, e.g., concealment of
said fictitious “land” “parcels” and the judicial concoctions of “law” and
“condemnation-by-legislative-act”;
b. why she is not concealing the record absence of any Lee County title evidence;
c. why she is not concealing the record absence of any involuntary alienation history
and/or record;
d. why she is not personally extending the Governmental fraud scheme of illegally
seizing and extorting “land” that Defendants had previously fraudulently “claimed”
to be “Government owned”.
Rule 11 is not a tool for the “organized” cover-up of judicial CORRUPTION, unlawful
harassment of Plaintiffs, and extension of Governmental CORRUPTION & fraud.
NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM “ORDER”, DOC. # 186, AND FRAUD ON THE COURT
32. On June 17, 2010, the Plaintiffs appealed from Defendant crooked Judge Charlene E.
Honeywell’s “Order”, “Document 186”, “filed 06/07/10”.
UNCONTROVERTED GOVERNMENTAL CORRUPTION ON THE RECORD
33. Since 2006, the Plaintiffs had conclusively evidenced record Governmental and judicial
CORRUPTION and demanded relief in State and Federal Courts. Defendant Governments
obstructed any opportunity of justice under Governmental policy and custom of fraudulent
pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”.
34. Plain and short, Plaintiffs had proven the prima facie illegality and nullity of forged and
legally non-existent “land” “parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-20-01-
6
00001.0000”. Said sham “parcels” could not be legally described in reference to the 1912
“Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat of Survey in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25.
35. No evidence of any title to and/or ownership of said facially forged land “parcels” ever
existed in the public records. Said “parcels” could not be linked to any title transaction of
record. No property interest could have possibly been created in said non-existent counterfeit
“parcels”. In particular, Lee County, Florida, never took title to said spurious “parcels”.
36. In said State and Federal legal actions, the Government Defendants never controverted the
patently clear record absence of any such fake “lot” “00A0” and fake “block” “00001”. The
Defendants even admitted the impossibility of any “Lee County” title evidence on the record.
Here, no chain and/or abstract of title ever evidenced or could have possibly evidenced said
scandalous sham “parcels”. Lee County never paid any property taxes on said manufactured
“parcels”.
37. Plaintiffs proved that Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser, and
the Lee County Defendants conspired with other Defendants to fabricate said fictitious
“parcels” and fraudulently pretend “land” “ownership”.
38. On November 7, 2007, the Plaintiff(s) had evidenced the record absence of said bogus
“parcels” before bribed U.S. Magistrate Judge Polster Chappell. See 2007 Court Hearing
Transcript. In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, Defendant crooked Magistrate Polster
Chappell fixed Plaintiffs’ Cases and falsely pretended “frivolity” (Doc. # 252) before
Plaintiffs had even filed their Court-ordered “Third Amended Complaint” (Doc. ## 282, 288)
and after Chappell had purportedly screened Plaintiffs’ pleadings for “frivolity”.
39. On the record, the gang of Judicial Officers conspired with other Defendants to extend said
Governmental “land robbery” and corruption and denigrate the Plaintiffs as “vexatious” and
conceal the record evidence of Government crimes under fraudulent pretenses of “frivolity”.
40. Here plain and short, the dispositive legal issues were Government CORRUPTION and
RECORD OWNERSHIP / TITLE: Did Lee County, FL, hold record title: YES or NO? NO,
Lee County never held record title. NOR could Lee County have ever possibly held title to
legally non-existent and un-platted bogus “parcels”.
41. Because here the Government crimes and corruption since 1969 were so damaging and far-
reaching, the judicial Defendants added additional layers of corruption when they covered up
for fellow Officials and concealed the truth by criminal means of their “vexatiousness” and
“frivolity” scams.
JUDICIAL CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL FAKE OWNERSHIP & PARCEL CLAIMS
42. In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, Defendant U.S. Judges John Edwin Steele, Sheri Polster
Chappell, Richard Allan Lazzara, and Mark A. Pizzo conspired to fraudulently pretend
condemnation of said non-genuine and legally un-described “parcels” by purported “virtue
of” a “resolution” and/or “legislative act”. See record Governmental fraud and extortion
scheme “O.R. 569/875”.
43. Said judicial Defendants knowingly misrepresented that any type of “involuntary alienation”
would have necessarily been a judicial function, and could not have possibly been any
“legislative” function. Said Defendant Judicial Officers acted in contempt of the law for said
criminal purposes of “land robbery” “under color of” said fake “parcels”. See Florida
Attorney General Opinion # 78-125.
44. Said crooked judicial Defendants concealed the record absence of any “Lee County” evidence
of title and “Government ownership” and the utter non-compliance with any and all Federal
and Florida title standards. On their faces, the concoctions and lies of said judicial
7
Defendants were so irrational and unintelligent that title insurance underwriters shook their
heads in disbelief over said judicial corruption on the record.
NULL & VOID ORDERS WHICH WERE PROCURED THROUGH RECORD FRAUD
45. Here, the Plaintiffs evidenced Defendants’ brazen record fraud on the Court(s) and their
concealment of Governmental corruption and deliberate deprivations under false pretenses of
said non-authentic “parcels” and forged paper “O.R. 569/875”. Any and all orders of any and
all Judges were null and void, because they were procured through said fraud. To this day, no
intelligent explanation of the fraudulently pretended “frivolity” was ever given on the record.
As has been customary in this Court, Judges cover up for Judges and obstruct the truth and
justice. Here brazenly, Defendant crooked Officials such as, e.g., Kenneth M. Wilkinson and
Jack N. Peterson continue the fraudulent “parcel” schemes.
46. Here, the foolish and brazen replication of prima facie Government nonsense and trash such
as, e.g., “frivolity” by Judge after Judge, and again and again, “under color of Governmental
authority and office” established the record pattern of Governmental CORRUPTION and
concealment.
47. Like bungling and corrupt Government fools, e.g., Defendant Judge Lazzara presided over
his own prosecution and fixed Plaintiffs’ Cases by “summarily dismissing” them without any
intelligent defense. Here, power corrupted Lazzara absolutely.
DEF. HONEYWELL NEVER EVEN READ THE UN-FILED COMPLAINT PAGES
48. Here, “legal whore” Honeywell never even read or reviewed the un-filed Complaint pages,
but foolishly repeated the self-serving Government trash by other CROOKED Judges and
Officials.
HONEYWELL’S CORRUPTION & CONTEMPT OF THE LAW
49. Here, Honeywell knew that no eminent domain, condemnation, adverse possession or any
other judicial adjudication had ever occurred. See, e.g., Chapters 73, 74; 95; 712, Fla. Stat.;
Florida & Federal Constitutions; 14th, 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th U.S. Const. Amendments.
50. The law simply did not recognize the fraudulent, arbitrary, and capricious Governmental
coercion and property extortion schemes of said judicial and Governmental Defendants and
their Attorneys, who were in contempt of said law.
51. No evidence of any “resolution” and/or “law” had ever existed on the record. The record was
devoid of any “legislative act” and/or “resolution”. No name and/or signature of any
“lawmaker” and/or witness or notary ever existed on the falsely alleged colorless
“resolution”, which was devoid of any “legal description”.
52. Here in April 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals had affirmed the record nullity and illegality
of said fake “parcels” and dispositively declared the Plaintiffs the unimpeachable record
landowners of their riparian Parcel 12-44-20-01-00015.015A on the Gulf of Mexico. See
PRESCOTT, No. 08-14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631; Lee County
PB 3, PG 25 (1912).
PRIMA FACIE EMERGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT CRIMES & CORRUPTION
53. Here, Defendant Government thug Honeywell knew that the record fraudulent judicial “final
determinations” of a “resolution” by the bribed judicial Defendants categorically ruled out
any possibility of the falsely pretended “Lee County / Government ownership and titles. In
America, “resolutions” never transferred title and could not have possibly involuntarily
divested the Plaintiffs of their admittedly unimpeachable record ownership against their will.
See Warranty Deed, abstract of title, chain of title, surveys, title insurance policy, riparian
Gulf-front Parcel “ 12-44-20-01-00015.015A, PB 3, PG 25 (1912) on the record.
RIGHTFUL PROSECUTION OF CORRUPT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
8
54. Here, the pro se Plaintiffs rightfully defended against prima facie organized Government
fraud, CORRUPTION, obstruction of justice, and deliberate deprivations on the record. See
18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242. Covering up for other Government criminals and concealing
Government CORRUPTION and crimes such as said Government forgeries of “land”
“parcels”, titles, and a “resolution” were of course unlawful. The Federal prosecution of the
judicial Defendants, Honeywell, and Defendant Government Officials was a
FUNDAMENTAL right, which Honeywell deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of:
“Plaintiffs have continued to file motions and pleadings in violation of the Local
Rules of this Court and prior Orders of this Court. fn. 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.” See Doc. 186; p. 1.
55. Here, the “prior Orders of this Court” were procured through prima facie record fraud,
fabricated “land” “parcels”, titles, fraudulent “Government ownership” “claims”, bogus
Government surveys, bribery, and sham Government “frivolity” and “vexatiousness” cover-
up & concealment schemes.
56. Again, Honeywell’s nonsense order was vague and ambiguous, because she did not even
explain what could have possibly violated the “Local Rules”. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 1,
Honeywell was to pursue the just, speedy, and inexpensive adjudication of Plaintiffs’ claims
for relief. Here, Honeywell recklessly wasted time and resources to conceal said Government
CORRUPTION and crimes. By not even reading, reviewing and responding to the
CORRUPTION evidence on file under fraudulent pretenses of “frivolity”, Honeywell kept
the Plaintiffs away from the Court and perpetrated fraud on the Court rather than grant the
Plaintiffs the demanded relief from the prima facie Government CORRUPTION and crimes
of the other judicial Defendants such as, e.g., Lazzara, Steele, Pizzo, and Polster Chappell.
57. Here public policy and the Federal Rules superseded any deceptively narrow technical
construction for the “local rules” for the unlawful purpose of concealing said Government
CORRUPTION.
58. Obviously, the job of said CORRUPT Judges and Honeywell was not to “protect” fellow
criminal Judges and cover up their crimes, but to uphold the law. Here, Honeywell has been
in CONTEMPT of the law and her oath of Government office. See, e.g., Chapters 712; 73,
74; 95, Fla. Stat. [Marketable Record Title Act; Eminent domain; Adverse Possession];
Florida & Federal Constitutional rights to own property, exclude Governments, and be free
from Governmental oppression, abuse, property seizure, and terror by criminal means of,
e.g., said sham “land” “parcels”, the charade of “condemnation-by-resolution (O.R.
569/875)”, fires and arson (2008), physical force, destruction of substantial property fencing,
and criminal trespass.
EMERGENCY OF RECORD EVASION OF PROSECUTION FOR CORRUPTION
59. Here absolutely NOTHING prohibited the Plaintiffs from prosecuting CORRUPT Defendant
Government Officials and stressing the gravity and EMERGENCY of the judicial
Defendants’ and Honeywell criminal Governmental acts. How dumb did crooked Honeywell
think the American people are? Spilling, e.g., oil, lies, fake titles, “frivolity” cover-up scams,
and CORRUPTION upon the American people in exchange for, e.g., bribes by “Big Oil” and
by criminal means of “Big Government” record Nazi tactics were of course alarming
EMERGENCIES. (Honeywell, you are drunk with perceived Governmental power!) Here,
9
the separation-of-powers-doctrine demanded judicial due process in a Court of law and
prohibited the record illegal seizure and writ of execution.
EMERGENCY OF JUDICIAL SODOMY BY CONTEMPTUOUS HONEYWELL
60. Here, record Governmental tales of fake “law”, “O.R. 569/875”, threats of physical force
against the Plaintiffs, Governmental terror, fires, and “land-seizure-by-fake-legislative-act”
were of course EMERGENCIES. Here, Plaintiffs defended against Honeywell’s judicial
sodomy. Just because CORRUPT Governmental Officials did not consider catastrophic oil
spills and Government CORRUPTION to be EMERGENCIES, Plaintiffs were entitled to
defend against said catastrophic EMERGENCIES of anarchy and lawlessness.
61. Defendant Government Officials’ bypassing and sidestepping of eminent domain and
condemnation due process by faking said “land” “parcels”, “Government ownership”, titles,
and conspiring to threaten physical force, “punishment”, coercion, extortion, sanctions were
of course EMERGENCIES of the first order. What else is there in a purportedly
democratic society?
62. Here, “frivolity”, “vexatiousness”, “lack of jurisdiction”, and facially forged “land”
“parcels”, and fake “resolution”, “O.R. 569/875” were not any “legal argument” and/or
“defense”, but a few of the outright desperate and stupid criminal means of CORRUPTING
and obstructing justice at the filthy hands of bungling CORRUPT Government idiots such as
here the Governmental Defendants and Charlene Edwards Honeywell.
63. Here, Honeywell did not “cut her CORRUPT crap” and crimes, but continually stacked on
more crap and CORRUPTION with the calculated intent to trick and deceive the American
people and defraud the Plaintiffs and the record owners of the other more than 1,200 platted
“land” “parcels”, PB 3 PG 25 (1912), out of their private property and private implied
“paper” street, alley, and riparian street easements …
10
6/20/2010 LII: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
VII. JUDGMENT
1. Scope of Rules
2. One Form of Action
3. Commencing an Action
4. Summons
4.1. Serving Other Process
5. Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
5.1. Constitutional Challenge to a Statute - Notice, Certification, and Intervention
5.2. Privacy Protection For Filings Made with the Court
6. Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/ 1/3
6/20/2010 LII: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
13. Counterclaim and Crossclaim
14. Third-Party Practice
15. Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
16. Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management
IV. PARTIES
VI. TRIALS
VII. JUDGMENT
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/ 2/3
6/20/2010 LII: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
64. Seizing a Person or Property
65. Injunctions and Restraining Orders
65.1 Proceedings Against a Surety
66. Receivers
67. Deposit into Court
68. Offer of Judgment
69. Execution
70. Enforcing a Judgment for a Specific Act
71. Enforcing Relief For or Against a Nonparty
A. Scope of Rules
B. In Personam Actions: Attachment and Garnishment
C. Actions in Rem: Special Provisions
D. Possessory, Petitory, and Partition Actions
E. Actions in Rem and Quasi in Rem: General Provisions
F. Limitation of Liability
G. Forfeiture Actions In Rem
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/ 3/3
6/16/2010 Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin…
[ 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
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
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.
TRIM (proposed tax) Notices are available for the following tax years:
[ 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 ]
leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?… 2/3
Honey SHOW CAUSE!
Where’s the title evidence?
