BOOK OF JUDICIAL CORRUPTION & CONSPIRATORIAL CONCEALMENT - THE O.R. 569/875 CASES, FindACase™

CHRONOLOGY
OF
CORRUPTION
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
7 BUSSE, JORG flmdce 2:2009cv00791 12/04/2009 440
2006
CORRUPTION COMPLAINT IN STATE COURT
2. In 2006, the Plaintiff(s) asserted and conclusively evidenced the prima facie criminality and
nullity of forged “Lee County” “land” “claim” “O.R. 569/875” in Lee County Circuit Court.
See www.LeeClerk.org; www.LeePA.org; www.PACER.gov.
3. The State record patently clearly evidenced that said facially forged Governmental “claim”
“O.R. 569/875” never legally existed, was never legally recorded, and that no “land” title
ever transferred to Lee County, Florida. See 2006 State Case 06-CA-003185:
http://www.leeclerk.org/Civil_Detail.asp?CsNum=06-CA-
003185&CsType=CA%20Declaratory%20Judgment
For the criminal purposes of concealment and obstruction of justice and prosecution,
Government Officials fraudulently alleged “frivolity” of the record evidence of said
Government corruption and extortion scheme “O.R. 569/875”. Defendants and Government
Officials knew that Lee County defrauded and deliberately deprived the Plaintiff landowners
under criminal pretenses that said null and void “claim” “O.R. 569/875” was a purported
“resolution” and/or law …
5
6/15/2010 FindACase™ | Busse v. Lee County
Buy Document Now
[U] Busse v. Lee County
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Docket Number available at www.versuslaw.com

Citation Number available at www.versuslaw.com
March 5, 2009
JORG BUSSE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, KENNETH M. ROESCH, JR., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,

v.
LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, BOARD OF LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, STATE OF
FLORIDA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, KENNETH M. WILKINSON, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D. C. Docket No. 07-00228-CV-FTM-29-SPC.
Per curiam.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
Non-Argument Calendar
Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
Jorg Busse, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's dismissal of his third amended complaint in his civil rights action against
various state and local governmental entities and officials in Florida, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. The district court
dismissed Busse's federal claims because he had either failed to adequately plead them or had not established federal subject
matter jurisdiction. In the absence of any viable federal claims, the court declined to retain jurisdiction over Busse's state law claims.
Based on our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we AFFIRM the dismissal.
I. BACKGROUND
On 10 December 1969, the Board of Commissioners of Lee County, Florida ("the Board") adopted a resolution claiming certain lands
in the Cayo Costa subdivision as public lands ("the Resolution"). R10-288 at 9. In the Resolution, the Board identified the relevant
lands by reference to a map of the subdivision which showed that, along with a number of designated land parcels in the
subdivision, there were also a number of unidentified areas on the eastern and western edges of the subdivision. Id. The Board laid
claim to all of these non-designated parcels "and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of the public for public purposes." Id.
Busse asserts that he currently owns Lot 15A of the Cayo Costa subdivision along with all accretions thereto and that the
Resolution violates his property rights under both federal and state law. Id. at 1. To vindicate his rights, he brought suit in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against an array of state and local parties, including the Lee County
Board of Commissioners, the county property appraiser, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.*fn1 Id. In his third
amended complaint, Busse made six claims: unconstitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; unconstitutional temporary
takings; trespass; conspiracy, fraud, and malfeasance regarding the designation of certain unplatted lots; conspiracy to materially
misrepresent and defraud; and oppression or slander of title. Id. at 3--8. He asserted that an array of statutory and constitutional
provisions supported the exercise of jurisdiction: two civil rights acts - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343; Articles Three and
Four and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution;
the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act (33 U.S.C. § 403); the 1862 Homestead Act, the federal common law doctrine of
accretion and erosion; the Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, and 12 U.S.C. §§
3331--3351; and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201). Id. at 2--3.
The defendants subsequently filed separate motions to dismiss Busse's third amended complaint, primarily based on lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. R10-285, 291, 303, 304. The district court granted these motions and dismissed
Busse's third amended complaint. R11-338. In so doing, the court first found that Busse had made out a valid takings claim but that
it had no jurisdiction over that claim since he had failed to show that he had pursued all available state remedies before bringing
suit. Id. at 7--10. The court then concluded that Busse had not made out a valid claim under any of his other alleged federal bases.
…findacase.com/…/wfrmDocViewer.aspx 1/4
Id. at 10--15. Given that the court did not have jurisdiction over any of Busse's federal claims, it chose to dismiss his state law
claims. Id. at 15. Busse now appeals the dismissal of all of the claims in his third amended complaint.
II. DISCUSSION
We review de novo a district court's legal conclusions regarding subject matter jurisdiction, including the determinations that a claim
is not ripe or that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over it. See Lanfear v. Home Depot, Inc., 536 F.3d 1217, 1221 (11th Cir.
2008); Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1204 (11th Cir. 2006). We also "review a grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim de novo, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff."
Gandara v. Bennett, 528 F.3d 823, 826 (quotation marks and citation omitted). The decision not to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over a state law claim is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., 468 F.3d 733, 738
(11th Cir. 2006). Since Busse is proceeding pro se, we construe his pleadings liberally. See Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100
(11th Cir. 2008).
On appeal, Busse argues that the district court erred in dismissing his federal claims. He asserts that his Takings Clause claim was
ripe for review and that he had properly stated claims involving violations of his procedural due process, equal protection, and
substantive due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.*fn2 Additionally, we read Busse's brief liberally to
argue that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. We
address these arguments in turn.
A. Takings Clause Claims
Busse contends that the Resolution constituted an unconstitutional taking of his property rights in Lot 15A. The Fifth Amendment
prohibits the taking of private property "for public use, without just compensation" - a condition made applicable to the States by
the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. Const. amend. V; Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617, 121 S.Ct. 2448, 2457 (2001)
(noting that the Fourteenth Amendment made the Takings Clause applicable to the States). A plaintiff can bring a federal takings
claim only if he can show that he did not receive just compensation in return for the taking of his property. See Eide v. Sarasota
County, 908 F.2d 716, 720 (11th Cir. 1990). As a result, for a takings claim to be ripe, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he
unsuccessfully "pursued the available state procedures to obtain just compensation" before bringing his federal claim. Id. at 721.
In this case, Busse's claim would not be ripe because he has not shown that he attempted to obtain or secure relief under
established Florida procedures. Since at least 1990, Florida courts have recognized that an inverse-condemnation remedy is
available for alleged takings violations. See Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412, 1417 (11th Cir. 1994). Busse contends that his
claim would still be ripe since that remedy was unavailable in 1969 when the Board of Commissioners enacted the Resolution.
However, our past circuit precedent dictates "that a Florida property owner must pursue a reverse condemnation remedy in state
court before his federal takings claim will be ripe, even where that remedy was recognized after the alleged taking occurred." Id.
Accordingly, regardless of whether Busse has a valid property interest in Lot 15A, because he has not alleged that he sought and
was denied compensation through available state procedures, his Takings Clause claim would not be ripe for review. We thus
conclude that the district court did not err in finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Busse's Takings Clause claim.
B. Procedural Due Process Claims
Busse asserts that his procedural due process rights were violated since Lee County had no authority to take his land nor
jurisdiction over it and because the Resolution was improperly executed. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall
"deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. A plaintiff could make a
procedural due process claim by challenging the procedures by which a regulation was adopted, including the failure to provide pre-
deprivation notice and hearing. See Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610, 615 (11th Cir. 1997); Zipperer v. City
of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995). For such a claim to be valid, however, the plaintiff would have to allege that state
law failed to provide him with an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378, 382 (11th Cir. 1996) (per
curiam).
Based on these standards, we find that Busse has failed to state a valid procedural due process claim. Florida provides him an
adequate post-deprivation remedy, inverse condemnation, and he makes no argument that this procedure is inadequate. Even if it
was inadequate, though, Busse still would not have a valid procedural due process claim. The Resolution constituted a legislative
act since it was a general provision that affected a large number of persons and area, 200 acres in all, rather than being specifically
targeted at Busse or his immediate neighbors. See 75 Acres, LLC v. Miami-Dade County, Fla., 338 F.3d 1288, 1294 (11th Cir. 2003).
Since alleged problems with the adoption of such acts cannot serve as the basis for a procedural due process claim, Busse could not
cite them as the basis for his claim. See id. (noting that "if government action is viewed as legislative in nature, property owners
generally are not entitled to procedural due process"). Accordingly, we find that the district court did not err in dismissing Busse's
procedural due process claims.
C. Equal Protection Claims
Busse also argues that his equal protection rights were violated because the Board, in adopting the Resolution, treated differently
privately-owned property and state-owned property.*fn3 The Fourteenth Amendment forbids states from "deny[ing] to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. "[T]o properly plead an equal protection claim, a
plaintiff need only allege that through state action, similarly situated persons have been treated disparately." Thigpen v. Bibb
County, 223 F.3d 1231, 1237 (11th Cir. 2000) abrogated on other grounds by National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S.
101, 122 S.Ct. 2061 (2002).
Under Florida law, counties can exercise eminent domain over any land that is not owned by the state or federal government. See
Fla. Stat. § 127.01(1)(a) (2006). Since a state landowner would not be subject to the eminent domain power but Busse, as a
private landowner, would be, Busse could not be similarly situated to a state landowner. Busse therefore cannot rely on his
disparate eminent domain treatment vis-a-vis state landowners as the basis for an equal protection claim. Since Busse made no
other allegations of disparity in his third amended complaint, we find that he has failed to plead a valid equal protection claim and
that the district court correctly dismissed this claim.
D. Substantive Due Process Claim
Busse also appears to allege that the Resolution denied him his substantive due process property rights. Substantive due process
protects only those rights that are "fundamental," a description that applies only to those rights created by the United States
Constitution. See Greenbriar Village, L.L.C. v. Mountain Brook, City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Property
rights would not be fundamental rights since they are based on state law. See id. Busse thus could not bring a viable substantive
due process claim based on the alleged denial of a state-defined property right. See id. Accordingly, we find that the district court
properly dismissed his substantive due process claims.*fn4
E. Supplemental Jurisdiction
Busse also contends that the court abused its discretion in not hearing his pendent state law claims. "The decision to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state claims rests within the discretion of the district court." Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370
F.3d 1086, 1088--89 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Since the district court "had dismissed all claims over which it has original
jurisdiction," it therefore had the discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Busse's state law claims. 28 U.S.C. §
1367(c)(3). Furthermore, we expressly encourage district courts to take such action when all federal claims have been dismissed
pre-trial. See Raney, 370 F.3d at 1089. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it chose not to retain
supplemental jurisdiction over Busse's state law claims.
III. CONCLUSION
Busse contends that the district court incorrectly dismissed his federal claims regarding alleged takings and deprivations of property
rights. Since Busse's takings claim was not ripe because he had not pursued available state remedies and he failed to adequately
plead his other federal claims, the district court correctly dismissed all of these claims. As a result, despite Busse's objections to the
contrary, the district court also did not commit an abuse of discretion in not exercising jurisdiction over his state law claims.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of Busse's third amended complaint.
AFFIRMED.
Opinion Footnotes
*fn1 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.
*fn2 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).
*fn3 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. Dean, 32
F.3d 1521, 1526-27 (11th Cir. 1994) (discussing the exceptions to this general rule).
*fn4 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.
20090305
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.; Pat. Pending
Buy Document Now
6/15/2010 FindACase™ | Prescott v. Alejo
Buy Document Now
Prescott v. Alejo
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