2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC
“12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”
UP YOUR ASS …
6/16/2010 Official site of the U.S. District Court f…
These search terms are highlighted: charlene edwards honeywell Text-only version
Chambers Staff:
…googleusercontent.com/search?q=ca… 1/2
6/17/2010 Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin…
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
SOH Difference 0
Taxing Authorities
Sales / Transactions
Sale Price Date OR Number Verifier Type Description Vacant/Improved
leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?… 1/2
6/17/2010 Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin…
Elevation Information
Flood Insurance [ FIRM Look-up ]
Storm Surge Category
Rate Code Community Panel Version Date
Appraisal Details
Land
Land Tracts
Use Code Use Code Description Number of Units Unit of Measure
TRIM (proposed tax) Notices are available for the following tax years
[ 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 ]
Next Lower Parcel Number Next Higher Parcel Number New Query Search Results Home
leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?… 2/2
Lies have long
Tweets.
73
Honey well SHOW CAUSE that
I am not a corrupt crook …
if you still can
“…SHOW CAUSE
why your claims are not “frivolous”,
you vexatious prisoner of Government…”
“O.R. 569/875”
FRIVOLITY & AUSCHWITZ
HONEYWELL GAS CHAMBERS
12-44-20-01-00000.00A0
07-44-21-01-00001.0000
KILLING JUSTICE
CHAPTER 74
74.011 Scope.
www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm… 1/1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
[“TRANSFERRED” FROM: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION]
2
Honeywell kept incoherently rambling about “frivolity” and “vexatiousness” without ever
reviewing said Governmental forgery and fraud evidence. Here, Honeywell’s job description
was NOT sodomizing Plaintiff unimpeachable record landowners, coercing them to refrain
from prosecuting CORRUPT Government Officials, faking “frivolity”, and criminally
concealing said bogus “land” “parcels”, and facially fraudulent “Government ownership”
lies. See, e.g., Florida Bar Title Standards; see 24 C.F.R. § 203.385, Types of satisfactory
title evidence.
9. Here, crooked Honeywell did not explain on the Court records why she deliberately
concealed the record absence of any title evidence in the name of “Lee County, FL” and why
she is not a CORRUPT Government criminal, who extended said Government “land
robbery” scams of record and conspired to fix Plaintiffs’ Cases.
GOVERNMENT CONCEALMENT OF CORRUPTION & BOGUS “LAND” “PARCELS”
10. In the record absence of any Lee County title evidence, and in the record presence of facially
CORRUPT and fraudulent “claims” of “Government ownership” of said spurious “land”
“parcels”, Defendant Honeywell’s and the other judicial Defendants’ facially false pretenses
of “frivolity” were for criminal purposes of, e.g., extortion, deliberate premeditated
deprivations, cover-up, and conspiracy to defraud. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242.
11. As judicial “decision maker”, Defendant Honeywell conspired with other Defendants and
Government Officials and Defendants to steamroll, oppress, and terrorize the Plaintiffs by
criminal means of denigrating them as “vexatious” and “obstruct” the record evidence of
Government CORRUPTION as “frivolous”.
12. Here, Honeywell followed in the recorded footsteps of her fellow judicial Defendants and
betrayed the Plaintiff record title holders and American people who naively believed that she
would respect and uphold the law: No intelligent and valid legal argument in support of the
record Governmental fraudulent pretenses of “frivolity”, “vexatiousness”, and “lack of
jurisdiction” was ever made or could have possibly been made. Here, Honeywell merely
followed Government “marching orders” to continue the record Government pattern and
policy of CORRUPTION & concealment under fraudulent pretenses of “vexatiousness” and
“frivolity”.
13. The judicial Defendants, Government Officials, and Honeywell were utterly incapable of
defending against Plaintiffs’ well-proven allegations of Government CORRUPTION, fake
titles, “land” “parcels”, and said mockery of justice since 2006. Here for years over and over
again, this Court victimized the pro se Plaintiffs and shut them up [and thousands of other
pro se Plaintiffs] under the record pattern and policy of falsely pretending “frivolity” and
“vexatiousness”. Here like a CORRUPT NAZI Court, this Court obstructed any chance of
justice as if the Plaintiffs were Jews in NAZI Germany.
VEXTIOUS HISTORY OF GOVERNMENTAL PATTERN OF CORRUPTION
14. Government CORRUPTION explained why Honeywell is the latest “whore” in a string of
CORRUPT Defendant Government Officials who all, one after another, and again and again,
have concealed, and conspired to conceal, said prima facie foolish fabrications of bogus
“land” “parcels”, a “resolution”, “law”, “condemnation-by-resolution” without any judicial
eminent domain due process.
15. No matter strongly Defendant Honeywell expressed her intent to cover up for other
Government Officials, her record judicial horseshit and CORRUPT acts of deception and
trickery had no legal basis and/or justification. Here, Defendant Honeywell expressly stated
her criminal intent to fix Plaintiffs’ claims for relief from, e.g., Governmental and judicial
CORRUPTION:
3
“The Court will also hear argument on the USAO Defendants' Motion for Pre-filing
Injunction, Monetary Sanctions, And Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 149).” Id., p. 2.
16. Here, the USAO Defendants never made any “argument” responsive to Plaintiffs’ record
evidence of Governmental CORRUPTION and facially fraudulent “claims” of Government
“land” ownership and title. No single “defense” in response to Plaintiffs’ claims and causes
existed on the record. By not presenting any legitimate defense and/or response, whatsoever,
the Defendants admitted Plaintiffs’ well-proven assertions under the Rules.
17. Disjointedly, Honeywell rambled about “sanctions”, and “sanctions against them [Plaintiffs]
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (c) (3) (Doc. 126)”, but not once did she respond to Plaintiffs
claims for relief and address any single relevant and material legal issue as has been the
pattern in this Court since 2007.
CONCEALMENT OF CORRUPTION CLAIMS BY MEANS OF “FRIVOLITY” SCAM
18. This Case turns on Government and judicial CORRUPTION and independent de novo
review, which Honeywell has been obstructing to the best of her CORRUPTION skills. In
their related pleadings, the Plaintiffs had demanded Orders directing Defendant Honeywell to
SHOW CAUSE
a. why she is not concealing Government CORRUPTION such as, e.g., concealment of
said fictitious “land” “parcels” and the judicial concoctions of “law” and
“condemnation-by-legislative-act”;
b. why she is not concealing the record absence of any Lee County title evidence;
c. why she is not concealing the record absence of any involuntary alienation history
and/or record;
d. why she is not personally extending the Governmental fraud scheme of illegally
seizing and extorting “land” that Defendants had previously fraudulently “claimed”
to be “Government owned”.
Rule 11 is not a tool for the “organized” cover-up of judicial CORRUPTION, unlawful
harassment of Plaintiffs, and extension of Governmental CORRUPTION & fraud.
NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM “ORDER”, DOC. # 186, AND FRAUD ON THE COURT
19. On June 17, 2010, the Plaintiffs appealed from Defendant crooked Judge Charlene E.
Honeywell’s “Order”, “Document 186”, “filed 06/07/10”.
UNCONTROVERTED GOVERNMENTAL CORRUPTION ON THE RECORD
20. Since 2006, the Plaintiffs had conclusively evidenced record Governmental and judicial
CORRUPTION and demanded relief in State and Federal Courts. Defendant Governments
obstructed any opportunity of justice under Governmental policy and custom of fraudulent
pretenses of “frivolity” and “vexatiousness”.
4
5 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2008cv00364 05/07/2008 440 07/25/2008
6 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2009cv00602 09/11/2009 440 11/05/2009
7 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2009cv00791 12/04/2009 440
8 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2008cv00899 12/05/2008 440 02/04/2009
21. Plain and short, Plaintiffs had proven the prima facie illegality and nullity of forged and
legally non-existent “land” “parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-20-01-
00001.0000”. Said sham “parcels” could not be legally described in reference to the 1912
“Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat of Survey in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25.
22. No evidence of any title to and/or ownership of said facially forged land “parcels” ever
existed in the public records. Said “parcels” could not be linked to any title transaction of
record. No property interest could have possibly been created in said non-existent counterfeit
“parcels”. In particular, Lee County, Florida, never took title to said spurious “parcels”.
23. In said State and Federal legal actions, the Government Defendants never controverted the
patently clear record absence of any such fake “lot” “00A0” and fake “block” “00001”. The
Defendants even admitted the impossibility of any “Lee County” title evidence on the record.
Here, no chain and/or abstract of title ever evidenced or could have possibly evidenced said
scandalous sham “parcels”. Lee County never paid any property taxes on said manufactured
“parcels”.
24. Plaintiffs proved that Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser, and
the Lee County Defendants conspired with other Defendants to fabricate said fictitious
“parcels” and fraudulently pretend “land” “ownership”.
25. On November 7, 2007, the Plaintiff(s) had evidenced the record absence of said bogus
“parcels” before bribed U.S. Magistrate Judge Polster Chappell. See 2007 Court Hearing
Transcript. In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, Defendant crooked Magistrate Polster
Chappell fixed Plaintiffs’ Cases and falsely pretended “frivolity” (Doc. # 252) before
Plaintiffs had even filed their Court-ordered “Third Amended Complaint” (Doc. ## 282, 288)
and after Chappell had purportedly screened Plaintiffs’ pleadings for “frivolity”.
26. On the record, the gang of Judicial Officers conspired with other Defendants to extend said
Governmental “land robbery” and corruption and denigrate the Plaintiffs as “vexatious” and
conceal the record evidence of Government crimes under fraudulent pretenses of “frivolity”.
27. Here plain and short, the dispositive legal issues were Government CORRUPTION and
RECORD OWNERSHIP / TITLE: Did Lee County, FL, hold record title: YES or NO? NO,
Lee County never held record title. NOR could Lee County have ever possibly held title to
legally non-existent and un-platted bogus “parcels”.
28. Because here the Government crimes and corruption since 1969 were so damaging and far-
reaching, the judicial Defendants added additional layers of corruption when they covered up
for fellow Officials and concealed the truth by criminal means of their “vexatiousness” and
“frivolity” scams.
JUDICIAL CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL FAKE OWNERSHIP & PARCEL CLAIMS
29. In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, Defendant U.S. Judges John Edwin Steele, Sheri Polster
Chappell, Richard Allan Lazzara, and Mark A. Pizzo conspired to fraudulently pretend
condemnation of said non-genuine and legally un-described “parcels” by purported “virtue
of” a “resolution” and/or “legislative act”. See record Governmental fraud and extortion
scheme “O.R. 569/875”.
5
30. Said judicial Defendants knowingly misrepresented that any type of “involuntary alienation”
would have necessarily been a judicial function, and could not have possibly been any
“legislative” function. Said Defendant Judicial Officers acted in contempt of the law for said
criminal purposes of “land robbery” “under color of” said fake “parcels”. See Florida
Attorney General Opinion # 78-125.
31. Said crooked judicial Defendants concealed the record absence of any “Lee County” evidence
of title and “Government ownership” and the utter non-compliance with any and all Federal
and Florida title standards. On their faces, the concoctions and lies of said judicial
Defendants were so irrational and unintelligent that title insurance underwriters shook their
heads in disbelief over said judicial corruption on the record.
NULL & VOID ORDERS WHICH WERE PROCURED THROUGH RECORD FRAUD
32. Here, the Plaintiffs evidenced Defendants’ brazen record fraud on the Court(s) and their
concealment of Governmental corruption and deliberate deprivations under false pretenses of
said non-authentic “parcels” and forged paper “O.R. 569/875”. Any and all orders of any and
all Judges were null and void, because they were procured through said fraud. To this day, no
intelligent explanation of the fraudulently pretended “frivolity” was ever given on the record.
As has been customary in this Court, Judges cover up for Judges and obstruct the truth and
justice. Here brazenly, Defendant crooked Officials such as, e.g., Kenneth M. Wilkinson and
Jack N. Peterson continue the fraudulent “parcel” schemes.
33. Here, the foolish and brazen replication of prima facie Government nonsense and trash such
as, e.g., “frivolity” by Judge after Judge, and again and again, “under color of Governmental
authority and office” established the record pattern of Governmental CORRUPTION and
concealment.
34. Like bungling and corrupt Government fools, e.g., Defendant Judge Lazzara presided over
his own prosecution and fixed Plaintiffs’ Cases by “summarily dismissing” them without any
intelligent defense. Here, power corrupted Lazzara absolutely.
DEF. HONEYWELL NEVER EVEN READ THE UN-FILED COMPLAINT PAGES
35. Here, “legal whore” Honeywell never even read or reviewed the un-filed Complaint pages,
but foolishly repeated the self-serving Government trash by other CROOKED Judges and
Officials.
HONEYWELL’S CORRUPTION & CONTEMPT OF THE LAW
36. Here, Honeywell knew that no eminent domain, condemnation, adverse possession or any
other judicial adjudication had ever occurred. See, e.g., Chapters 73, 74; 95; 712, Fla. Stat.;
Florida & Federal Constitutions; 14th, 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th U.S. Const. Amendments.
37. The law simply did not recognize the fraudulent, arbitrary, and capricious Governmental
coercion and property extortion schemes of said judicial and Governmental Defendants and
their Attorneys, who were in contempt of said law.
38. No evidence of any “resolution” and/or “law” had ever existed on the record. The record was
devoid of any “legislative act” and/or “resolution”. No name and/or signature of any
“lawmaker” and/or witness or notary ever existed on the falsely alleged colorless
“resolution”, which was devoid of any “legal description”.
39. Here in April 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals had affirmed the record nullity and illegality
of said fake “parcels” and dispositively declared the Plaintiffs the unimpeachable record
landowners of their riparian Parcel 12-44-20-01-00015.015A on the Gulf of Mexico. See
PRESCOTT, No. 08-14846, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8678, 2009 WL 1059631; Lee County
PB 3, PG 25 (1912).
6
PRIMA FACIE EMERGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT CRIMES & CORRUPTION
40. Here, Defendant Government thug Honeywell knew that the record fraudulent judicial “final
determinations” of a “resolution” by the bribed judicial Defendants categorically ruled out
any possibility of the falsely pretended “Lee County / Government ownership and titles. In
America, “resolutions” never transferred title and could not have possibly involuntarily
divested the Plaintiffs of their admittedly unimpeachable record ownership against their will.
See Warranty Deed, abstract of title, chain of title, surveys, title insurance policy, riparian
Gulf-front Parcel “ 12-44-20-01-00015.015A, PB 3, PG 25 (1912) on the record.