April 1, 2010
JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT; JORG BUSSE, PLAINTIFFS,

v.
ROGER ALEJO; KENNETH M. WILKINSON; JACK N. PETERSON; ROGER DESJARLAIS; LEE COUNTY FLORIDA; LEE COUNTY
VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD; LORI L. RUTLAND; STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL
IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND; STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL, PROTECTION; CHAD LACH; REAGAN
KATHLEEN RUSSELL; KAREN B. HAWES; CHARLIE GREEN; BOB JANES; BRIAN BIGELOW; RAY JUDAH; TAMMY HALL; FRANK
MANN; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY(S); SEAN P. FLYNN; E. KENNETH STEGEBY; DAVID P. RHODES; A. BRIAN ALBRITTON;
CYNTHIA A. PIVACEK; JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.; STEVEN CARTA; MIKE SCOTT; HUGH D. HAYES; GERALD D. SIEBENS;
STATE OF FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL; WILLIAM M. MARTIN; PETERSON BERNARD; SKIP QUILLEN; TOM GILBERTSON;
CHARLES BARRY STEVENS, DEFENDANTS.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Waiver of Any and All
Fees (Doc. #31) filed on December 18, 2009; the Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Miscellaneous
Relief, Specifically to Set Aside Fraudulent Order (Doc. 36) (Doc. # 47) filed on January 8, 2010; the Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin
Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappel (Doc. # 48) filed on January 8, 2010;
the Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion to Set Aside Order (Doc. # 38) and to Adjudicate New Issues
(Doc. # 49) filed on January 11, 2010; the Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion to Set Aside Order (Doc.
# 38) and Mandatory Recusal of Magistrate Judge Chappell (Doc. # 50) filed on January 11, 2010; the Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin
Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion to Set Aside Order (Doc. # 37) and Mandatory Recusal of Magistrate Judge Chappell (Doc. #
51) filed on January 11, 2010; the Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Release of Lien (Doc. # 67)
February 16, 2010; the Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion to Enjoin Judge Shopping and Enforce
Court's Own Order for Removal of Corrupt R.A. Lazzara (Doc. # 72) filed on March 1, 2010; the Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott
and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion to Enjoin Defendants' Title Fraud & Fraud on the Court, and Any Government/ Judicial Sale
(Doc. # 73) filed on March 5, 2010; the Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion to Specifically Enjoin
Governmental Fraudulent Concealment of Uncontroverted Eminent Domain Record Forgeries and Obstruction of Justice and Court
Access (Doc. # 82) filed on March 12, 2010; the Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Reconsideration
and Declaratory Statement(s) of the Emergency of Judicial Case Fixing, Fraud on the Court(s) (Doc. # 83) filed on March 12, 2010;
the Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Immediate Screening of the Prima Facie Illegality
and Nullity of Lee County Scam O.R. 569/875 (Doc. # 85) filed on March 15, 2010; the Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr.
Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion to Enjoin Governmental Extortion & Threats by Defendant U.S. Agents, Judges, and Counsel (Doc.
# 80) and for Removal from all Proceedings of Magistrate Judge S. Polster Chappell (Doc. # 86) filed on March 15, 2010; and the
Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Immediate Removal of Court Officer Corinins and
Objection to Perpetration of Fraud on Court (Doc. # 90) filed on March 15, 2010.
The Plaintiffs continue in many of their Motions to request the recusal of Magistrate Judge Chappell. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a),
"[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality
might reasonably be questioned." Any doubt "must be resolved in favor of recusal." See Murray v. Scott, 253 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th
Cir. 2001). When considering recusal, the potential conflict must be considered as it applies to the entire case. Id. at 1310-11. A
judge contemplating recusal should not ask whether he or she believes he or she is capable of impartially presiding over the case
but whether "[the judge's] impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 1524 (11th
Cir. 1988). However, a judge has as strong a duty to sit when there is no legitimate reason to recuse as he does to recuse when
the law and facts require. United States v. Malmsberry, 222F.Supp.2d 1345 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. Greenspan, 26
F.3d 1001 (10th Cir. 1994)). The Court does not find after a thorough review of the record that the court's impartiality might
reasonably be questioned based upon the facts cited in the Plaintiff's Motion.
Section 28 U.S.C. 455(b) spells out certain situations in which partiality is presumed and recusal is required.*fn1 After reviewing the
explicitly enumerated conflicts of interest in which recusal is mandatory under section 455(b), if the Court does not find that any
apply, the judge is obligated to continue to preside over the case. See Lawal v Winners International Rests Co. Ops., Inc., 2006 WL
898180 at * 4 (N.D. Ga. April 6, 2006) (holding a trial judge has as much obligation not to recuse herself when there is no reason to
do so as she does to recuse herself when the converse is true).
The Court has already found that there are simply no grounds for recusal. The Plaintiffs only grounds set forth in all of their Motions
stem from the fact that the Court has ruled against them in making determinations on issues before the Court. The Court states
again that adverse rulings are not grounds for recusal.
The Plaintiffs continually assert that Judges in the Middle District of Florida, specifically the undersigned, and Judges on the Eleventh
Circuit 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. The Plaintiffs' Motions are often merely repeats of the same frivolous arguments over and over again with only a few
paragraphs changed to add a new allegation or individual defendant who prevailed on an issue before the Court. The Court finds
no good cause to support any of the Plaintiffs Motions, and they are all due to be denied.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
(1) The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Waiver of Any and All Fees (Doc. #31) is DENIED.
(2) The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Specifically to Set Aside Fraudulent
Order (Doc. 36) (Doc. # 47) is DENIED.
(3) The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell (Doc.
# 48) is DENIED.
(4) The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion to Set Aside Order (Doc. # 38) and to Adjudicate New
Issues (Doc. # 49) is DENIED.
(5) The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion to Set Aside Order (Doc. # 38) and Mandatory Recusal of
Magistrate Judge Chappell (Doc. # 50) is DENIED.
(6) The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion to Set Aside Order (Doc. # 37) and Mandatory Recusal of
Magistrate Judge Chappell (Doc. # 51) is DENIED.
(7) The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Release of Lien (Doc. # 67) is DENIED.
(8) The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion to Enjoin Judge Shopping and Enforce Court's Own Order for
Removal of Corrupt R.A. Lazzara (Doc. # 72) is DENIED.
(9) The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion to Enjoin Defendants' Title Fraud & Fraud on the
Court, and Any Government/ Judicial Sale (Doc. # 73) is DENIED.
(10) The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion to Specifically Enjoin Governmental Fraudulent
Concealment of Uncontroverted Eminent Domain Record Forgeries and Obstruction of Justice and Court Access (Doc. # 82) is
DENIED.
(11) The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Reconsideration and Declaratory Statement(s) of the
Emergency of Judicial Case Fixing, Fraud on the Court(s) (Doc. # 83) is DENIED.
(12) The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Immediate Screening of the Prima Facie
Illegality and Nullity of Lee County Scam O.R. 569/875 (Doc. # 85) is DENIED.
(13) The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion to Enjoin Governmental Extortion & Threats by
Defendant U.S. Agents, Judges, and Counsel (Doc. # 80) and for Removal from all Proceedings of Magistrate Judge S. Polster
Chappell (Doc. # 86) is DENIED.
(14) The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Immediate Removal of Court Officer Corinins
and Objection to Perpetration of Fraud on Court (Doc. # 90) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 1st day of April, 2010.
Opinion Footnotes
*fn1 Subsection 455 (b)(1) requires a judge to disqualify himself "[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or
personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding."; 455 (b)(2): "[w]here in private practice [the judge]
served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association
as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it."; 455 (b)(3): where the
judge "served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the
proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy."; 455(b)(4): where a judge "knows
that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject
matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of
the proceeding."; or 455(b)(5)(i): "[w]here he or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or
the spouse of such a person... [i]s party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party."; 455(b)(5)(ii): where the
judge "or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person... is
acting as a lawyer in the proceeding."
20100401
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.
Buy Document Now
Powered by VersusLaw, Inc.
Home | Advertise | About | Feedback | Terms | Privacy Policy | FAQ