RIGHTFUL PROSECUTION OF CORRUPT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
41. Here, the pro se Plaintiffs rightfully defended against prima facie organized Government
fraud, CORRUPTION, obstruction of justice, and deliberate deprivations on the record. See
18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242. Covering up for other Government criminals and concealing
Government CORRUPTION and crimes such as said Government forgeries of “land”
“parcels”, titles, and a “resolution” were of course unlawful. The Federal prosecution of the
judicial Defendants, Honeywell, and Defendant Government Officials was a
FUNDAMENTAL right, which Honeywell deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of:
“Plaintiffs have continued to file motions and pleadings in violation of the Local
Rules of this Court and prior Orders of this Court. fn. 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.” See Doc. 186; p. 1.
42. Here, the “prior Orders of this Court” were procured through prima facie record fraud,
fabricated “land” “parcels”, titles, fraudulent “Government ownership” “claims”, bogus
Government surveys, bribery, and sham Government “frivolity” and “vexatiousness” cover-
up & concealment schemes.
43. Again, Honeywell’s nonsense order was vague and ambiguous, because she did not even
explain what could have possibly violated the “Local Rules”. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 1,
Honeywell was to pursue the just, speedy, and inexpensive adjudication of Plaintiffs’ claims
for relief. Here, Honeywell recklessly wasted time and resources to conceal said Government
CORRUPTION and crimes. By not even reading, reviewing and responding to the
CORRUPTION evidence on file under fraudulent pretenses of “frivolity”, Honeywell kept
the Plaintiffs away from the Court and perpetrated fraud on the Court rather than grant the
Plaintiffs the demanded relief from the prima facie Government CORRUPTION and crimes
of the other judicial Defendants such as, e.g., Lazzara, Steele, Pizzo, and Polster Chappell.
44. Here public policy and the Federal Rules superseded any deceptively narrow technical
construction for the “local rules” for the unlawful purpose of concealing said Government
CORRUPTION.
45. Obviously, the job of said CORRUPT Judges and Honeywell was not to “protect” fellow
criminal Judges and cover up their crimes, but to uphold the law. Here, Honeywell has been
in CONTEMPT of the law and her oath of Government office. See, e.g., Chapters 712; 73,
74; 95, Fla. Stat. [Marketable Record Title Act; Eminent domain; Adverse Possession];
Florida & Federal Constitutional rights to own property, exclude Governments, and be free
from Governmental oppression, abuse, property seizure, and terror by criminal means of,
e.g., said sham “land” “parcels”, the charade of “condemnation-by-resolution (O.R.
7
569/875)”, fires and arson (2008), physical force, destruction of substantial property fencing,
and criminal trespass.
EMERGENCY OF RECORD EVASION OF PROSECUTION FOR CORRUPTION
46. Here absolutely NOTHING prohibited the Plaintiffs from prosecuting CORRUPT Defendant
Government Officials and stressing the gravity and EMERGENCY of the judicial
Defendants’ and Honeywell criminal Governmental acts. How dumb did crooked Honeywell
think the American people are? Spilling, e.g., oil, lies, fake titles, “frivolity” cover-up scams,
and CORRUPTION upon the American people in exchange for, e.g., bribes by “Big Oil” and
by criminal means of “Big Government” record Nazi tactics were of course alarming
EMERGENCIES. (Honeywell, you are drunk with perceived Governmental power!) Here,
the separation-of-powers-doctrine demanded judicial due process in a Court of law and
prohibited the record illegal seizure and writ of execution.
EMERGENCY OF JUDICIAL SODOMY BY CONTEMPTUOUS HONEYWELL
47. Here, record Governmental tales of fake “law”, “O.R. 569/875”, threats of physical force
against the Plaintiffs, Governmental terror, fires, and “land-seizure-by-fake-legislative-act”
were of course EMERGENCIES. Here, Plaintiffs defended against Honeywell’s judicial
sodomy. Just because CORRUPT Governmental Officials did not consider catastrophic oil
spills and Government CORRUPTION to be EMERGENCIES, Plaintiffs were entitled to
defend against said catastrophic EMERGENCIES of anarchy and lawlessness.
48. Defendant Government Officials’ bypassing and sidestepping of eminent domain and
condemnation due process by faking said “land” “parcels”, “Government ownership”, titles,
and conspiring to threaten physical force, “punishment”, coercion, extortion, sanctions were
of course EMERGENCIES of the first order. What else is there in a purportedly
democratic society?
49. Here, “frivolity”, “vexatiousness”, “lack of jurisdiction”, and facially forged “land”
“parcels”, and fake “resolution”, “O.R. 569/875” were not any “legal argument” and/or
“defense”, but a few of the outright desperate and stupid criminal means of CORRUPTING
and obstructing justice at the filthy hands of bungling CORRUPT Government idiots such as
here the Governmental Defendants and Charlene Edwards Honeywell.
50. Here, Honeywell did not “cut her CORRUPT crap” and crimes, but continually stacked on
more crap and CORRUPTION with the calculated intent to trick and deceive the American
people and defraud the Plaintiffs and the record owners of the other more than 1,200 platted
“land” “parcels”, PB 3 PG 25 (1912), out of their private property and private implied
“paper” street, alley, and riparian street easements …
8
Honey SHOW CAUSE!
Where’s the title evidence?
2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC
“07-44-21-01-00001.0000”
UP YOUR ASS …>>
6/19/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
TITLE VIII
LIMITATIONS
CHAPTER 95
95.011 Applicability.
95.14 Real property actions; limitation upon action founded upon title.
95.22 Limitation upon claims by remaining heirs, when deed made by one or more.
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 1/15
6/19/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
95.231 Limitations where deed or will on record.
95.35 Termination of contracts to purchase real estate in which there is no maturity date.
95.011 Applicability.--A civil action or proceeding, called "action" in this chapter, including one brought by the
state, a public officer, a political subdivision of the state, a municipality, a public corporation or body corporate,
or any agency or officer of any of them, or any other governmental authority, shall be barred unless begun within
the time prescribed in this chapter or, if a different time is prescribed elsewhere in these statutes, within the
time prescribed elsewhere.
95.03 Contracts shortening time.--Any provision in a contract fixing the period of time within which an action
arising out of the contract may be begun at a time less than that provided by the applicable statute of
limitations is void.
History .--ss. 1, 2, ch. 6465, 1913; RGS 2931; CGL 4651; s. 2, ch. 74-382.
95.031 Computation of time.--Except as provided in subsection (2) and in s. 95.051 and elsewhere in these
statutes, the time within which an action shall be begun under any statute of limitations runs from the time the
cause of action accrues.
(1) A cause of action accrues when the last element constituting the cause of action occurs. For the purposes of
this chapter, the last element constituting a cause of action on an obligation or liability founded on a negotiable
or nonnegotiable note payable on demand or after date with no specific maturity date specified in the note, and
the last element constituting a cause of action against any endorser, guarantor, or other person secondarily
liable on any such obligation or liability founded on any such note, is the first written demand for payment,
notwithstanding that the endorser, guarantor, or other person secondarily liable has executed a separate writing
evidencing such liability.
(2)(a) An action founded upon fraud under s. 95.11(3), including constructive fraud, must be begun within the
period prescribed in this chapter, with the period running from the time the facts giving rise to the cause of
action were discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence, instead of running
from any date prescribed elsewhere in s. 95.11(3), but in any event an action for fraud under s. 95.11(3) must
be begun within 12 years after the date of the commission of the alleged fraud, regardless of the date the fraud
was or should have been discovered.
(b) An action for products liability under s. 95.11(3) must be begun within the period prescribed in this chapter,
with the period running from the date that the facts giving rise to the cause of action were discovered, or should
have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence, rather than running from any other date prescribed
elsewhere in s. 95.11(3), except as provided within this subsection. Under no circumstances may a claimant
commence an action for products liability, including a wrongful death action or any other claim arising from
personal injury or property damage caused by a product, to recover for harm allegedly caused by a product with
an expected useful life of 10 years or less, if the harm was caused by exposure to or use of the product more
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 2/15
6/19/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
than 12 years after delivery of the product to its first purchaser or lessee who was not engaged in the business
of selling or leasing the product or of using the product as a component in the manufacture of another product.
All products, except those included within subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2., are conclusively presumed to
have an expected useful life of 10 years or less.
1. Aircraft used in commercial or contract carrying of passengers or freight, vessels of more than 100 gross
tons, railroad equipment used in commercial or contract carrying of passengers or freight, and improvements to
real property, including elevators and escalators, are not subject to the statute of repose provided within this
subsection.
2. Any product not listed in subparagraph 1., which the manufacturer specifically warranted, through express
representation or labeling, as having an expected useful life exceeding 10 years, has an expected useful life
commensurate with the time period indicated by the warranty or label. Under such circumstances, no action for
products liability may be brought after the expected useful life of the product, or more than 12 years after
delivery of the product to its first purchaser or lessee who was not engaged in the business of selling or leasing
the product or of using the product as a component in the manufacture of another product, whichever is later.
3. With regard to those products listed in subparagraph 1., except for escalators, elevators, and improvements
to real property, no action for products liability may be brought more than 20 years after delivery of the product
to its first purchaser or lessor who was not engaged in the business of selling or leasing the product or of using
the product as a component in the manufacture of another product. However, if the manufacturer specifically
warranted, through express representation or labeling, that the product has an expected useful life exceeding 20
years, the repose period shall be the time period warranted in representations or label.
(c) The repose period prescribed in paragraph (b) does not apply if the claimant was exposed to or used the
product within the repose period, but an injury caused by such exposure or use did not manifest itself until after
expiration of the repose period.
(d) The repose period prescribed within paragraph (b) is tolled for any period during which the manufacturer
through its officers, directors, partners, or managing agents had actual knowledge that the product was
defective in the manner alleged by the claimant and took affirmative steps to conceal the defect. Any claim of
concealment under this section shall be made with specificity and must be based upon substantial factual and
legal support. Maintaining the confidentiality of trade secrets does not constitute concealment under this
section.
History .--s. 3, ch. 74-382; s. 1, ch. 75-234; s. 2, ch. 77-54; ss. 1, 2, ch. 78-289; s. 1, ch. 78-418; s. 1, ch. 80-280; s. 44, ch. 81-259;
s. 10, ch. 85-80; s. 2, ch. 86-272; s. 2, ch. 90-105; s. 11, ch. 99-225; s. 20, ch. 2003-154.
95.04 Promise to pay barred debt.--An acknowledgment of, or promise to pay, a debt barred by a statute of
limitations must be in writing and signed by the person sought to be charged.
History .--s. 1, ch. 4375, 1895; GS 1717; RGS 2930; CGL 4650; s. 6, ch. 74-382.
(1) The running of the time under any statute of limitations except ss. 95.281, 95.35, and 95.36 is tolled by:
(b) Use by the person to be sued of a false name that is unknown to the person entitled to sue so that process
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 3/15
6/19/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
cannot be served on the person to be sued.
(c) Concealment in the state of the person to be sued so that process cannot be served on him or her.
(d) The adjudicated incapacity, before the cause of action accrued, of the person entitled to sue. In any event,
the action must be begun within 7 years after the act, event, or occurrence giving rise to the cause of action.
(e) Voluntary payments by the alleged father of the child in paternity actions during the time of the payments.
(f) The payment of any part of the principal or interest of any obligation or liability founded on a written
instrument.
(g) The pendency of any arbitral proceeding pertaining to a dispute that is the subject of the action.
(h) The minority or previously adjudicated incapacity of the person entitled to sue during any period of time in
which a parent, guardian, or guardian ad litem does not exist, has an interest adverse to the minor or
incapacitated person, or is adjudicated to be incapacitated to sue; except with respect to the statute of
limitations for a claim for medical malpractice as provided in s. 95.11. In any event, the action must be begun
within 7 years after the act, event, or occurrence giving rise to the cause of action.
Paragraphs (a)-(c) shall not apply if service of process or service by publication can be made in a manner
sufficient to confer jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. This section shall not be construed to limit the ability
of any person to initiate an action within 30 days of the lifting of an automatic stay issued in a bankruptcy
action as is provided in 11 U.S.C. s. 108(c).
(2) No disability or other reason shall toll the running of any statute of limitations except those specified in this
section, s. 95.091, the Florida Probate Code, or the Florida Guardianship Law.
History.--s. 16, Nov. 10, 1828; ss. 14, 17, ch. 1869, 1872; RS 1284, 1285; GS 1715, 1716; RGS 2928, 2929; CGL
4648, 4649; s. 4, ch. 74-382; s. 2, ch. 75-234; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 3, ch. 86-266; s. 1, ch. 89-26; s. 1, ch. 90-
105; s. 519, ch. 95-147.
(1)(a) Except in the case of taxes for which certificates have been sold, taxes enumerated in s. 72.011, or tax
liens issued under s. 196.161, any tax lien granted by law to the state or any of its political subdivisions, any
municipality, any public corporation or body politic, or any other entity having authority to levy and collect taxes
shall expire 5 years after the date the tax is assessed or becomes delinquent, whichever is later. No action may
be begun to collect any tax after the expiration of the lien securing the payment of the tax.
(b) Any tax lien granted by law to the state or any of its political subdivisions for any tax enumerated in s.
72.011 or any tax lien imposed under s. 196.161 shall expire 20 years after the last date the tax may be
assessed, after the tax becomes delinquent, or after the filing of a tax warrant, whichever is later. An action to
collect any tax enumerated in s. 72.011 may not be commenced after the expiration of the lien securing the
payment of the tax.
(2) If no lien to secure the payment of a tax is provided by law, no action may be begun to collect the tax after
5 years from the date the tax is assessed or becomes delinquent, whichever is later.
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 4/15
6/19/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
(3)(a) With the exception of taxes levied under chapter 198 and tax adjustments made pursuant to ss. 220.23
and 624.50921, the Department of Revenue may determine and assess the amount of any tax, penalty, or
interest due under any tax enumerated in s. 72.011 which it has authority to administer and the Department of
Business and Professional Regulation may determine and assess the amount of any tax, penalty, or interest due
under any tax enumerated in s. 72.011 which it has authority to administer:
1.a. For taxes due before July 1, 1999, within 5 years after the date the tax is due, any return with respect to
the tax is due, or such return is filed, whichever occurs later; and for taxes due on or after July 1, 1999, within 3
years after the date the tax is due, any return with respect to the tax is due, or such return is filed, whichever
occurs later;
b. Effective July 1, 2002, notwithstanding sub-subparagraph a., within 3 years after the date the tax is due, any
return with respect to the tax is due, or such return is filed, whichever occurs later;
2. For taxes due before July 1, 1999, within 6 years after the date the taxpayer either makes a substantial
underpayment of tax, or files a substantially incorrect return;
3. At any time while the right to a refund or credit of the tax is available to the taxpayer;
4. For taxes due before July 1, 1999, at any time after the taxpayer has filed a grossly false return;
5. At any time after the taxpayer has failed to make any required payment of the tax, has failed to file a
required return, or has filed a fraudulent return, except that for taxes due on or after July 1, 1999, the
limitation prescribed in subparagraph 1. applies if the taxpayer has disclosed in writing the tax liability to the
department before the department has contacted the taxpayer; or
6. In any case in which there has been a refund of tax erroneously made for any reason:
a. For refunds made before July 1, 1999, within 5 years after making such refund; and
b. For refunds made on or after July 1, 1999, within 3 years after making such refund,
or at any time after making such refund if it appears that any part of the refund was induced by fraud or the
misrepresentation of a material fact.