All contents © Copyright 2008 - 2010 VersusLaw , Inc. Bellevue, WA, USA. All rights reserved
6/15/2010 FindACase™ | Prescott v. State of Flori…
Buy Document Now
[U] Prescott v. State of Florida
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

April 21, 2009
JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, JORG BUSSE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS-CROSS-APPELLEES,

v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, DIVISION OF RECREATION AND PARKS, HAROLD GEORGE VIELHAUER, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, KENNETH M. WILKINSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE-CROSS-APPELLANT.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D. C. Docket No. 08-00364-CV-FTM-29-SPC.
Per curiam.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
Before BLACK, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Jorg Busse ("the Appellants"), proceeding pro se, appeal the district court's: (1) dismissal without
prejudice of their pro se civil rights complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim and (2) denial of their
motion for the district court judge to recuse himself. Appellee Ken Wilkinson cross-appeals the district court's denial of his motion for
sanctions against the Appellants. After review, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Current Action
The Appellants are owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision in Lee County, Florida. On May 5, 2008, the Appellants filed the
present pro se complaint against numerous state and county officials*fn1 alleging that they had violated the Appellants'
constitutional rights with respect to their Cayo Costa property. Most of the allegations in the complaint concern the 1969 Lee
County Resolution 569/875, which claimed the undesignated areas on the east and west side of the Cayo Costa subdivision plat
and all accretions thereto as public land to be used for public purposes. The Appellants' Lot 15A is on the west side of the Cayo
Costa subdivision on the Gulf of Mexico and is adjacent to land that was claimed through Resolution 569/875 to create the Cayo
Costa State Park.
The Appellants' complaint alleged that the Appellees: (1) passed an invalid resolution that resulted in the unconstitutional taking of
their land without just compensation, the operation of a state park on their land, and the destruction of their land through the
failure to prevent fires on their property during a drought, all in violation of the Takings and Due Process Clauses; (2) enacted Lee
County Resolution 569/875 without notice and a hearing in violation of the Due Process Clause; and (3) treated certain individuals
differently in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Appellants alleged numerous bases for federal jurisdiction.*fn2 The
complaint also alleged several state law violations, including allegations that the Appellees recklessly destroyed their property
during fires in April 2008, trespassed on their land, and conspired to defraud and defrauded them of their land. The Appellants
requested various injunctive, declaratory, punitive, and compensatory relief.
B. Prior Similar Action
This is the second federal complaint of this nature that has been filed regarding Appellants' Lot 15A. In January 2008, Appellant
Busse filed a complaint that made near identical allegations to the instant complaint, with the exception of the allegations regarding
the April 2008 fire. Appellant Prescott was not a party in the previous case.
On May 5, 2008, the district court dismissed the first complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The
district court determined that it lacked jurisdiction because Busse had not yet pursued available state court remedies and the
Takings Clause claim therefore was not ripe for review. To the extent that Busse's complaint alleged that the taking of his property
raised a substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, the district court concluded that there was no
independent substantive due process claim concerning takings and that property rights were not fundamental rights that would
support a substantive due process claim. The district court dismissed Busse's procedural due process claims regarding Lee County
Resolution 569/875 because the Resolution was a legislative act that was not subject to a procedural due process claim and, even if
it was not, Busse still had not alleged that Florida's post-deprivation remedy was inadequate. The district court also found that
Busse had not stated an equal protection claim because he had not alleged that there was a similarly situated person for
comparison and the state could not be a comparator.
The district court analyzed the other alleged bases for federal jurisdiction and found that they were all inadequate.*fn3 After
dismissing Busse's federal claims, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
Accordingly, the district court dismissed Busse's first complaint without prejudice.*fn4 Busse appealed the district court's dismissal of
his first complaint, and this Court affirmed. Busse v. Lee County, Florida, No. 08-13170, 2009 WL 549782 (11th Cir. Mar 5, 2009)
(unpublished).
C. Dismissal of Current Action
The Appellees moved to dismiss the Appellants' second complaint for the same reasons outlined in the orders from the district court
and this Court in the first case. The district court ordered the Appellants to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court stated that the complaint was nearly identical to the previous complaint filed
by Busse that was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that the Appellants had not cured the deficiencies noted in
the first dismissal order.
After receiving the Appellants' responses, the district court granted the Appellees' motions to dismiss. The district court determined
that the Appellants' complaint was nearly identical to Busse's complaint in the previous case. The district court stated that it
previously had explained its reasoning for dismissing Busse's claims and adopted the reasoning from its order in the first case.
The district court also denied the Appellants' multiple motions for the district court judge to recuse himself. The Appellants had
requested that the district court judge recuse himself because he had ruled against Busse in the previous lawsuit and because the
district court's refusal to find that Resolution 569/875 was invalid showed that the judge was biased. The district court determined
that the Appellants had not asserted any reasonable basis for recusal.
Finally, one of the Appellees, Wilkinson, moved for sanctions against the Appellants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c).
Wilkinson alleged that
(1) the Appellants knew the district court did not have jurisdiction over their complaint because the court previously had dismissed
an identical complaint and
(2) the complaint was filed in bad faith to harass the Appellees. Appellee Wilkinson requested that the district court award him
attorney's fees and issue an injunction preventing Busse from representing himself in the case and filing further lawsuits in the
court. The district court denied Wilkinson's motion, but warned the Appellants that they may be sanctioned in the future if they were
to file another complaint with similar allegations, file the same document numerous times, or improperly designate a motion as an
emergency.
The Appellants appeal the district court's dismissal of their instant complaint and denial of their motion for recusal.*fn5 Appellee
Wilkinson cross-appeals the district court's denial of his motion for sanctions.*fn6
II. DISCUSSION
A. Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim
Both the district court and this Court addressed the Appellants' takings, procedural and substantive due process, and equal
protection claims in detail in the previous case concerning the Appellants' property. See Busse, No. 08-13170, 2009 WL 549782, at
*2-4. The Appellants' present complaint raises nearly identical allegations and Appellants have not remedied the pleading
deficiencies that resulted in the first dismissal.*fn7 The district court dismissed the Appellants' present complaint for the same
reasons stated in its dismissal order in the first case. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal for the same reasons stated
in our opinion in the first case. See id. We repeat our reasoning briefly here.
First, the district court properly dismissed the Appellants' Taking Clause claim for lack of jurisdiction because it was not ripe. A just
compensation claim is not ripe "until the landowner has pursued the available state procedures to obtain just compensation." Eide
v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 721 (11th Cir. 1990). Florida courts have recognized a reverse condemnation remedy, see
Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412, 1417 (11th Cir. 1994), and the Appellants have not alleged that they pursued this remedy.
This requirement applies even though the reverse condemnation remedy was not recognized until after the alleged taking occurred.
Id. ("[A] Florida property owner must pursue a reverse condemnation remedy in state court before his federal takings claim will be
ripe, even where that remedy was recognized after the alleged taking occurred.").
Second, the district court properly dismissed the Appellants' procedural due process claim because they failed to allege that Florida's
post-deprivation remedies were inadequate. Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378, 382 (11th Cir. 1996).
Third, the district court properly determined that the Appellants failed to state a substantive due process claim. To the extent that
the Appellants' substantive due process claim was predicated on the denial of a state-defined property right, they did not state a
viable substantive due process claim. Greenbriar Village, L.L.C. v. Mountain Brook, City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2003)
(stating that substantive due process protects fundamental rights protected by the Constitution, which does not include state-
created property interests). Even if the alleged deprivation was the result of a legislative act, as opposed to an executive act, the
Appellants did not allege that there is a property right at stake that is not already protected by the Takings Clause. Villas of Lake
Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610, 615 (11th Cir. 1997) ("There is no substantive due process 'takings' claim that would
protect a specific property right not already protected by the Takings Clause.").
Fourth, the district court properly determined that the Appellants' conclusory allegations failed to state an equal protection claim
because, inter alia, they did not allege that similarly situated persons had been treated disparately. Thigpen v. Bibb County, 223
F.3d 1231, 1237 (11th Cir. 2000) ("[T]o properly plead an equal protection claim, a plaintiff need only allege that through state
action, similarly situated persons have been treated disparately."), abrogated on other grounds by Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v.
Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122 S.Ct. 2061 (2002).
For the reasons above, and those articulated in our opinion affirming the dismissal in Busse's first complaint, we affirm the district
court's dismissal of the Appellants' complaint.*fn8 Furthermore, because the district court correctly dismissed the Appellants' federal
claims for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over their remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d
1086, 1088-89 (11th Cir. 2004).
B. Motion for the District Court to Recuse
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Appellants' motion for recusal. The district court's rulings in Busse's first
case are not a sufficient basis to question the district court's impartiality in the present case so as to warrant recusal. Thomas v.
Tenneco Packaging Co., Inc., 293 F.3d 1306, 1329 (11th Cir. 2002) (stating the general rule that "bias sufficient to disqualify a judge
must stem from extra-judicial sources" (quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Meester, 762 F.2d 867, 884 (11th Cir. 1985)
("[A] motion for disqualification may not ordinarily be based on the judge's rulings in the same case."). The Appellants have not
alleged, much less shown, that the district court made any remarks that demonstrated a bias or prejudice against the Appellants.
See Thomas, 293 F.3d at 1329 (stating an exception to the general rule that bias must stem from extra-judicial sources "when a
judge's remarks in a judicial context demonstrate such pervasive bias and prejudice that it constitutes bias against a party"
(quotation marks omitted)).
C. Rule 11 Sanctions
Although this issue is closer, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying Appellee Wilkinson's motion for
sanctions. The district court was intimately familiar with the Appellants’ 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 Appellants that their conduct may warrant sanctions in the future if continued.
III. CONCLUSION
Therefore, we affirm the district court's orders dismissing the Appellants' complaint, denying the Appellants' motion for recusal, and
denying Appellee Wilkinson’s motion for sanctions.
AFFIRMED.
Opinion Footnotes
*fn1 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 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.
*fn2 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. Constitution; (4) the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments; (5) the federal common law doctrines of accretion and erosion; (6) the Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, and 12 U.S.C. §§ 3331-3351; (7) the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §
2201; and (8) the 1862 Homestead Act.
*fn3 Specifically, the district court found that: (1) Articles III and IV of the U.S. Constitution did not provide a basis for federal
jurisdiction; (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1343 was not a basis for federal jurisdiction because there were no federal civil rights claims before the
court; (3) the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act was inapplicable; (4) the 1862 Homestead Act had been repealed; (5) if the federal
common law doctrines of accretion and erosion existed, they did not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction; and (6) the Federal
Appraisal Standards were inapplicable.
*fn4 The Appellants filed the complaint in the present case on the same day that the district court dismissed the first complaint.
*fn5 We review de novo questions concerning our subject matter jurisdiction, including ripeness. See Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d
1199, 1203 (11th Cir. 2006). We review de novo a grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, "accepting the allegations
in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Swann v. S. Health Partners, Inc., 388 F.3d
834, 836 (11th Cir. 2004). "Courts must construe pro se complaints more liberally than they would formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers." Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 673 (11th Cir. 1990).
We review for abuse of discretion a district judge's recusal decision. Thomas v. Tenneco Packaging Co., Inc., 293 F.3d 1306, 1319-
20 (11th Cir. 2002).
*fn6 We review the denial of a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 for an abuse of discretion. Beck v. Prupis, 162 F.3d 1090, 1100
(11th Cir. 1998).
*fn7 The claims in the present complaint are not precluded under res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case doctrine
because this litigation involves slightly different parties and the first complaint was not decided on the merits. Nevertheless, the
analysis by the district court and this Court in the first case applies equally here because the present complaint contains essentially
the same allegations as the first complaint.
*fn8 As stated in our opinion in the first case, we agree with the district court's analysis of the other bases for jurisdiction asserted
in the Appellants' complaint and conclude that none of them could serve as a jurisdictional basis for Busse's claims. See Busse, No.
08-13170, 2009 WL 549782, at *2 n.2. To the extent that the Appellants raised claims in their complaint that are not addressed in
their brief, those claims are abandoned on appeal. See Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1131 n.1 (11th Cir. 2002). To the extent
that the Appellants attempt to raise a Fourth Amendment claim or any other claim for the first time on appeal, we will not consider
them because they were not raised in the district court. Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331-32 (11th Cir.
2004).
20090421
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.; Pat. Pending
Buy Document Now