(b) For the purpose of this paragraph, a tax return filed before the last day prescribed by law, including any
extension thereof, shall be deemed to have been filed on such last day, and payments made prior to the last day
prescribed by law shall be deemed to have been paid on such last day.
(4) If administrative or judicial proceedings for review of the tax assessment or collection are initiated by a
taxpayer within the period of limitation prescribed in this section, the running of the period shall be tolled during
the pendency of the proceeding. Administrative proceedings shall include taxpayer protest proceedings initiated
under s. 213.21 and department rules.
History .--s. 20, ch. 74-382; s. 37, ch. 85-342; s. 49, ch. 87-6; ss. 29, 66, ch. 87-101; s. 4, ch. 88-119; s. 19, ch. 92-315; s. 25, ch.
94-353; s. 1, ch. 99-239; s. 10, ch. 2000-151; s. 2, ch. 2000-355; s. 1, ch. 2004-26; s. 1, ch. 2005-280.
95.10 Cause of action arising in another state.--When the cause of action arose in another state or territory
of the United States, or in a foreign country, and its laws forbid the maintenance of the action because of lapse
of time, no action shall be maintained in this state.
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 5/15
6/19/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
History .--s. 18, ch. 1869, 1872; RS 1295; GS 1726; RGS 2940; CGL 4664; s. 5, ch. 74-382.
95.11 Limitations other than for the recovery of real property.--Actions other than for recovery of real
property shall be commenced as follows:
(1) WITHIN TWENTY YEARS.--An action on a judgment or decree of a court of record in this state.
(a) An action on a judgment or decree of any court, not of record, of this state or any court of the United
States, any other state or territory in the United States, or a foreign country.
(b) A legal or equitable action on a contract, obligation, or liability founded on a written instrument, except for
an action to enforce a claim against a payment bond, which shall be governed by the applicable provisions of ss.
255.05(10) and 713.23(1)(e).
(b) An action relating to the determination of paternity, with the time running from the date the child reaches
the age of majority.
(c) An action founded on the design, planning, or construction of an improvement to real property, with the
time running from the date of actual possession by the owner, the date of the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy, the date of abandonment of construction if not completed, or the date of completion or termination
of the contract between the professional engineer, registered architect, or licensed contractor and his or her
employer, whichever date is latest; except that, when the action involves a latent defect, the time runs from the
time the defect is discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence. In any event,
the action must be commenced within 10 years after the date of actual possession by the owner, the date of the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the date of abandonment of construction if not completed, or the date of
completion or termination of the contract between the professional engineer, registered architect, or licensed
contractor and his or her employer, whichever date is latest.
(d) An action to recover public money or property held by a public officer or employee, or former public officer
or employee, and obtained during, or as a result of, his or her public office or employment.
(e) An action for injury to a person founded on the design, manufacture, distribution, or sale of personal
property that is not permanently incorporated in an improvement to real property, including fixtures.
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 6/15
6/19/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
(j) A legal or equitable action founded on fraud.
(k) A legal or equitable action on a contract, obligation, or liability not founded on a written instrument,
including an action for the sale and delivery of goods, wares, and merchandise, and on store accounts.
(m) An action for money paid to any governmental authority by mistake or inadvertence.
(o) An action for assault, battery, false arrest, malicious prosecution, malicious interference, false
imprisonment, or any other intentional tort, except as provided in subsections (4), (5), and (7).
(a) An action for professional malpractice, other than medical malpractice, whether founded on contract or tort;
provided that the period of limitations shall run from the time the cause of action is discovered or should have
been discovered with the exercise of due diligence. However, the limitation of actions herein for professional
malpractice shall be limited to persons in privity with the professional.
(b) An action for medical malpractice shall be commenced within 2 years from the time the incident giving rise
to the action occurred or within 2 years from the time the incident is discovered, or should have been discovered
with the exercise of due diligence; however, in no event shall the action be commenced later than 4 years from
the date of the incident or occurrence out of which the cause of action accrued, except that this 4-year period
shall not bar an action brought on behalf of a minor on or before the child's eighth birthday. An "action for
medical malpractice" is defined as a claim in tort or in contract for damages because of the death, injury, or
monetary loss to any person arising out of any medical, dental, or surgical diagnosis, treatment, or care by any
provider of health care. The limitation of actions within this subsection shall be limited to the health care
provider and persons in privity with the provider of health care. In those actions covered by this paragraph in
which it can be shown that fraud, concealment, or intentional misrepresentation of fact prevented the discovery
of the injury the period of limitations is extended forward 2 years from the time that the injury is discovered or
should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence, but in no event to exceed 7 years from the date
the incident giving rise to the injury occurred, except that this 7-year period shall not bar an action brought on
behalf of a minor on or before the child's eighth birthday. This paragraph shall not apply to actions for which ss.
766.301-766.316 provide the exclusive remedy.
(c) An action to recover wages or overtime or damages or penalties concerning payment of wages and overtime.
(e) An action founded upon a violation of any provision of chapter 517, with the period running from the time
the facts giving rise to the cause of action were discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of
due diligence, but not more than 5 years from the date such violation occurred.
(f) An action for personal injury caused by contact with or exposure to phenoxy herbicides while serving either
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 7/15
6/19/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
as a civilian or as a member of the Armed Forces of the United States during the period January 1, 1962,
through May 7, 1975; the period of limitations shall run from the time the cause of action is discovered or should
have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence.
(b) An action to enforce an equitable lien arising from the furnishing of labor, services, or material for the
improvement of real property.
(c) An action to enforce rights under the Uniform Commercial Code--Letters of Credit, chapter 675.
(d) An action against any guaranty association and its insured, with the period running from the date of the
deadline for filing claims in the order of liquidation.
(e) An action to enforce any claim against a payment bond on which the principal is a contractor, subcontractor,
or sub-subcontractor as defined in s. 713.01, for private work as well as public work, from the last furnishing of
labor, services, or materials or from the last furnishing of labor, services, or materials by the contractor if the
contractor is the principal on a bond on the same construction project, whichever is later.
(f) Except for actions described in subsection (8), a petition for extraordinary writ, other than a petition
challenging a criminal conviction, filed by or on behalf of a prisoner as defined in s. 57.085.
(g) Except for actions described in subsection (8), an action brought by or on behalf of a prisoner, as defined in
s. 57.085, relating to the conditions of the prisoner's confinement.
(6) LACHES.--Laches shall bar any action unless it is commenced within the time provided for legal actions
concerning the same subject matter regardless of lack of knowledge by the person sought to be held liable that
the person alleging liability would assert his or her rights and whether the person sought to be held liable is
injured or prejudiced by the delay. This subsection shall not affect application of laches at an earlier time in
accordance with law.
(7) FOR INTENTIONAL TORTS BASED ON ABUSE.--An action founded on alleged abuse, as defined in s. 39.01, s.
415.102, or s. 984.03, or incest, as defined in s. 826.04, may be commenced at any time within 7 years after
the age of majority, or within 4 years after the injured person leaves the dependency of the abuser, or within 4
years from the time of discovery by the injured party of both the injury and the causal relationship between the
injury and the abuse, whichever occurs later.
(8) WITHIN 30 DAYS FOR ACTIONS CHALLENGING CORRECTIONAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.--Any court
action challenging prisoner disciplinary proceedings conducted by the Department of Corrections pursuant to s.
944.28(2) must be commenced within 30 days after final disposition of the prisoner disciplinary proceedings
through the administrative grievance process under chapter 33, Florida Administrative Code. Any action
challenging prisoner disciplinary proceedings shall be barred by the court unless it is commenced within the time
period provided by this section.
History .--s. 10, ch. 1869, 1872; s. 1, ch. 3900, 1889; RS 1294; GS 1725; s. 10, ch. 7838, 1919; RGS 2939; CGL 4663; s. 1, ch. 21892,
1943; s. 7, ch. 24337, 1947; s. 24, ch. 57-1; s. 1, ch. 59-188; s. 1, ch. 67-284; s. 1, ch. 71-254; s. 30, ch. 73-333; s. 7, ch. 74-382; s.
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 8/15
6/19/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
7, ch. 75-9; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 11, ch. 78-435; s. 1, ch. 80-322; s. 34, ch. 83-38; s. 1, ch. 84-13; s. 1, ch. 85-63; s. 139, ch. 86-220;
s. 1, ch. 86-231; s. 1, ch. 86-272; s. 1, ch. 88-397; s. 20, ch. 90-109; s. 1, ch. 92-102; s. 520, ch. 95-147; s. 2, ch. 95-283; s. 4, ch.
96-106; s. 1, ch. 96-167; s. 15, ch. 98-280; s. 2, ch. 99-5; s. 12, ch. 99-137; s. 2, ch. 2001-211; s. 15, ch. 2005-230; s. 1, ch. 2005-
353; s. 1, ch. 2006-145.
95.111 Limitations after death of a person served by publication.--In all suits or actions when a decree pro
confesso or default was duly entered against a defendant on whom constructive service was duly obtained and
the defendant died after the entry of the decree pro confesso or default and before the entry of final decree or
judgment, and the death was not suggested to the court before the entry of the final decree or judgment, the
final decree or judgment shall be binding and conclusive against persons claiming under the deceased defendant
1 year after its date as if the death had been suggested and the suit or action revived or continued against the
proper parties.
History.--s. 1, ch. 11996, 1927; CGL 4947; s. 46, ch. 67-254; s. 21, ch. 74-382.
Note.--Former s. 62.08.
95.12 Real property actions.--No action to recover real property or its possession shall be maintained unless
the person seeking recovery or the person's ancestor, predecessor, or grantor was seized or possessed of the
property within 7 years before the commencement of the action.
History .--s. 2, ch. 1869, 1872; RS 1287; GS 1718; RGS 2932; CGL 4652; s. 8, ch. 74-382; s. 521, ch. 95-147.
95.13 Real property actions; possession by legal owner presumed.--In every action to recover real property
or its possession, the person establishing legal title to the property shall be presumed to have been possessed of
it within the time prescribed by law. The occupation of the property by any other person shall be in subordination
to the legal title unless the property was possessed adversely to the legal title for 7 years before the
commencement of the action.
History .--s. 4, ch. 1869, 1872; RS 1289; GS 1720; RGS 2934; CGL 4654; s. 9, ch. 74-382.
95.14 Real property actions; limitation upon action founded upon title.--No cause of action or defense to an
action founded on the title to real property, or to rents or service from it, shall be maintained unless:
(1) The person prosecuting the action or making the defense, or under whose title the action is prosecuted or
the defense is made, or the ancestor, predecessor, or grantor of the person, was seized or possessed of the real
property within 7 years before commencement of the action; or
(2) Title to the real property was derived from the United States or the state within 7 years before
commencement of the action. The time under this subsection shall not begin to run until the conveyance of the
title from the state or the United States.
History .--s. 3, ch. 1869, 1872; RS 1288; GS 1719; RGS 2933; CGL 4653; s. 10, ch. 74-382.
(1) When the occupant, or those under whom the occupant claims, entered into possession of real property
under a claim of title exclusive of any other right, founding the claim on a written instrument as being a
conveyance of the property, or on a decree or judgment, and has for 7 years been in continued possession of the
property included in the instrument, decree, or judgment, the property is held adversely. If the property is
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 9/15
6/19/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
divided into lots, the possession of one lot shall not be deemed a possession of any other lot of the same tract.
Adverse possession commencing after December 31, 1945, shall not be deemed adverse possession under color
of title until the instrument upon which the claim of title is founded is recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county where the property is located.
(2) For the purpose of this section, property is deemed possessed in any of the following cases:
(b) When it has been protected by a substantial enclosure. All land protected by the enclosure must be included
within the description of the property in the written instrument, judgment, or decree. If only a portion of the
land protected by the enclosure is included within the description of the property in the written instrument,
judgment, or decree, only that portion is deemed possessed.
(c) When, although not enclosed, it has been used for the supply of fuel or fencing timber for husbandry or for
the ordinary use of the occupant.
(d) When a known lot or single farm has been partly improved, the part that has not been cleared or enclosed
according to the usual custom of the county is to be considered as occupied for the same length of time as the
part improved or cultivated.
History .--s. 5, ch. 1869, 1872; RS 1290; GS 1721; RGS 2935; CGL 4655; s. 1, ch. 19253, 1939; s. 1, ch. 22897, 1945; ss. 11, 12, ch.
74-382; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 1, ch. 87-194; s. 522, ch. 95-147.
(1) When the occupant or those under whom the occupant claims have been in actual continued occupation of
real property for 7 years under a claim of title exclusive of any other right, but not founded on a written
instrument, judgment, or decree, the property actually occupied shall be held adversely if the person claiming
adverse possession made a return of the property by proper legal description to the property appraiser of the
county where it is located within 1 year after entering into possession and has subsequently paid all taxes and
matured installments of special improvement liens levied against the property by the state, county, and
municipality.
(2) For the purpose of this section, property shall be deemed to be possessed in the following cases only:
History .--s. 7, ch. 1869, 1872; s. 6, ch. 4055, 1891; RS 1291; GS 1722; RGS 2936; CGL 4656; s. 1, ch. 19254, 1939; ss. 13, 14, ch. 74-
382; s. 1, ch. 77-102; s. 523, ch. 95-147.
95.191 Limitations when tax deed holder in possession.--When the holder of a tax deed goes into actual
possession of the real property described in the tax deed, no action to recover possession of the property shall
be maintained by a former owner or other adverse claimant unless the action commenced is begun within 4 years
after the holder of the tax deed has gone into actual possession. When the real property is adversely possessed
by any person, no action shall be brought by the tax deed holder unless the action is begun within 4 years from
the date of the deed.
History.--s. 64, ch. 4322, 1895; GS 591; s. 61, ch. 5596, 1907; RGS 794; s. 2, ch. 12409, 1927; CGL 1020; ss.
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 10/15
6/19/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
1, 2, ch. 69-55; s. 1, ch. 72-268; s. 28, ch. 73-332; s. 1, ch. 77-174.
(1) When a tax deed has been issued to any person under s. 197.552 for 4 years, no action shall be brought by
the former owner of the property or any claimant under the former owner.
(2) When a tax deed is issued conveying or attempting to convey real property before a patent has been issued
thereon by the United States, or before a conveyance by the state, and thereafter a patent by the United States
or a conveyance by the state is issued to the person to whom the property was assessed or a claimant under him
or her, and the tax deed grantee or a claimant under the tax deed grantee has paid the taxes for 4 successive
years at any time after the issuance of the patent or conveyance, the patentee, or grantee, and any claimant
under the patentee or grantee shall be presumed to have abandoned the property and any right, title, and
interest in it. Upon such abandonment, the tax deed grantee and any claimant under the tax deed grantee is the
legal owner of the property described by the tax deed.
(3) This statute applies whether the tax deed grantee or any claimant under the tax deed grantee has been in
actual possession of the property described in the tax deed or not. If a tax deed has been issued to property in
the actual possession of the legal owner and the legal owner or any claimant under him or her continues in actual
possession 1 year after issuance of the tax deed and before an action to eject him or her is begun, subsections
(1) and (2) shall not apply.
History .--s. 27, ch. 73-332; s. 201, ch. 85-342; s. 524, ch. 95-147.
95.21 Adverse possession against lands purchased at sales made by executors.--The title of any purchaser,
or the purchaser's assigns, who has held possession for 3 years of any real or personal property purchased at a
sale made by an executor, administrator, or guardian shall not be questioned because of any irregularity in the
conveyance or any insufficiency or irregularity in the court proceedings authorizing the sale, whether
jurisdictional or not, nor shall it be questioned because the sale is made without court approval or confirmation
or under a will or codicil. The title shall not be questioned at any time by anyone who has received the money to
which he or she was entitled from the sale. This section shall not bar an action for fraud or an action against the
executor, administrator, or guardian for personal liability to any heir, distributee, or ward.
History .--s. 1, ch. 3134, 1879; RS 1293; GS 1724; RGS 2938; CGL 4658; s. 1, ch. 20954, 1941; s. 3, ch. 22897, 1945; s. 15, ch. 74-
382; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 525, ch. 95-147.
95.22 Limitation upon claims by remaining heirs, when deed made by one or more.--
(1) When any person owning real property or any interest in it dies and a conveyance is made by one or more of
the person's heirs or devisees, purporting to convey, either singly or in the aggregate, the entire interest of the
decedent in the property or any part of it, then no person shall claim or recover the property conveyed after 7
years from the date of recording the conveyance in the county where the property is located.
(2) This section shall not apply to persons whose names appear of record as devisees under the will or as the
heirs in proceedings brought to determine their identity in the office of the judge administering the estate of
decedent.
History .--s. 1, ch. 10168, 1925; CGL 4659; s. 14, ch. 20954, 1941; s. 15, ch. 73-334; s. 16, ch. 74-382; s. 526, ch. 95-147.
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 11/15
6/19/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
(1) Five years after the recording of a deed or the probate of a will purporting to convey real property, from
which it appears that the person owning the property attempted to convey or devise it, the deed or will shall be
held to authorize the conveyance or devise of, or to convey or devise, the fee simple title to the real property,
or any interest in it, of the person signing the instrument, as if there had been no lack of seal or seals, witness
or witnesses, defect in acknowledgment or relinquishment of dower, in the absence of fraud, adverse
possession, or pending litigation. The instrument shall be admissible in evidence.
(2) After 20 years from the recording of a deed or the probate of a will purporting to convey real property, no
person shall assert any claim to the property against the claimants under the deed or will or their successors in
title.
History.--ss. 1, 2, ch. 10171, 1925; CGL 4660, 4661; ss. 1-4, ch. 21790, 1943; s. 35, ch. 69-216; s. 17, ch. 74-
382.
(1) The lien of a mortgage or other instrument encumbering real property, herein called mortgage, except those
specified in subsection (5), shall terminate after the expiration of the following periods of time:
(a) If the final maturity of an obligation secured by a mortgage is ascertainable from the record of it, 5 years
after the date of maturity.
(b) If the final maturity of an obligation secured by a mortgage is not ascertainable from the record of it, 20
years after the date of the mortgage, unless prior to such time the holder of the mortgage:
1. Rerecords the mortgage and includes a copy of the obligation secured by the mortgage so that the final
maturity is ascertainable; or
2. Records a copy of the obligation secured by the mortgage from which copy the final maturity is ascertainable
and by affidavit identifies the mortgage by its official recording data and certifies that the obligation is the
obligation described in the mortgage;
in which case the lien shall terminate 5 years after the date of maturity.
(c) For all obligations, including taxes, paid by the mortgagee, 5 years from the date of payment. A mortgagee
shall have no right of subrogation to the lien of the state for taxes paid by the mortgagee to protect the security
of his or her mortgage unless he or she obtains an assignment from the state of the tax certificate. Redemption
of the tax certificate shall be insufficient for subrogation.
(2) If an extension agreement executed by the mortgagee or the mortgagee's successors in interest and the
mortgagor or the mortgagor's successors in interest is recorded, the time shall be extended as follows:
(a) If the final maturity of the obligation, as extended, secured by the mortgage is ascertainable from the
record of the extension agreement, 5 years after the date of final maturity of the obligation as extended.
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 12/15
6/19/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
(b) If the final maturity of the obligation, as extended, secured by the mortgage is not ascertainable from the
record of the extension agreement, 20 years after the date of the extension agreement, unless prior to such
time the holder of the mortgage:
1. Rerecords the mortgage and includes a copy of the obligation, as extended, secured by the mortgage so that
the final maturity is ascertainable; or
2. Records a copy of the obligation, as extended, secured by the mortgage from which copy the final maturity is
ascertainable and by affidavit identifies the mortgage by its official recording data and certifies that the
obligation is the obligation described in the mortgage;
in which case the lien shall terminate 5 years after the date of maturity as extended.
(3) If the record of the mortgage shows that it secures an obligation payable in installments and the maturity
date of the final installment of the obligation is ascertainable from the record of the mortgage, the time shall
run from the maturity date of the final installment.
(4) The time shall be extended only as provided in this law and shall not be extended by any other agreement,
nonresidence, disability, part payment, operation of law, or any other method.
(5) This section does not apply to mortgages or deeds of trust executed by any railroad or other public utility
corporation or by any receiver or trustee of them or to liens or notices of liens under chapter 713.
History.--ss. 1-7, ch. 22560, 1945; s. 1, ch. 29977, 1955; s. 18, ch. 74-382; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 4, ch. 83-267;
s. 3, ch. 83-311; s. 527, ch. 95-147.
95.35 Termination of contracts to purchase real estate in which there is no maturity date.--Whenever:
(1) Any person contracts by written agreement to purchase real property before July 1, 1972, and the final
maturity of the obligation is not ascertainable from the record of the contract, or accepts an assignment of such
a contract, but
(2) Even though the existence of the contract or assignment appears from the record of the instrument or by
reference to it in another recorded instrument, such person has not recorded a deed to the property or a
judgment recognizing the person's rights to the property and is not in actual possession of the property as
defined in s. 95.16, then
the person and those claiming under the person shall have no further interest in the property by virtue of the
contract or assignment. In these circumstances, the record of the contract or assignment, or other record
reference to either, shall no longer constitute actual or constructive notice to any person acquiring any interest
in the property.
History .--s. 1, ch. 24292, 1947; s. 19, ch. 74-382; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 528, ch. 95-147.
(1) Dedications of land to municipalities or counties for park purposes that have been recorded for 30 years
shall not be challenged by the dedicator or any other person when the land has been put to some municipal or
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 13/15
6/19/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
county use during the period of dedication or has been conveyed by the municipality or county by a deed
recorded for 7 years, and all rights of the dedicator and all other persons in the land are terminated.
(2) When dedications of land to municipalities or counties for park purposes have been put to some municipal or
county use, the dedication was accepted by written instrument or by actions constituting acceptance, and the
municipality or county vacates the park and the ordinance or resolution vacating it recites that the municipality
or county is surrendering all of its title to the dedicated land, the fee simple title shall not be challenged in any
action by any person, except in cases of fraud, and the rights of all persons except the owner of the fee simple
title are terminated.
(3) Any funds accruing to a municipality or county from the sale of dedicated lands pursuant to this section shall
be used for park purposes.
History .--s. 1, ch. 25503, 1949; s. 1, ch. 70-337; s. 24, ch. 74-382; s. 1, ch. 89-28.
(1) When a road, constructed by a county, a municipality, or the Department of Transportation, has been
maintained or repaired continuously and uninterruptedly for 4 years by the county, municipality, or the
Department of Transportation, jointly or severally, the road shall be deemed to be dedicated to the public to the
extent in width that has been actually maintained for the prescribed period, whether or not the road has been
formally established as a public highway. The dedication shall vest all right, title, easement, and appurtenances
in and to the road in:
(c) The state, if it is a road in the State Highway System or State Park Road System,
whether or not there is a record of a conveyance, dedication, or appropriation to the public use.
(2) In those instances where a road has been constructed by a nongovernmental entity, or where the road was
not constructed by the entity currently maintaining or repairing it, or where it cannot be determined who
constructed the road, and when such road has been regularly maintained or repaired for the immediate past 7
years by a county, a municipality, or the Department of Transportation, whether jointly or severally, such road
shall be deemed to be dedicated to the public to the extent of the width that actually has been maintained or
repaired for the prescribed period, whether or not the road has been formally established as a public highway.
This subsection shall not apply to an electric utility, as defined in s. 366.02(2). The dedication shall vest all
rights, title, easement, and appurtenances in and to the road in:
(c) The state, if it is a road in the State Highway System or State Park Road System,
whether or not there is a record of conveyance, dedication, or appropriation to the public use.
(3) The filing of a map in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county where the road is located
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 14/15
6/19/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
showing the lands and reciting on it that the road has vested in the state, a county, or a municipality in
accordance with subsection (1) or subsection (2) or by any other means of acquisition, duly certified by:
(a) The secretary of the Department of Transportation, or the secretary's designee, if the road is a road in the
State Highway System or State Park Road System;
(b) The chair and clerk of the board of county commissioners of the county, if the road is a county road; or
(c) The mayor and clerk of the municipality, if the road is a municipal road or street,
shall be prima facie evidence of ownership of the land by the state, county, or municipality, as the case may be.
(4) Any person, firm, corporation, or entity having or claiming any interest in and to any of the property
affected by subsection (2) shall have and is hereby allowed a period of 1 year after the effective date of this
subsection, or a period of 7 years after the initial date of regular maintenance or repair of the road, whichever
period is greater, to file a claim in equity or with a court of law against the particular governing authority
assuming jurisdiction over such property to cause a cessation of the maintenance and occupation of the
property. Such timely filed and adjudicated claim shall prevent the dedication of the road to the public pursuant
to subsection (2).
(5) This section does not apply to any facility of an electric utility which is located on property otherwise subject
to this section.
History.--s. 110, ch. 29965, 1955; ss. 23, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 23, ch. 74-382; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 3, ch. 88-168;
s. 529, ch. 95-147; s. 54, ch. 2003-286; s. 14, ch. 2004-366.
Note.--Former s. 337.31.
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 15/15
6/19/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm… 1/2
6/19/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
TITLE XXXIV ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO Ch.561-569
TITLE XXXV AGRICULTURE, HORTICULTURE, AND ANIMAL INDUSTRY Ch.570-604
TITLE XXXVI BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS Ch.606-623
TITLE XXXVII INSURANCE Ch.624-651
TITLE XXXVIIIBANKS AND BANKING Ch.655-667
TITLE XXXIX COMMERCIAL RELATIONS Ch.668-688
TITLE XL REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY Ch.689-723
TITLE XLI STATUTE OF FRAUDS, FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS, AND GENERAL Ch.725-727
ASSIGNMENTS
TITLE XLII ESTATES AND TRUSTS Ch.731-739
TITLE XLIII DOMESTIC RELATIONS Ch.741-753
TITLE XLIV CIVIL RIGHTS Ch.760-765
TITLE XLV TORTS Ch.766-774
TITLE XLVI CRIMES Ch.775-896
TITLE XLVII CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRECTIONS Ch.900-985
TITLE XLVIII K-20 EDUCATION CODE Ch.1000-1013
www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm… 2/2
6/19/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
CHAPTER 74
74.011 Scope.
www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm… 1/1
JUDICIAL GANG RAPE
What do
“frivolity” & “f……”
have in common ?
Find out on
June 22, 2010
10 : 00 anal. mission.
Beyond Perverted
“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
3 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2007cv00228 04/10/2007 440 05/06/2008
4 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2009cv00341 05/26/2009 440 06/04/2009
5 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2008cv00364 05/07/2008 440 07/25/2008
6 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2009cv00602 09/11/2009 440 11/05/2009
7 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2009cv00791 12/04/2009 440
8 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2008cv00899 12/05/2008 440 02/04/2009
5
TRANSCRIPT OF 11/17/2009 ROGER ALEJO PERJURY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYp-Mb242D0
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
These search terms are highlighted: charlene edwards honeywell Text-only version
Chambers Staff:
…googleusercontent.com/search?q=ca… 1/2
COURTROOM 6-B
NO TITLE NEEDED …
JUST PAY JUDGE AT THE DOOR
“PRE-FILING INVASION”:
Just follow the “Local Rules” …
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.
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 SHOW CAUSE!
What “resolution”?
What “condemnation”?
2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC
“O.R. 569/875”
UP YOUR ASS …
WATER BOARDING
The Honey way
TERROR & TORTURE TOOLS
Terror
Sanctions
“Frivolity”
Punishment
“Vexatiousness”
DOC. # 186
DOC. # 338
VEXATIOUS
SILENCING PLAINTIFFS
FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE
U.S. PUNISHMENT & ‘SANCTIONS’
Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
(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.
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
6/18/2010 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule…
(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).
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.
(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.
Prev | Next
www.law.cornell.edu/…/Rule11.htm 2/2
6/18/2010 FindACase™ | Prescott v. Alejo
Prescott v. Alejo
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
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
6/18/2010 FindACase™ | Prescott v. Alejo
after opposing counsel has been given a twenty-one (21) day "safe harbor" period in which to correct or withdraw the offending
document. Id.(citing DeShiro v. Branch, 183 F.R.D. 281 (M.D.Fla.1998) (explaining in detail the "safe harbor" period). Here, the USAO
Defendant's included the Rule 11 Motion with their Motion to Strike and they fail to comply with the "safety harbor" provision. Thus
the Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions is due to be denied at this time. However, the Court cautions the Plaintiffs that future filings
containing immaterial and scandalous matters may result in sanctions being imposed.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
The Defendants, A. Brian Albritton, David P. Rhodes, Sean P. Flynn, and E. Kenneth Stegeby's (USAO Defendants) Motion to Strike
Plaintiffs' Notices (Doc. # 74, 75, and 76) and for an Award of Monetary Sanctions (Doc. #80) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
(1) The Defendants, A. Brian Albritton, David P. Rhodes, Sean P. Flynn, and E. Kenneth Stegeby's (USAO Defendants) Motion to
Strike Plaintiffs' Notices is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to STRIKE (Docs. # 74, 75, and 76).