Buy Document Now
Prescott v. Alejo

March 31, 2010

v.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs, Jennifer Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Judicial Notice of
Concealment of Evidence (Doc. # 101) filed on March 26, 2010; the Plaintiffs, Jennifer Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency
Motion for Judicial Notice of Concealment of Evidence and Objection to Order (Doc. # 98) which was Procured by Fraud on the Court
(Doc. # 102) filed in March 26, 2010; the Plaintiffs, Jennifer Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion Objections to Order
(Doc. # 98) and Judicial Notice of Concealment of Evidence (Doc. # 103) filed on March 26, 2010; the Plaintiffs, Jennifer Prescott and
Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion to Enjoin the Case Fixing on Record and Conspiracy of Case Fixing (Doc. #106) filed on March
29, 2010; the The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Miscellaneous Relief to Clear
Judicial Error (Doc. # 107) filed on March 29, 2010; The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion
of the Dispositive Declaration of Plaintiffs' Record Ownership by U.S. Court of Appeals (Doc. # 108) filed on March 29, 2010; The
Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Specifically Timely Objections to
Clear Judicial Error (Doc. # 109) filed on March 29, 2010; The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Doc. # 110) filed on March 29, 2010; The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's
Emergency Motion for Injunction of Criminal Concealment and Striking of Document 76 by Judge Chappell (Doc. # 111) filed on March
29, 2010; and the Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Judicial Notice of Defendants' Fraud on the
Court and Fraudulent Pleadings (Doc. # 112) filed on March 29, 2010.
In their Motions, the Plaintiffs continually assert that Judges in the Middle District of Florida, specifically the undersigned, and Judges
on the Eleventh Circuit 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 deny the Motions.
The Plaintiffs also move in their Motion to Enjoin the Case Fixing on Record and Conspiracy of Case Fixing (Doc. #106) for the
undersigned to recuse herself from this case. This is the fourth Motion for Recusal made by the Plaintiffs in this case.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), "[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in
which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Any doubt "must be resolved in favor of recusal." See Murray v. Scott, 253
F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2001). When considering recusal, the potential conflict must be considered as it applies to the entire
case. Id. at 1310-11. A judge contemplating recusal should not ask whether he or she believes he or she is capable of impartially
presiding over the case but whether "[the judge's] impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855
F.2d 1510, 1524 (11th Cir. 1988). However, a judge has as strong a duty to sit when there is no legitimate reason to recuse as he
does to recuse when the law and facts require. United States v. Malmsberry, 222F.Supp.2d 1345 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing United
States v. Greenspan, 26 F.3d 1001 (10th Cir. 1994)). The Court does not find after a thorough review of the record that the court's
impartiality might reasonably be questioned based upon the facts cited in the Plaintiff's Motion.
The Plaintiffs again seek for the undersigned to recuse herself based upon rulings that were adverse to the Plaintiffs' position. As
the Court has explained in its prior Orders, receiving an adverse ruling from a judge is not a basis for recusal.
ORDERED:
(1) The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Judicial Notice of Concealment of Evidence (Doc. #
101) is DENIED.
(2) The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Judicial Notice of Concealment of Evidence and
Objection to Order (Doc. # 98) which was Procured by Fraud on the Court (Doc. # 102) is DENIED.
(3) The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion Objections to Order (Doc. # 98) and Judicial Notice of
Concealment of Evidence (Doc. # 103) is DENIED.
(4) The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion to Enjoin the Case Fixing on Record and Conspiracy of
Case Fixing and for Judge to Recuse (Doc. #106) is DENIED.
(5) The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Miscellaneous Relief to Clear Judicial Error
(Doc. # 107) is DENIED.
(6) The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion of the Dispositive Declaration of Plaintiffs'
Record Ownership by U.S. Court of Appeals (Doc. # 108) is DENIED.
(7) The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Specifically Timely
Objections to Clear Judicial Error (Doc. # 109) is DENIED.
(8) The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Doc. # 110) is DENIED.
(9) The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Injunction of Criminal Concealment and
Striking of Document 76 by Judge Chappell (Doc. # 111) is DENIED.
(10) The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Judicial Notice of Defendants' Fraud on the Court and
Fraudulent Pleadings (Doc. # 112) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 31st day of March, 2010.
Opinion Footnotes
20100331
Buy Document Now
Nam e of Court: State:

--
Retrieve Original
Court Records
Court Records Request: Standard service From all Non-
Full Docket 24 Hour Rush Federal Courts
Buy Document Now
Prescott v. Alejo

March 30, 2010

v.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs , Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Recusal of
Magistrate Judge (Doc. #45) filed on January 8, 2010; The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for
Recusal of Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 60) filed on January 26, 2010; and The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge
Busse's Emergency Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 105) filed on March 29, 2010.
The Plaintiffs make unsubstantiated and unwarranted allegations based entirely upon the Court making adverse rulings against
their positions in this case. Adverse rulings against a party are not grounds for recusal. Further, the Court has previously denied the
Plaintiffs' Motions to Recuse by Orders (Doc. #36 and #37) filed on January 8, 2010 based upon the same reasons stated in the
instant Motions.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
(1) The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge (Doc. #45) is DENIED.
(2) The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 60) is DENIED.
(3) The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 105) is
DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 30th day of March, 2010.
Opinion Footnotes
20100330
Buy Document Now

Buy Document Now
Busse v. Lee County

February 1, 2010
JORG BUSSE PLAINTIFF,

v.
LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; BOARD OF LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER; STATE OF
FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, DEFENDANTS.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Mandatory Recusal of Def. Corrupt U.S. Magistrate S.
Polster Chappell (Doc. #416) filed on December 21, 2009; and the Plaintiff Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Mandatory Recusal of Def.
Corrupt U.S. Magistrate S. Polster Chappell (Doc. #417) filed on December 21, 2009. The Second Motion to Recuse was filed on the
same day and appears to be an exact copy of the initial Motion to Recuse (Doc. # 416). Therefore, the Plaintiff's initial Motion to
Recuse is moot.
States v. Greenspan, 26 F.3d 1001 (10th Cir. 1994)).
The Court does not find after a thorough review of the record that the court's impartiality might reasonably be questioned based
upon the facts cited in the Plaintiff's Motion. After reviewing the explicitly enumerated conflicts of interest in which recusal is
mandatory under section 455(b), if the Court does not find that any apply, the judge is obligated to continue to preside over the
case. See Lawal v Winners International Rests Co. Ops., Inc., 2006 WL 898180 at * 4 (N.D. Ga. April 6, 2006) (holding a trial judge
has as much obligation not to recuse herself when there is no reason to do so as she does to recuse herself when the converse is
true).
explicitly enumerated conflicts of interest in which recusal is mandatory under section 455(b), the Court does not find that any
apply, and therefore, does not find good cause for recusal.
The Plaintiff is seeking the recusal of the undersigned of being corrupt and dishonest. However, form the Motion it appears the
Plaintiff's sole grounds for the recusal of the undersigned is based upon adverse rulings against the Plaintiff. Adverse rulings
against a parties position is not grounds for recusal.
ORDERED:
(1) The Plaintiff Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Mandatory Recusal of Def. Corrupt U.S. Magistrate S. Polster Chappell (Doc. #416) is
DENIED as moot.
(2) The Plaintiff Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Mandatory Recusal of Def. Corrupt U.S. Magistrate S. Polster Chappell (Doc. #417) is
DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 1st day of February, 2010.
Opinion Footnotes
20100201
Buy Document Now