(2) The Defendants, A. Brian Albritton, David P. Rhodes, Sean P. Flynn, and E. Kenneth Stegeby's (USAO Defendants) Motion for Rule
11 Sanctions is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 25th day of March, 2010.
20100325
…findacase.com/…/wfrmDocViewer.aspx 2/2
FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE
SECRETS OF U.S. JUDICIAL TERROR
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!
Browse Next
(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;
(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.
…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
Plaintiffs,
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
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
3. The Court will also hear argument on the USAO Defendants' Motion for Pre-filing
COPIES TO:
COUNSEL OF RECORD AND UNREPRESENTED PARTIES, IF ANY
-2-
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
JUNE 22 SHOW OF
GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION
Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Judicial Crime Victim
Dr. Jorg Busse, Governmental Crime Victim
http://www.scribd.com/JUDICIAL%20FRAUD
[ 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
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
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.
TRIM (proposed tax) Notices are available for the following tax years:
[ 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 ]
leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?… 2/3
6/17/2010 FindACase™ | Prescott v. Alejo
Prescott v. Alejo
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
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
6/17/2010 FindACase™ | Prescott v. Alejo
after opposing counsel has been given a twenty-one (21) day "safe harbor" period in which to correct or withdraw the offending
document. Id.(citing DeShiro v. Branch, 183 F.R.D. 281 (M.D.Fla.1998) (explaining in detail the "safe harbor" period). Here, the USAO
Defendant's included the Rule 11 Motion with their Motion to Strike and they fail to comply with the "safety harbor" provision. Thus
the Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions is due to be denied at this time. However, the Court cautions the Plaintiffs that future filings
containing immaterial and scandalous matters may result in sanctions being imposed.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
The Defendants, A. Brian Albritton, David P. Rhodes, Sean P. Flynn, and E. Kenneth Stegeby's (USAO Defendants) Motion to Strike
Plaintiffs' Notices (Doc. # 74, 75, and 76) and for an Award of Monetary Sanctions (Doc. #80) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
(1) The Defendants, A. Brian Albritton, David P. Rhodes, Sean P. Flynn, and E. Kenneth Stegeby's (USAO Defendants) Motion to
Strike Plaintiffs' Notices is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to STRIKE (Docs. # 74, 75, and 76).
(2) The Defendants, A. Brian Albritton, David P. Rhodes, Sean P. Flynn, and E. Kenneth Stegeby's (USAO Defendants) Motion for Rule
11 Sanctions is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 25th day of March, 2010.
20100325
…findacase.com/…/wfrmDocViewer.aspx 2/2
6/17/2010 Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin…
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
SOH Difference 0
Taxing Authorities
Sales / Transactions
Sale Price Date OR Number Verifier Type Description Vacant/Improved
leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?… 1/2
6/17/2010 Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin…
Elevation Information
Flood Insurance [ FIRM Look-up ]
Storm Surge Category
Rate Code Community Panel Version Date
Appraisal Details
Land
Land Tracts
Use Code Use Code Description Number of Units Unit of Measure
TRIM (proposed tax) Notices are available for the following tax years
[ 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 ]
Next Lower Parcel Number Next Higher Parcel Number New Query Search Results Home
leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?… 2/2
CERTIFIED DELIVERY
17
Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads Page 1 of 6
These search terms are highlighted: united states v 16.33 acres Text-only version
David B. Higginbottom
City Attorney
Frostproof
QUESTION:
SUMMARY:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie... 4/30/2009
Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads Page 2 of 6
Your letter advises that the Frostproof City Council has adopted a
'motion' which reads as follows:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie... 4/30/2009
Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads Page 3 of 6
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie... 4/30/2009
Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads Page 4 of 6
Miami v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 84 So. 726 (Fla. 1920);
Roe v. Kendrick, 200 So. 394 (Fla. 1941). An offer of dedication
to the public may be accomplished by making and recording a plat
and selling lots with reference thereto. See, e.g., Florida East
Coast Railway Co. v. Worley, 38 So. 618 (Fla. 1905); Miami Beach
v. Undercliff Realty and Investment Co., 21 So.2d 783 (Fla.
1945); and see, s. 177.081, F. S.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie... 4/30/2009
Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads Page 5 of 6
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):
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie... 4/30/2009
Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads Page 6 of 6
where the abutter's fee or title does not extend to the middle of
the street, but only to its boundary, certain property rights
which the public generally do not possess. They are the right of
egress and ingress from and to the lot by the way of the street,
and the right of light and air which the street affords. Viewing
property to be not the mere corporal subject of ownership, but as
being all the rights legally incidental to the ownership of such
subject, which rights are generally said to be those of user,
exclusion, and disposition, or the right to use, possess, and
dispose of, . . . we are satisfied that the rights just mentioned
are within the meaning of the word 'property,' as it is used in
this constitutional provision. [10 So. 457, 459 (1891)
(construing s. 12, Declar. Rts., State Const. 1885, in part a
predecessor of s. 6, Art. X, State Const.).]
Prepared by:
Patricia R. Gleason
Assistant Attorney General
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie... 4/30/2009
GOVERNMENTAL TRICKERY & DECEPTION:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
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.
________________________
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
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
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
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
III. CONCLUSION
complaint, denying the Appellants’ motion for recusal, and denying the Appellees’
motion f or sanctions.
AFFIRMED.
12
6/16/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
CHAPTER 712
712.01 Definitions.
(1) The term "person" as used herein denotes singular or plural, natural or corporate, private or governmental,
including the state and any political subdivision or agency thereof as the context for the use thereof requires or
denotes and including any homeowners' association.
(2) "Root of title" means any title transaction purporting to create or transfer the estate claimed by any person
and which is the last title transaction to have been recorded at least 30 years prior to the time when
marketability is being determined. The effective date of the root of title is the date on which it was recorded.
(3) "Title transaction" means any recorded instrument or court proceeding which affects title to any estate or
interest in land and which describes the land sufficiently to identify its location and boundaries.
(4) The term "homeowners' association" means a homeowners' association as defined in s. 720.301, or an
association of parcel owners which is authorized to enforce use restrictions that are imposed on the parcels.
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 1/6
6/16/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
(5) The term "parcel" means real property which is used for residential purposes that is subject to exclusive
ownership and which is subject to any covenant or restriction of a homeowners' association.
(6) The term "covenant or restriction" means any agreement or limitation contained in a document recorded in
the public records of the county in which a parcel is located which subjects the parcel to any use restriction which
may be enforced by a homeowners' association or which authorizes a homeowners' association to impose a
charge or assessment against the parcel or the owner of the parcel or which may be enforced by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection pursuant to chapter 376 or chapter 403.
History .--s. 1, ch. 63-133; s. 11, ch. 65-420; s. 1, ch. 81-242; s. 1, ch. 97-202; s. 56, ch. 2000-258; s. 16, ch. 2000-317.
712.02 Marketable record title; suspension of applicability.--Any person having the legal capacity to own
land in this state, who, alone or together with her or his predecessors in title, has been vested with any estate
in land of record for 30 years or more, shall have a marketable record title to such estate in said land, which
shall be free and clear of all claims except the matters set forth as exceptions to marketability in s. 712.03. A
person shall have a marketable record title when the public records disclosed a record title transaction affecting
the title to the land which has been of record for not less than 30 years purporting to create such estate either
in:
(2) Some other person from whom, by one or more title transactions, such estate has passed to the person
claiming such estate, with nothing appearing of record, in either case, purporting to divest such claimant of the
estate claimed.
History .--s. 2, ch. 63-133; s. 1, ch. 85-83; s. 63, ch. 87-226; s. 797, ch. 97-102.
712.03 Exceptions to marketability.--Such marketable record title shall not affect or extinguish the following
rights:
(1) Estates or interests, easements and use restrictions disclosed by and defects inherent in the muniments of
title on which said estate is based beginning with the root of title; provided, however, that a general reference
in any of such muniments to easements, use restrictions or other interests created prior to the root of title shall
not be sufficient to preserve them unless specific identification by reference to book and page of record or by
name of recorded plat be made therein to a recorded title transaction which imposed, transferred or continued
such easement, use restrictions or other interests; subject, however, to the provisions of subsection (5).
(2) Estates, interests, claims, or charges, or any covenant or restriction, preserved by the filing of a proper
notice in accordance with the provisions hereof.
(3) Rights of any person in possession of the lands, so long as such person is in such possession.
(4) Estates, interests, claims, or charges arising out of a title transaction which has been recorded subsequent
to the effective date of the root of title.
(5) Recorded or unrecorded easements or rights, interest or servitude in the nature of easements, rights-of-way
and terminal facilities, including those of a public utility or of a governmental agency, so long as the same are
used and the use of any part thereof shall except from the operation hereof the right to the entire use thereof.
No notice need be filed in order to preserve the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust or any supplement thereto
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 2/6
6/16/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
encumbering any such recorded or unrecorded easements, or rights, interest, or servitude in the nature of
easements, rights-of-way, and terminal facilities. However, nothing herein shall be construed as preserving to
the mortgagee or grantee of any such mortgage or deed of trust or any supplement thereto any greater rights
than the rights of the mortgagor or grantor.
(6) Rights of any person in whose name the land is assessed on the county tax rolls for such period of time as
the land is so assessed and which rights are preserved for a period of 3 years after the land is last assessed in
such person's name.
(7) State title to lands beneath navigable waters acquired by virtue of sovereignty.
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.
(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:
(c) One of a class, but whose identity cannot be established or is uncertain at the time of filing such notice of
claim for record.
Such notice may be filed by a homeowners' association only if the preservation of such covenant or restriction or
portion of such covenant or restriction is approved by at least two-thirds of the members of the board of
directors of an incorporated homeowners' association at a meeting for which a notice, stating the meeting's time
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 3/6
6/16/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
and place and containing the statement of marketable title action described in s. 712.06(1)(b), was mailed or
hand delivered to members of the homeowners' association not less than 7 days prior to such meeting.
(2) It shall not be necessary for the owner of the marketable record title, as herein defined, to file a notice to
protect his or her marketable record title.
History .--s. 5, ch. 63-133; s. 798, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 97-202; s. 1, ch. 2003-79.
(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:
The [name of homeowners' association] (the "Association") has taken action to ensure that the [name of
declaration, covenant, or restriction], recorded in Official Records Book _____, Page _____, of the public
records of _____ County, Florida, as may be amended from time to time, currently burdening the property of
each and every member of the Association, retains its status as the source of marketable title with regard to the
transfer of a member's residence. To this end, the Association shall cause the notice required by chapter 712,
Florida Statutes, to be recorded in the public records of _____ County, Florida. Copies of this notice and its
attachments are available through the Association pursuant to the Association's governing documents regarding
official records of the Association.
(c) A full and complete description of all land affected by such notice, which description shall be set forth in
particular terms and not by general reference, but if said claim is founded upon a recorded instrument or a
covenant or a restriction, then the description in such notice may be the same as that contained in such
recorded instrument or covenant or restriction, provided the same shall be sufficient to identify the property.
(d) A statement of the claim showing the nature, description, and extent of such claim or, in the case of a
covenant or restriction, a copy of the covenant or restriction, except that it shall not be necessary to show the
amount of any claim for money or the terms of payment.
(e) If such claim is based upon an instrument of record or a recorded covenant or restriction, such instrument of
record or recorded covenant or restriction shall be deemed sufficiently described to identify the same if the
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 4/6
6/16/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
notice includes a reference to the book and page in which the same is recorded.
(f) Such notice shall be acknowledged in the same manner as deeds are acknowledged for record.
(2) Such notice shall be filed with the clerk of the circuit court of the county or counties where the land
described therein is situated, together with a true copy thereof. The clerk shall enter, record, and index said
notice in the same manner that deeds are entered, recorded, and indexed, as though the claimant were the
grantee in the deed and the purported owner were the grantor in a deed, and the clerk shall charge the same
fees for recording thereof as are charged for recording deeds. In those counties where the circuit court clerk
maintains a tract index, such notice shall also be indexed therein.
(3) The clerk of the circuit court shall, upon such filing, mail by registered or certified mail to the purported
owner of said property, as stated in such notice, a copy thereof and shall enter on the original, before recording
the same, a certificate showing such mailing. For preparing the certificate, the claimant shall pay to the clerk
the service charge as prescribed in s. 28.24(8) and the necessary costs of mailing, in addition to the recording
charges as prescribed in s. 28.24(12). If the notice names purported owners having more than one address, the
person filing the same shall furnish a true copy for each of the several addresses stated, and the clerk shall send
one such copy to the purported owners named at each respective address. Such certificate shall be sufficient if
the same reads substantially as follows:
I hereby certify that I did on this _____, mail by registered (or certified) mail a copy of the foregoing notice to
each of the following at the address stated:
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.
712.08 Filing false claim.--No person shall use the privilege of filing notices hereunder for the purpose of
asserting false or fictitious claims to land; and in any action relating thereto if the court shall find that any
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 5/6
6/16/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
person has filed a false or fictitious claim, the court may award to the prevailing party all costs incurred by her
or him in such action, including a reasonable attorney's fee, and in addition thereto may award to the prevailing
party all damages that she or he may have sustained as a result of the filing of such notice of claim.
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.
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.
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.
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.
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 6/6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JORG BUSSE
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
___________________________________
I.
The Resolution stated that the Second Revised Plat of the Cayo
Resolution stated that Lee County claimed the lands to the east and
lands and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of the public
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
rights to Lots 38A and 41A which they denied to plaintiff, thereby
-3-
Count 2 alleges an unconstitutional temporary taking under
was outside of Lee County’s home rule powers, and therefore the
his accretions onto the riparian gulf front Lot 15A without
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
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
-4-
Count 4 alleges a conspiracy to fabricate, fraud and
admitted that Lee County was not empowered to adopt the Resolution.
and park for the benefit of the State and County. (Id. at ¶24.)
received purchase offers far below market value and the County
-5-
Count 5 alleges a conspiracy to materially misrepresent and
defraud. Plaintiff asserts that Lee County does not hold title to
revenues which could have been received from the private accretions
based on the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983), 28 U.S.C. § 1343,
4 and 5 of the United States Constitution (Doc. #288, ¶7), the 1899
the 1862 Homestead Act (id. at ¶9), the federal common law Doctrine
-6-
III.
The Court will first address the federal claims, since these
Complaint liberally.
York City, 438 U.S. 104, 121-23 (1978). The Third Amended
Takings Clause.
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
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
Assoc., 512 So. 2d at 936; Lee County v. Kiesel, 705 So. 2d 1013,
New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe County, 95 F.3d 1084, 1088 (11th
U.S. 172, 195 (1972). “Williamson County boils down to the rule
-8-
takings dispute because a federal constitutional claim is not ripe
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
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
-9-
Since there is no showing of federal jurisdiction as to the Takings
prejudice.
Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610, 612-14
only fundamental rights, that is, those rights which are implicit
Village, LLC v. Mountain Brook City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir.
arbitrary and irrational does not bring the matter within the
dismissed.
-10-
C. Procedural Due Process Claim:
process claim. For example, plaintiff asserts that Lee County had
subdivision (Doc. #288, ¶¶ 13, 18, 23), that the Resolution was
and recording requirements (id. at ¶¶ 17, 23), and that the taking
Zipperer v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995).
County, Fla., 338 F.3d 1288, 1294 (11th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff
asserted that the Resolution effecting the taking of more than 200
-11-
merely because state mandated procedures were not followed. First
20 F.3d 419, 422 (11th Cir. 1994). In this regard, some of the
remedy, Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378, 382 (11th Cir. 1996), and as
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
federal jurisdiction.
courts are empowered to hear only cases for which there has been a
Indemnity Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2000). Therefore
-13-
courts for certain civil rights actions, but does not itself create
Fed. Appx. 885, 892 (11th Cir. 2007). Since none of plaintiff’s
federal civil rights claims are properly before the court, § 1343
claims.
-14-
Appraisal Institute. Parrish v. Nikolits, 86 F.3d 1088, 1091 n.2
are all state law claims. Read liberally, the Third Amended
claims. Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (11th
prejudice. Crosby v. Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339, 1352 (11th Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, it is now
-15-
ORDERED:
paragraph 5 below.
5 below.
May, 2008.
-16-
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
JORG BUSSE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
Plaintiffs,
versus
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
(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
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
I. BACKGROUND
(“the Board”) adopted a resolution claiming certain lands in the Cayo Costa
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
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,
Protection.1 Id. In his third amended complaint, Busse made six claims:
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
failure to state a claim. R10-285, 291, 303, 304. The district court granted these
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
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
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
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
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
available state procedures to obtain just compensation” before bringing his federal
In this case, Busse’s claim would not be ripe because he has not shown that
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
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 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
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
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,
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
Busse also argues that his equal protection rights were violated because the
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.
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
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
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
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
III. CONCLUSION
Busse contends that the district court incorrectly dismissed his federal claims
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
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
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.
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
These search terms are highlighted: united states v 16.33 acres Text-only version
41 F.3d 1490
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO., Absolute, Inc., Marion H.
Cooper,
for Estate of Alfred R. Cooper, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
PALM BEACH COUNTY, Carol A. Roberts, Chair of Board of
County Commissioners of Palm Beach County,
Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 93-4104, 93-4449.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Jan. 10, 1995.
Patti A. Velasquez, Asst. County Atty., West Palm Beach, FL, Robert S. Hackleman, Ft.
Lauderdale, FL, for appellants in No. 93-4104.
Sharon M. Pitts, Patti A. Velasquez, Asst. County Atty., West Palm Beach, FL, Robert S.
Hackleman, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for appellants in No. 93-4449.
Jeffrey A. Aman, Smith, Williams & Bowles, P.A., Tampa, FL, Joan E. O'Dell, Gregory L.
Williams, Smith, Williams & Bowles, P.A., Washington, DC, for appellees in both cases.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before HATCHETT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, MELTON* , Senior District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
1 After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants
raise several arguments, hoping mainly to void concessions made in district court in
the joint pretrial stipulation. The district court is affirmed.
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
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
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009
41 F.3d 1490 Page 3 of 4
district court undercuts its claim of frivolousness. We also note that the pretrial
stipulation plainly reads that "[n]either party contests subject matter ...
jurisdiction."4 If the County actually thought plaintiffs' claims were frivolous, it
should not have so willingly conceded facts giving rise to jurisdiction in the
stipulation. Because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs'
federal claims, the court did not err by including plaintiffs' state claims for
declaratory relief--pendent jurisdiction was proper.
8 The County also argues that the district court erred by interpreting the stipulation
as a "winner-take-all" proposition. That is, the County says it reserved a right to
make several arguments, after the jury's fact finding, by referring to "undisposed of
motions" in the stipulation. We disagree. The parties agreed that the jury's
conclusion would "be outcome determinative of all of the federal and state claims."
The County does not argue that it was unfairly duped into signing the stipulation.
And, we owe great deference to the trial judge's interpretation and enforcement of
pretrial stipulations. See Morrison v. Genuine Parts Co., 828 F.2d 708 (11th
Cir.1987); Hill v. Nelson, 676 F.2d 1371, 1373 n. 8 (11th Cir.1982). In the light of the
stipulations, the district court did not err when it refused to entertain the County's
post-verdict motions.
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
"[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
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009
41 F.3d 1490 Page 4 of 4
the stipulated facts give rise to jurisdiction. For example, the County argues
frivolousness by pointing to purported transfers--by plaintiffs' predecessors in interest--
that the County says are null and void. But the County stipulated to plaintiffs' chain of
title; and, the County agreed that it was undisputed that "plaintiffs are the successors in
interest to the Palm Beach Farms Company." The record was set in district court
CC∅ | TRANSFORMED BY PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009
6/13/2010 Civil - Small Claims Detail
Plaintiffs
Defendants
http://www.leeclerk.org/Civil_Detail.as… 2/22
6/13/2010 Civil - Small Claims Detail
Lee County Florida Attorney:
Service Events
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
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
http://www.leeclerk.org/Civil_Detail.as… 3/22
6/13/2010 Civil - Small Claims Detail
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
8/16/2006 Petition
8/29/2006 Correspondence
3/21/2007 Response
3/23/2007 Correspondence
3/28/2007 Correspondence
Summons (20 day) Issued Lee County Florida Board of County Commissioners (Served
3/30/2007
04/04/2007)
3/30/2007 Affidavit
5/14/2007 Minutes
5/16/2007 Correspondence
6/5/2007 Request
6/5/2007 Request
6/5/2007 Request
9/17/2007 Notice
10/22/2007 Minutes
12/12/2007 Order
12/13/2007 Order
12/26/2007 Notice
1/2/2008 Notice
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
http://www.leeclerk.org/Civil_Detail.as… 6/22
6/13/2010 Civil - Small Claims Detail
3/18/2008 Subpoena Served
3/20/2008 Minutes
3/21/2008 Memorandum
4/3/2008 Objection
4/7/2008 Minutes
4/14/2008 Interrogatories
4/14/2008 Interrogatories
4/14/2008 Objection
4/14/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Russell, Reagan Kathleen (Served 04/23/2008)
4/21/2008 Minutes
4/24/2008 Interrogatories
4/24/2008 Correspondence
4/24/2008 Interrogatories
4/24/2008 Interrogatories
http://www.leeclerk.org/Civil_Detail.as… 8/22
6/13/2010 Civil - Small Claims Detail
4/24/2008 Notice of Case Management Conference
4/24/2008 Correspondence
4/25/2008 Interrogatories
4/25/2008 Interrogatories
4/28/2008 Response
4/29/2008 Memorandum
5/2/2008 Disclosure
5/2/2008 Disclosure
5/2/2008 Memorandum
5/5/2008 Notice
5/5/2008 Order
5/5/2008 Correspondence
5/6/2008 Memorandum
5/12/2008 Memorandum
5/12/2008 Minutes
http://www.leeclerk.org/Civil_Detail.as… 9/22
6/13/2010 Civil - Small Claims Detail
6/4/2008 Order
6/6/2008 Notice
6/6/2008 Notice
6/16/2008 Minutes
6/20/2008 Order
Order from DCA directing appellant to file an amended notice of appeal within 15 days or
6/26/2008
appeal could be dismissed
http://www.leeclerk.org/Civil_Detail.as… 10/22
6/13/2010 Civil - Small Claims Detail
6/30/2008 Order from DCA appellant has 15 days to show why appeal should not be dismissed
7/17/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Peterson, Jack Neil (Served 07/24/2008)
7/17/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Collins, Donna Marie (Served 07/24/2008)
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
http://www.leeclerk.org/Civil_Detail.as… 11/22
6/13/2010 Civil - Small Claims Detail
8/27/2008 Motion to Quash
8/29/2008 Notice of unavailability and letter of unavailability to counsel for defendant appellee
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 Interrogatories
9/3/2008 Interrogatories
9/3/2008 Interrogatories
9/4/2008 Interrogatories
9/4/2008 Interrogatories
9/4/2008 Interrogatories
http://www.leeclerk.org/Civil_Detail.as… 12/22
6/13/2010 Civil - Small Claims Detail
9/4/2008 Interrogatories
9/4/2008 Interrogatories
9/4/2008 Interrogatories
9/4/2008 Interrogatories
9/4/2008 Notice
9/4/2008 Interrogatories
9/5/2008 Notice
9/5/2008 Notice
9/5/2008 Notice
9/5/2008 Interrogatories
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
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
9/12/2008 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
9/22/2008 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
Motion to Strike defendant property appraisers amended motion to dismiss or strike and
10/1/2008
notice of federal jurisdiction to the Chief Judge
http://www.leeclerk.org/Civil_Detail.as… 14/22
6/13/2010 Civil - Small Claims Detail
10/2/2008 Notice
10/2/2008 Notice
10/2/2008 Notice
10/2/2008 Notice
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
the 11th Circuit and the United States District Court
Notice of Federal Jurisdiction in this Case and filing of Motion in the US Court of Appeals for
10/20/2008
the 11th Circuit and the United States District Court
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
the 11th Circuit and the United States District Court
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
http://www.leeclerk.org/Civil_Detail.as… 15/22
6/13/2010 Civil - Small Claims Detail
10/24/2008
County Sheriff and Emergency Motion to DIrect the Clerk to Correct the Docket
10/24/2008 Motion for the Recusal of Judge Lynn Gerald Jr and Notice to the Chief Judge
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
the 11th Circuit and the United States District Court
Notice of Federal Jurisdiction in this Case and Filing of Motion in the US Court of Appeals for
10/24/2008
the 11th Circuit and the United States District Court
Notice of Federal Jurisdiction in the case and Filing of Motion in the US Court of Appeals for
10/24/2008
the 11th Circuit and the United States District Court
Notice of Federal Jurisdiction in this case and Filing of Motion in the US Court of Appeals for
10/24/2008
the 11th Circuit and the United States District Court
10/24/2008 Motion for the Recusal of Judge Lynn Gerald Jr and Notice to the Chief Judge
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
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 Complaint of Judicial Misconduct # 110890108 pursuant to 28USC 351 in the
11/5/2008
United States Court of Appeals
Response to defendants appellees Lee County Motion for Protective Order after Illegal Seizure
11/6/2008
of Appellants Priviate Property in Private Cayo Casta
11/10/2008 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
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 11-8-08 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
11/14/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Gerald, Lynn, Jr. (Served 11/18/2008)
http://www.leeclerk.org/Civil_Detail.as… 17/22
6/13/2010 Civil - Small Claims Detail
11/17/2008 Notice of Filing requests for Admissions upon Defendant Donna marie Collins
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 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
11/25/2008 Memorandum regarding evidentiary hearing as to defendant John E. Stelles Fraudulent Claim
11/25/2008 Motion for injuction and sanctions against corrupt defendant Lynn Gerald Jr
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
Order from DCA appellants emergency motion for injunction and sanctions against corrupt
12/8/2008
defendant Lynn Gerald jr is denied
http://www.leeclerk.org/Civil_Detail.as… 19/22
6/13/2010 Civil - Small Claims Detail
12/8/2008 Motion to Dismiss
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
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 Notice
http://www.leeclerk.org/Civil_Detail.as… 20/22
11/2/2009 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
CLOSED
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
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 1/29
11/2/2009 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
Defendant
Board of Trustees of the Internal represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell
Improvement Trust Fund (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Department of Environmental represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell
Protection (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Division of Recreation and Parks represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Dept. Of Agriculture
Defendant
Division of Forestry
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 2/29
11/2/2009 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
Defendant
Lee County, Florida represented by Jack Neil Peterson
Lee County Attorney's Office
2115 Second St
PO Box 398
Ft Myers , FL 33902
239/335-2236
Fax: 239/335-2118
Email: peterj@leegov.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Lee County Fire Department
Defendant
Lynn Gerald, Jr. represented by Sabrina E. Redd
Office of the Attorney General
Suite 1100
501 E Kennedy Blvd
Tampa , FL 33602
813/233-2880
Fax: 813/233-2886
Email: sabrina.redd@myfloridalegal.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
John E. Steele represented by M. Kent Anderson
US Attorney's Office - TNE
Suite 301
1110 Market St
Chattanooga , TN 37402
423/752-5140
Email: Kent.Anderson@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean Flynn
US Attorney's Office - FLM*
Suite 3200
400 N Tampa St
Tampa , FL 33602
813/274-6335
Email: sean.flynn2@usdoj.gov
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 3/29
11/2/2009 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
TERMINATED: 12/24/2008
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Sheri Polster Chappell represented by M. Kent Anderson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean Flynn
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 12/24/2008
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Kenneth M. Wilkinson represented by John Joseph Renner
Lee County Attorney's Office
2115 Second St.
P.O. Box 398
Ft. Myers , FL 33901
239/533-2236
Fax: 239/485-2118
Email: rennerjj@leegov.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sherri L. Johnson
Dent & Johnson, Chartered
3415 Magic Oak Lane
Sarasota , FL 34232
941/952-1070
Email: sjohnson@dentjohnson.com
TERMINATED: 08/05/2009
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 4/29
11/2/2009 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
TERMINATED: 08/05/2009
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Sherri L. Johnson represented by Sherri L. Johnson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Jim Dent
Defendant
Jack N. Peterson
Defendant
Donna Marie Collins
Defendant
David M. Owen
Defendant
Charlie Green
Defendant
Reagan K. Russell represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Tom Beason represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 5/29
11/2/2009 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
Harold G. Vielhauer represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
L. Kathy Funchess represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Karen L.W. Forsyth
Defendant
Mike Scott
Defendant
Charles J. Ferrante
Defendant
Susan Bailey
Defendant
Charles B. "Barry& Stevens represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Chad Lach represented by Reagan Kathleen Russell
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Steven W. Carta represented by Steven Carta
Henderson & Carta
1619 Jackson St
PO Box 1906
Ft Myers , FL 33902-1906
239/332-3366
Fax: 239/332-7082
Email: scarta117@aol.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 6/29
11/2/2009 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Barry R. Hillmyer
Defendant
Toby Prince Brigham
Defendant
S. William Moore
Defendant
Brigham & Moore, LLP
Defendant
Menelaos Papalas
Defendant
Rex Shevitski
Defendant
Circuit Judge Anderson represented by M. Kent Anderson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Circuit Judge Carnes represented by M. Kent Anderson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Circuit Judge Barkett represented by M. Kent Anderson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Clerk of Lee County Clerks represented by Steven Carta
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 7/29
11/2/2009 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
Lee County Attorney
Defendant
W. W. Wilhelm
Defendant
J. Broomfield
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 14/29
11/2/2009 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
appear before United States District Judge Richard A. Lazzara on January 30, 2009, at
9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 15B of the Sam Gibbons United States Courthouse, 801 North
Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33602 to show why they should not be adjudged in
contempt for the reasons certified in the Order. The Clerk is directed to mail certified
copies of the order to the Plaintiffs at the addresses listed. See Order for details. Signed
by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 1/9/2009. (JMF) (Entered: 01/09/2009)
01/09/2009 77 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to declare O.R. 569/875
invalid and confiscatory under Florida and Federal Law, MOTION for panel review by
Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered:
01/09/2009)
01/09/2009 78 EMERGENCY MOTION for panel review by the District Court under Fed. R. Civ. P.