Buy Document Now
Prescott v. Alejo

June 11, 2010

v.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Recusal of
Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell (Doc. #144) filed on April 12, 2010.
The Plaintiffs' allegations supporting the Motion center around the fact that the undersigned has ruled against their position on
various motions before the Court. Adverse rulings are not grounds for recusal. Therefore, the Motion is due to be denied.
The Plaintiffs are cautioned that they have now filed no less than eight Motions to Recuse the undersigned (Doc. #s 32, 33, 45, 49,
50, 51, 60, 105) all of which assert grounds which are frivolous, argumentative, immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous. The Court
has denied all of these Motions. Plaintiffs are cautioned that continued filing of the same motion reiterating the same grounds for
recusal may result in the imposition of sanctions.
ORDERED: The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Recusal (Doc. #144) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 11th day of June, 2010.
Opinion Footnotes
20100611
Buy Document Now

Buy Document Now
Prescott v. Alejo

April 30, 2010

v.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion to Extend Time for
Service (Doc. #122) filed on March 29, 2010. District courts have broad discretion in managing their cases. Chrysler Int'l Corp. v.
Chenaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2002). The broad discretion given to the court includes the management of pretrial
activities such as discovery and scheduling. Id. (citing Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Georgia, 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir.
2001).
An extension of time to effect service may be granted for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
As grounds, the Plaintiffs simply state that Sheriff Mike Scott stated that he was not a defendant in this case. However, the Plaintiffs
fail to state why Scott or any other potential defendants were not served in a timely manner. Thus, the Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate the necessary good cause to grant the extension of time.
ORDERED:
The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion to Extend Time for Service (Doc. #122) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 30th day of April, 2010.
20100430
Buy Document Now

Buy Document Now
Prescott v. Alejo

April 30, 2010

v.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion to Extend Time for
Service (Doc. #122) filed on March 29, 2010. District courts have broad discretion in managing their cases. Chrysler Int'l Corp. v.
Chenaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2002). The broad discretion given to the court includes the management of pretrial
activities such as discovery and scheduling. Id. (citing Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Georgia, 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir.
2001).
An extension of time to effect service may be granted for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
As grounds, the Plaintiffs simply state that Sheriff Mike Scott stated that he was not a defendant in this case. However, the Plaintiffs
fail to state why Scott or any other potential defendants were not served in a timely manner. Thus, the Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate the necessary good cause to grant the extension of time.
ORDERED:
The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion to Extend Time for Service (Doc. #122) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 30th day of April, 2010.
20100430
Buy Document Now

Buy Document Now
Prescott v. Alejo

March 26, 2010

v.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Jorge Busse's Motion to Compel Defendants
Responses and Declare Defendants' Previous Pleadings not Responsive to Proven Judicial Case Fixing, Corruption, Fraud in the
Court(s) and Bribery (Doc. # 84 ) filed on March 12, 2010.
Pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(a), "[i]n every motion or other application for an order, the movant shall include a concise statement of
the precise relief requested, a statement of the basis for the request, and memorandum of legal authority in support of the request,
all of which the movant shall include in a single document not more than twenty-five pages long." The Plaintiffs' Motion has no
organization or legal reasoning. Instead it is a compilation of unsupported allegations and charges against any official that has
rendered an adverse ruling against their position. The Motion requests relief ranging from injunctions, reconsideration, vacating and
setting aside judgments against the Plaintiff, and compensatory damages. As such, the Plaintiff's Motion is due to be denied.
ORDERED: The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Jorge Busse's Motion to Compel Defendants Responses and Declare
Defendants' Previous Pleadings not Responsive to Proven Judicial Case Fixing, Corruption, Fraud in the Court(s) and Bribery (Doc. #
84 ) is DENIED.
20100326
Buy Document Now

Buy Document Now
Prescott v. Alejo

March 26, 2010

v.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Jorge Busse's Motion for Default Judgment in
Plaintiffs' Favor (Doc. #89) filed on March 15, 2010.
A district court may enter a default judgment against a properly served defendant who fails to defend or otherwise appear pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). ABS-SOS Plus Partners Ltd. v. Vein Associates of America, Inc., WL 5191701 *1-2 (M.D.
December 10, 2008) (citing DirecTV, Inc. v. Griffin, 290 F. Supp.2d 1340, 1343 (M.D. Fla.2003). A district court may also strike
pleadings and direct a clerk to enter default against defendants who have made an appearance as a sanction for discovery abuses
or the abandonment of defenses.Pickett v. Executive Preference Corporation, 2006 WL 2947844 (M.D. Fla. Oct.16, 2006) (striking
defendant's pleadings for abandoning its defense, and directing Clerk to enter default against defendant).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also gives a district court the power to enter a default, strike pleadings, or render judgment
against a party that disobeys the court's discovery or pretrial scheduling orders. ABS-SOS Plus Partners Ltd., WL 5191701 *1-2
(citingFed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) (The court may enter "an order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further
proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by
default against the disobedient party."); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f) (incorporating the sanction powers articulated in Rule
37(b)(2)(C) as applied to scheduling or pretrial orders).
In this instance, the Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the Defendants did not answer or that any Defendant failed to obey an
order of the Court. Thus, there is no good cause to grant the requested relief. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' Motion has no
organization or legal reasoning. Instead it is a compilation of unsupported allegations and charges against any official that has
rendered an adverse ruling against their position. The Motion requests relief ranging from a default judgment, injunctions,
reconsideration, declaratory judgments, vacating and setting aside judgments against the Plaintiff, compensatory damages, and
punitive damages. Pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(a), "[i]n every motion or other application for an order, the movant shall include a
concise statement of the precise relief requested, a statement of the basis for the request, and memorandum of legal authority in
support of the request, all of which the movant shall include in a single document not more than twenty-five pages long." As such,
the Plaintiff's Motion is due to be denied.
ORDERED: The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Jorge Busse's Motion for Default Judgment in Plaintiffs' Favor (Doc. #89) is
DENIED.
20100326
6/15/2010 FindACase™ | Busse v. State
Buy Document Now
Busse v. State

February 4, 2009
DR. JORGE BUSSE AND JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, PLAINTIFFS,

v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard A. Lazzara United States District Judge
ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo issued January 21,
2009, at docket 121, in which he recommends dismissing Plaintiffs' third amended complaint with prejudice after they failed to
respond to his order to show cause issued December 30, 2008, at docket 52, as to why that complaint should not be dismissed.
True to their history of engaging in vexatious litigation tactics, Plaintiffs have inundated this Court with no less than ten pleadings
challenging the propriety of Judge Pizzo's recommendation in words that are rambling, disjointed, and at times incomprehensible.
See dockets 138, 144, 149, 150, 160, 165, 166, 171, 181, and 183. The Court, nevertheless, has undertaken a de novo review of
the record in light of Plaintiffs' objections. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 783-84 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Heath v.
Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). After doing so, and being mindful that a pro se plaintiff's complaint must be construed
more liberally than one prepared by an attorney, the Court has no hesitancy in concluding that Judge Pizzo's Report and
Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects resulting in the dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiffs'
third amended complaint.
There is another reason justifying dismissal of this case with prejudice: Plaintiffs' wanton and wilful refusal to abide by the orders of
this Court. Such conduct is manifested in their persistent refusal to obey Judge Pizzo's order of December 30, 2008, found at docket
52, directing them to cease and desist from sending correspondence to the chamber's e-mail account of any judge of this Court and
their conscious failure to appear before this Court on January 30, 2009, as directed in Judge Pizzo's order of January 9, 2009, found
at docket 76, even after the Court warned them that their failure to appear could result in the dismissal of their case with prejudice.
See order entered January 12, 2009, at docket 80.*fn1
One final matter needs to be addressed by the Court: the issue of whether the undersigned should recuse himself pursuant to the
dictates of 28 U.S.C. § 455 because Plaintiffs have sued him in case number 2:09-cv-41-FtM-99TBM. The Court declines to do so for
the reasons explained in footnote three of the order entered in that case on January 30, 2009, at docket 8.*fn2
Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged as follows:
1) Judge Pizzo's Report and Recommendation issued January 21, 2009, at docket 121, is adopted, confirmed, and approved in all
respects and made a part of this order for all purposes.
2) This case is dismissed with prejudice.
3) The Clerk is directed to enter judgment against Plaintiffs and in favor of Defendants, to terminate all pending motions and
deadlines, and to close this case.
4) In light of Plaintiffs' persistent history of filing baseless and incomprehensible pleadings which have impacted the resources of
this Court, as well as of Defendants,*fn3 the Clerk is directed not to accept for filing any future pleading submitted by Plaintiffs in
this case, except for a notice of appeal from this order.*fn4
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on February 4, 2009.
6/15/2010 FindACase™ | Busse v. State
Opinion Footnotes
*fn1 In the order entered January 30, 2009, at docket 147, immediately following the hearing at which Plaintiffs did not appear, the
Court announced its intention to delay any ruling with regard to sanctions to be imposed until after the filing of objections to Judge
Pizzo's Report and Recommendation.
*fn2 The Court notes in that regard that Judge Pizzo's observation in his Report and Recommendation that "[a]ny official, including
any lawyer associated with these matters, disagreeing with [Plaintiff Busse] is serially named as a defendant in the next lawsuit[]"
proved to be prescient with regard to the undersigned judge.
*fn3 See motions for sanctions filed February 3, 2009, at dockets 172 and 174.
*fn4 See Bafford v. Township Apartments Assoc., Ltd., case number 8:08-cv-724-T-27TGW, docket 7, 2008WL 1817333*4 (M.D. Fla.
2008) (directing clerk not to accept any additional filings except a notice of appeal after sua sponte dismissing pro se plaintiff's
complaint with prejudice as patently frivolous, harassing, and vexatious).
20090204
Buy Document Now

6/15/2010 FindACase™ | Romero v. Watson
Buy Document Now
Romero v. Watson
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION

May 13, 2009
GOVINDA ROMERO, PLAINTIFF,

v.
CLOVIS WATSON JR, CITY MANAGER OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF ALACHUA, FLORIDA IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, AND
GENE PATTON, BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF ALACHUA, FLORIDA IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, AND
THE MUNICIPALITY OF ALACHUA FLORIDA, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stephan P. Mickle United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
This cause comes before the Court for consideration of Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I, III, IV, and V (doc. 6), Defendants'
supporting documents (doc. 7), and Plaintiff Romero's response in opposition (doc. 11).
For the following reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted as to Count I (Procedural Due Process), Count III
(Substantive Due Process), and Count V (Temporary Taking of Property without Just Compensation), without prejudice and with
leave to amend. Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice will be granted as to Count IV (Substantive Due Process -
Fundamental Liberty Interest). Count II (Equal Protection) was not challenged in Defendants' motion.
Facts Alleged
Plaintiff Govinda Romero ("Romero") sought to erect a mobile home on his property in the city of Alachua, Florida. Romero applied for
the required building permit, and the city issued the permit on February 1, 2007. (Pl.'s First Am. Compl. ¶ 20, Ex. B.) The next day,
Romero purchased a mobile home for $49,000 and hired a company for its set up and delivery. (Compl. ¶ 21.) On February 16, 2007,
Building Official Patton, at the request of City Manager Watson or alternatively on his own, issued a stop work order on Romero's
property which required Romero to immediately cease and desist all work on the property. (Compl. ¶¶ 25-26, 30, Ex. C.) The stop
work order contained no reference to any violation of a building regulation or other law (Compl. ¶ 28), and remained in effect until
its dissolution on July 13, 2007 (Compl. ¶ 31).
Ten days after the issuance of the stop work order, on February 26, 2007, the City of Alachua City Commission held a public meeting
and comment. (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 34.) Citizens complained about mobile homes and their devaluation of surrounding properties,
including a complaint that someone was "trying to move in a $30,000, used trailer in a neighborhood of $200,000 homes and that
will devalue the whole area." (Compl. ¶¶ 33-36.) After public comments, the City Commission passed Emergency Ordinance 7-11, a
temporary moratorium on the "acceptance of applications for and issuance of land use, building, and development permits for
manufactured home dwelling units" for sixty-one days. (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 37; Def.'s Docs. 1.) Then, at a meeting on May 21, 2007, the
Commission passed Ordinance 7-23 to extend the temporary moratorium for an additional ninety-one days until July 28, 2007.
(Compl. ¶ 60; Def.'s Docs. 2.) The extension included exemptions for two property owners who were faced with hardship, but did
not exempt Romero. (Compl. ¶¶ 60-61.) In any event, Romero contends that the moratorium was "not applicable to plaintiff's
previously issued permit on February 1, 2007." (Compl. ¶ 37; Pl.'s Resp.: 18.)
Romero brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the city of Alachua, Building Official Patton, and City Manager Watson
(collectively, the Defendants). Romero alleges five violations of his constitutional rights: (1) Procedural Due Process; (2) Equal
Protection; (3) Substantive Due Process; (4) Substantive Due Process - Fundamental Liberty Interest; and (5) Temporary Taking
without Just Compensation. (Compl.) Defendants have moved to dismiss all counts except the Equal Protection claim found in Count
II. (Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss.)
Standard on a Motion to Dismiss
To state a claim for relief, the plaintiff must give "'the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.'" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). The court may
grant a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) if the plaintiff's factual allegations create merely a suspicion of a legally cognizable
right of action. See Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65. The court should not evaluate the veracity or weight of potential evidence on a
motion to dismiss. See Clark v. Potter, No. 5:07cv41/RS/EMT, 2008 WL 186619, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2008) (internal citations
omitted). Instead, the alleged facts must be accepted as true and must be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See
Kirby v. Siegelman, 195 F.3d 1285, 1289 (11th Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted).
I. INTRODUCTION
"Land-use litigation is a complex area of law, to say the least." Watson Constr. Co. v. City of Gainesville, 433 F. Supp. 2d 1269,
1274 (N.D. Fla. 2006). Both litigants and courts can be confused by the complexity, and "often one cannot tell which claim has been
brought or which standard is being applied." Eide v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 722 (11th Cir. 1990). The United States
Supreme Court has refined its understanding of these concepts over the years, sometimes overturning or modifying previous
decisions or portions of them. See Watson, 433 F. Supp. 2d at 1274 (describing refinements in land-use litigation). The Eleventh
Circuit has recognized the ensuing confusion and has attempted to clarify this area of the law on several occasions. See Greenbriar
Village, LLC v. Mountain Brook, 345 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2003); Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610 (11th Cir.
1997); McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th Cir. 1994); Eide v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716 (11th Cir. 1990). The resulting legal
framework is difficult to interpret and this case illustrates that "confusion abounds." Watson, 433 F. Supp. 2d at 1274. In some
cases, the abounding legal confusion has led to the dreaded "shotgun" pleading, in which plaintiffs add to the problem by alleging a
myriad of facts under an undecipherable legal theory. See Boatman v. Town of Oakland, Fla., 76 F.3d 341, 344 n.6 (11th Cir. 1996)
(citing Pelletier v. Zweifel, 921 F.2d 1465, 1518 (11th Cir. 1991)). In an attempt to cut through the confusion, the court must
examine each cause of action "for what it actually is, not for what [the plaintiff] would have it be" when determining the type of
claim. McKinney, 20 F.3d at 1560.
While this task can be difficult, the goal is simple: to limit the role of the federal court in land-use litigation. "Federal courts do not sit
as zoning boards of appeals." Mackenzie v. City of Rockledge, 920 F.2d 1554, 1558 (11th Cir. 1991) (citing Spence v. Zimmerman,
873 F.2d 256, 262 (11th Cir. 1989)). In addition, "[f]ederal courts must not usurp the roles of agencies, review boards, and state
courts in reviewing the wisdom of executive actions." DeKalb Stone, Inc. v. County of DeKalb, Ga., 106 F.3d 956, 960 (11th Cir.
1997). There is an important reason for this policy: a state should have the first chance to correct the mistakes it makes when
reasonably regulating the land within its borders. See Eide, 908 F.2d at 726 ("zoning is a delicate area where a county's power
should not be usurped without giving the county an opportunity to consider concrete facts and the merits prior to a court suit.").
II. DECIPHERING THE CLAIM
There are several important distinctions that determine the claim a plaintiff may bring in land-use cases. These distinctions include
whether the interest concerned is based in state law and whether the state action at issue is executive or legislative. However,
"[n]ot every wronged party has a valid claim for a constitutional violation whenever a local building official makes an incorrect
decision regarding a building permit." Spence v. Zimmerman, 873 F.2d at 260 n.5.
A. Property Interest: State-Created or Fundamental
The first important distinction is whether the property interest concerned is created by state law. Property rights created by state