72 and notice of criminal misconduct and corruption by Mark Allan Pizzo under color of
unauthorized forged and invalid O.R. 569/875 by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/09/2009)
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
Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/13/2009)
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)
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 15/29
11/2/2009 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
01/12/2009 89 MOTION for panel review of order by defendant corrupt Mark Allan Pizzo and
memorandum by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1)
Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 01/13/2009)
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
Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered:
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.
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/16/2009)
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.
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/16/2009)
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.
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 01/16/2009)
01/16/2009 100 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically judicial notice of the 3/31/08 response to
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 16/29
11/2/2009 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
Plaintiffs' request for admissions by Defendant Appellees State of Florida by Jorg Busse,
Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
01/16/2009 101 MOTION for panel review of Defendant Richard A. Lazzara's arbitrary and abusive
orders and memorandum by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered:
01/20/2009)
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
Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
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
Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
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,
Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
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
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 17/29
11/2/2009 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
to review, Order on motion for protective order as overbroad under Procup, P.
Appellants' motion to strike unauthorized forged O.R. 569/875 which was confiscatory,
unenforceably vague and invalid and memorandum by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
01/16/2009 113 AFFIDAVIT of Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorg Busse in support of judgment
on the merits and/or as a matter of law in favor of Plaintiff Appellants, and in support of
recusal of Def. M.A. Pizzo and R.A. Lazzara by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
(drn) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
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
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 18/29
11/2/2009 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
order entered January 20, 2009, at docket 115. Plaintiff's Motion to Cancel Hearing
(Dkt. 117) is likewise denied. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara for Unassigned
Judge on 1/21/2009. (CCB) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
01/21/2009 124 MOTION for recusal of defendant R.A. Lazzara, MOTION for miscellaneous relief,
specifically cancellation of hearing based on concocted litigious history and unauthorized
threats of Rule 11 sanctions by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered:
01/22/2009)
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,
Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
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,
Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
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,
Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 19/29
11/2/2009 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
01/23/2009 135 SUPPLEMENTAL notice re 65 Notice of interlocutory appeal and memorandum by
Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
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,
Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/27/2009)
01/27/2009 140 MOTION for sanctions against defendant Sherri L. Johnson by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/27/2009)
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
Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/27/2009)
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
Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
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
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 20/29
11/2/2009 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
arbitrary and capricious fabrication of "passed resolution" filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
01/29/2009 151 NOTICE of service of complaints upon def. corrupt Judges Richard A. Lazzara and
Mark A. Pizzo (Case No: 2:09-cv-41-FtM) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
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)
Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/02/2009)
02/02/2009 153 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin enforcement of
invalid O.R. 569/875 and for recusal and removal of case fixing defendant Judges and
Plaintiffs' objections to illegal case fixing, MOTION for recusal by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 02/02/2009)
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.
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 21/29
11/2/2009 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
02/02/2009 158 MOTION for recusal of defendant corrupt Judges Lazzara and Pizzo by Jorg Busse,
Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
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.
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
02/02/2009 160 OBJECTIONS to criminal "case fixing" and def. Pizzo's "report" re 121 REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION re 2 Complaint filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
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.
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
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)
Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
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
Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
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
Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered:
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 171 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid.
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 22/29
11/2/2009 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
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 177 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid.
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
02/02/2009 178 MOTION for recusal of defendant corrupt Judges Lazzara & Pizzo by Jorg Busse,
Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
02/02/2009 179 OBJECTIONS filed by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott (Attachments: #(1)
Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
02/02/2009 180 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid.
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
02/02/2009 181 OBJECTIONS to criminal "case fixing" and re 121 REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION re 2 Complaint filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
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)
Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
02/03/2009 183 OBJECTION re 121 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 2 Complaint filed by
Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered:
02/03/2009)
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)
Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 23/29
11/2/2009 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
02/04/2009 186 ORDER ATTACHED adopting 121 Report and Recommendations, dismissing case
with prejudice and directing clerk to enter judgment for Defendants, to terminate
pending motions/deadlines, and to not accept pleadings as directed by the attached
order. Signed by Judge Lazzara on 2/4/2009. (CCB) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
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)
02/11/2009 TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of
notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable
to USCA re 157 Notice of appeal. (kma) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
02/11/2009 TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of
notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable
to USCA re 159 Notice of appeal. (kma) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
02/11/2009 TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of
notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable
to USCA re 162 Notice of appeal. (kma) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
02/11/2009 TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of
notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable
to USCA re 171 Notice of appeal. (kma) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
02/11/2009 TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of
notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable
to USCA re 177 Notice of appeal. (kma) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
02/11/2009 TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of
notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable
to USCA re 180 Notice of appeal. (kma) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
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-
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 24/29
11/2/2009 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
10464D. (kma) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
02/13/2009 188 TRANSCRIPT information form filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott before
Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell for pretrial proceeding held 11/07/09 in 2:07-
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)
02/27/2009 196 TRANSCRIPT information form filed by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott for
proceedings held on 01/08/09 before Judge Mark A. Pizzo and 01/30/09 before Judge
Richard A. Lazzara re 157 Notice of appeal. USCA number: 09-10745D. (kma)
(Entered: 03/04/2009)
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
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 25/29
11/2/2009 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
of appeal (CS) (Entered: 03/04/2009)
03/04/2009 194 NOTICE to counsel of filing of OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT. The parties have seven (7)
calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this
transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically
available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. Any party needing a
copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the
court reporter or view the document at the clerk's office public terminal. Court Reporter:
Claudia Spangler-Fry (CS) (Entered: 03/04/2009)
03/04/2009 197 TRANSCRIPT information form filed by Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott for
proceedings held on 01/08/09 before Judge Mark A. Pizzo and 01/30/09 before Judge
Richard A. Lazzara re 162 Notice of appeal. USCA number: 09-10747D. (kma)
(Entered: 03/04/2009)
03/04/2009 USCA appeal fees received $ 455 receipt number F012106 re 157 Notice of appeal
filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott (kma) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
03/04/2009 USCA appeal fees received $ 455 receipt number F012107 re 159 Notice of appeal
filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott (kma) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
03/05/2009 TRANSMITTAL to USCA forwarding certified copy of updated docket sheet
indicating payment of appellate fees re 157 Notice of appeal USCA number: 09-10745.
(kma) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
03/05/2009 TRANSMITTAL to USCA forwarding certified copy of updated docket sheet
indicating payment of appellate fees re 159 Notice of appeal USCA number: 09-10746.
(kma) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
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)
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 26/29
11/2/2009 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
04/01/2009 202 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) dismissing, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction as to
65 Notice of interlocutory appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. EOD:
03/30/09; USCA number: 09-10464-D. (slp) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
04/02/2009 203 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) dismissing, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction as to
157 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. EOD: 03/31/09;
USCA number: 09-10745-D. (slp) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
04/02/2009 204 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) dismissing, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction as to
159 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. EOD: 03/31/09;
USCA number: 09-10746-D. (slp) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
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)
07/01/2009 TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of
notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable
to USCA re 207 Notice of appeal. (slp) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
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)
07/08/2009 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 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)
08/07/2009 211 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 187 Judgment by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 08/10/2009)
08/07/2009 212 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 187 Judgment by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 08/10/2009)
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 27/29
11/2/2009 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
08/10/2009 213 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 187 Judgment by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 08/11/2009)
08/10/2009 214 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 187 Judgment by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 08/11/2009)
08/12/2009 215 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 187 Judgment by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
08/12/2009 216 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 187 Judgment by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits(drn) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
08/18/2009 TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of
notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable
to USCA re 211 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form
forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under
Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
08/18/2009 TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of
notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable
to USCA re 212 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form
forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under
Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
08/18/2009 TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of
notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable
to USCA re 213 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form
forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under
Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
08/18/2009 TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of
notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable
to USCA re 214 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form
forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under
Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
08/18/2009 TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of
notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable
to USCA re 215 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form
forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under
Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
08/18/2009 TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of
notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable
to USCA re 216 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form
forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under
Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
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
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 28/29
6/16/2010 Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin…
[ 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
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
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.
TRIM (proposed tax) Notices are available for the following tax years:
[ 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 ]
leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?… 2/3
6/16/2010 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule…
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:
(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.
(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:
www.law.cornell.edu/…/Rule44.htm 1/2
6/16/2010 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule…
authenticated under Rule 44(a)(1). For foreign records, the statement must
comply with (a)(2)(C)(ii).
Prev | Next
www.law.cornell.edu/…/Rule44.htm 2/2
FIXER’S FRAUD FOILED
BY Fed.R.Civ.P. 44
“12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”, and
“07-44-21-01-00001.0000”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYp-Mb242D0
FIXER:
Honey well just pay me and I’ll fix it
These search terms are highlighted: charlene edwards honeywell Text-only version
Chambers Staff:
…googleusercontent.com/search?q=ca… 1/2
FIXER:
Honey well just pay me and I’ll fix it
Just call me …
• “VEXATIOUS”
• VANISHING COMPLAINTS
• “FRIVOLOUS” …
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.
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…
[ 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
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
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.
TRIM (proposed tax) Notices are available for the following tax years:
[ 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 ]
leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?… 2/3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
[“TRANSFERRED” FROM: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION]
____________________________________________________________________________/
“RECKLESS …
4
CRIMINAL EMERGENCIES IN HONEYWELL’S CORRUPTED COURT
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 …
legally un-described “land” “parcels” such as here, e.g., “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-
5. Fraudulent judicial pretenses that the adjudication of fundamental property rights and
“law” outside a court of law were of course EMERGENCIES and threats to America’s
6. Letting anyone scribble a “claim” on a piece of paper for the CRIMINAL purposes 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”
2
10. Deliberate and premeditated judicial perversions of Florida’s Uniform Title Standards,
Florida’s Marketable Record Title Act, Eminent Domain Statutes, and Constitution
“O.R. 569/875”
12. Here, no intelligent, honest, and competent judge in Honeywell’s shoes could have
13. Here, no competent, intelligent, and honest judge in Honeywell’s shoes could have
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
1 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2009cv00041 01/23/2009 890 02/11/2009
2 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2010cv00089 02/09/2010 440
3 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2007cv00228 04/10/2007 440 05/06/2008
4 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2009cv00341 05/26/2009 440 06/04/2009
5 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2008cv00364 05/07/2008 440 07/25/2008
6 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2009cv00602 09/11/2009 440 11/05/2009
7 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2009cv00791 12/04/2009 440
8 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2008cv00899 12/05/2008 440 02/04/2009
5
Charlene Edwards Honeywell
FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE
U.S. PUNISHMENT & ‘SANCTIONS’
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!
[ 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
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 #)
ELEVATION INFORMATION
FLOOD INSURANCE (FIRM LOOK-UP)
STORM SURGE CATEGORY
RATE CODE COMMUNITY PANEL VERSION DATE
leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?… 2/3
6/16/2010 Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin…
1 125124 0192 F 8/28/2008
Please contact Lee County DCD at 239-533-8597 option 4 to verify your flood zone status.
TRIM (proposed tax) Notices are available for the following tax years:
[ 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 ]
leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?… 3/3
Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads Page 1 of 6
These search terms are highlighted: united states v 16.33 acres Text-only version
David B. Higginbottom
City Attorney
Frostproof
QUESTION:
SUMMARY:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie... 4/30/2009
Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads Page 2 of 6
Your letter advises that the Frostproof City Council has adopted a
'motion' which reads as follows:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie... 4/30/2009
Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads Page 3 of 6
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie... 4/30/2009
Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads Page 4 of 6
Miami v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 84 So. 726 (Fla. 1920);
Roe v. Kendrick, 200 So. 394 (Fla. 1941). An offer of dedication
to the public may be accomplished by making and recording a plat
and selling lots with reference thereto. See, e.g., Florida East
Coast Railway Co. v. Worley, 38 So. 618 (Fla. 1905); Miami Beach
v. Undercliff Realty and Investment Co., 21 So.2d 783 (Fla.
1945); and see, s. 177.081, F. S.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie... 4/30/2009
Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads Page 5 of 6
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):
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie... 4/30/2009
Advisory Legal Opinion - Municipalities, vacation of streets and roads Page 6 of 6
where the abutter's fee or title does not extend to the middle of
the street, but only to its boundary, certain property rights
which the public generally do not possess. They are the right of
egress and ingress from and to the lot by the way of the street,
and the right of light and air which the street affords. Viewing
property to be not the mere corporal subject of ownership, but as
being all the rights legally incidental to the ownership of such
subject, which rights are generally said to be those of user,
exclusion, and disposition, or the right to use, possess, and
dispose of, . . . we are satisfied that the rights just mentioned
are within the meaning of the word 'property,' as it is used in
this constitutional provision. [10 So. 457, 459 (1891)
(construing s. 12, Declar. Rts., State Const. 1885, in part a
predecessor of s. 6, Art. X, State Const.).]
Prepared by:
Patricia R. Gleason
Assistant Attorney General
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4-iypP7OQ6MJ:myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printvie... 4/30/2009
JUDICIAL GANG RAPE
ON JUNE 22, 2010,
10 : 00 a.m.
Browse Next
(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;
(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.
…justia.com/…/24-2.1.1.2.4.2.107.70.… 1/1