law, such as a potential right in a building permit, are entitled only to procedural due process protection. McKinney, 20 F.3d at 1556;
see also Busse v. Lee County Fla., No. 08-13170, 2009 WL 549782, at *4 (11th Cir. March 5, 2009). State-created rights may be
infringed by the state as long as certain procedures are followed. McKinney, 20 F.3d at 1556. Procedural due process protects not
against "the deprivation of rights; it only protects against an unfair process." Watson, 433 F. Supp. 2d at 1277 (emphasis in
original). A procedural due process violation is not complete "'unless and until the state fails to provide due process.'" McKinney, 20
F.3d at 1557 (quoting Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 123 (1990)); see also Reams v. Irvin, No. 08-12023, 2009 WL 579222, at *6
(11th Cir. Mar. 9, 2009). In many cases, if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation procedure, then the state has fulfilled its
obligation to provide procedural due process when depriving the plaintiff of a state-created right. See McKinney, 20 F.3d at 1557. In
such a case, the court's only consideration is whether adequate remedies were available under state law, not whether the plaintiff
took advantage of them. See Horton v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, Flagler County, 202 F.3d 1297, 1300 (11th Cir. 2000); McKinney, 20
F.3d at 1565 (quoting Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 485 (1982) ("The fact that [the plaintiff] failed to avail himself of
the full procedures provided by state law [such as post-deprivation remedies] does not constitute a sign of their inadequacy.")).
Each state's law will dictate the parameters of the state-created property right and a plaintiff's interest therein. See Coral Springs
St. Sys., Inc. v. City of Sunrise, 371 F.3d 1320, 1333-34 (11th Cir. 2004). In Florida, the "question of whether a prospective builder
has a protected property interest in a building permit . . . has been the subject of much confusion in the courts." Sullivan Props., Inc.
v. City of Winter Springs, 899 F. Supp. 587, 593 (M.D. Fla. 1995) (citing Reserve, Ltd. v. Town of Longboat Key, 17 F.3d 1374, 1379
(11th Cir.1994)); see also Decarion v. Monroe County, 853 F. Supp. 1415, 1418 (S.D. Fla. 1994); Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon
County, 796 F. Supp. 1477, 1484 (N.D. Fla.1992). Under Florida law, vested rights can be created: (1) through a party's reasonable
and detrimental reliance on existing law; or (2) when a municipality has acted in a clear display of bad faith, absent any reliance.
Coral Springs St. Sys., 371 F.3d at 1334.
The state of Florida not only dictates the parameters of the property interest, but also provides remedies for improper zoning
decisions. Executive or quasi-judicial decisions of a zoning board are subject to review by certiorari. See Bd. of County Comm'rs of
Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So.2d 469, 474 (Fla. 1993) (holding that the zoning board is not required to make findings of fact,
but that upon certiorari review the zoning board must demonstrate its ruling was based on competent substantial evidence).
Legislative zoning decisions are also subject to attack in circuit court. See id. Florida circuit courts possess broad powers of review
to determine whether due process is observed. See McKinney, 20 F.3d at 1563-64. Certiorari to the state court is usually an
adequate state remedy. See Reams, 2009 WL 579222, at *7.
On the other hand, if the interest concerned arises under the federal constitution rather than as a creation of state law, the interest
is protected by substantive due process. Substantive due process protects "those rights that are 'fundamental,' that is, rights that
are 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.'" McKinney, 20 F.3d at 1556 (quoting Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937)).
Fundamental rights include most of those enumerated in the Bill of Rights and certain unenumerated rights, such as the right to
privacy. See McKinney, 20 F.3d at 1556; Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851-53 (1992). These rights are protected
"against certain government action regardless of the fairness of the procedures used." McKinney, 20 F.3d at 1556 (internal
quotations omitted). Unlike state-created interests, no amount of subsequent process, such as a post-deprivation hearing, will cure
a violation of substantive due process. Id. at 1557. Instead, this violation is complete when it occurs. Id.
While "property rights have been important common law rights throughout history" and "are protected in many situations by
procedural due process . . . common law rights are not equivalent to fundamental rights, which are created only by the Constitution
itself." DeKalb Stone, Inc. v. County of DeKalb, Ga., 106 F.3d 956, 959 n.6 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Collins & Co. v. City of
Jacksonville, 38 F. Supp. 2d 1338, 1342 (M.D. Fla. 1998) (granting the defendant's motion to dismiss because the right to "own,
alienate, or otherwise use real property" does not fall within the set of fundamental rights protected by substantive due process
under current Supreme Court jurisprudence); Reserve, Ltd. v. Town of Longboat Key, 933 F. Supp. 1040, 1043-44 (M.D. Fla. 1996)
(holding that the plaintiff's interest in a revoked building permit "falls comfortably short of a fundamental right").
In sum, a state-created property right is protected by procedural due process. Fundamental rights are protected by substantive due
process, but the right to use real property for a specific purpose is not a fundamental right.
B. State Action: Executive or Legislative
The second important distinction to determine the claim that is available available to the plaintiff is whether the complained-of
conduct is an executive*fn1 or legislative act. To characterize the act, some federal circuits examine the function performed by the
decision maker, such as a legislative body performing legislation, while other circuits characterize legislative acts as those that are
generally applicable and prospective. See 75 Acres, LLC v. Miami-Dade County, Fla., 338 F.3d 1288, 1296 (11th Cir. 2003); see also
Sullivan Props., 899 F. Supp. at 596.
For instance, "[e]xecutive acts characteristically apply to a limited number of persons (and often to only one person); executive acts
typically arise from the ministerial or administrative activities of members of the executive branch." McKinney, 20 F.3d at 1557 n.9.
"'Acts of zoning enforcement rather than rulemaking are not legislative.'" DeKalb Stone, 106 F.3d at 959 (quoting Crymes v. DeKalb
County, 923 F.2d 1482, 1485 (11th Cir. 1991) (internal citations omitted)); see also Reserve, 933 F. Supp. at 1043-44 (holding that
even if the decision to revoke a building permit was made by the legislative branch, the decision itself is executive because it applies
to one person and not the general population).
If the complained-of state action concerning a right to real property is executive in nature, rather than legislative, the plaintiff can
not maintain a substantive due process claim. See Villas of Lake Jackson, 121 F.3d at 614-15 (implying that executive acts will not
sustain an arbitrary and capricious substantive due process claim); DeKalb Stone, 106 F.3d at 959-60 (holding no substantive due
process cause of action exists when an executive actor deprives the plaintiff of a state-created property right); McKinney, 20 F.3d at
1557 n.9 (implying that only legislative acts will support a substantive due process claim); Reserve, 933 F. Supp. at 1043 ("Section
1983 substantive due process claims arising from non-legislative deprivations of state-created property interests are no longer
cognizable."); Sullivan Props., 899 F. Supp. at 596.
On the other hand, "[l]egislative acts, [unlike executive acts], generally apply to a larger segment of-if not all of-society; laws and
broad-ranging executive regulations are the most common examples." McKinney, 20 F.3d at 1557 n.9; see also 75 Acres, 338 F.3d
at 1296 (analyzing the imposition of a building moratorium on one piece of property to determine whether it was a legislative act
that did not implicate procedural due process or an adjudicative act that required procedural due process). Furthermore, a
"'legislative act involves policy-making rather than mere administrative application of existing policies.'" DeKalb Stone, 106 F.3d at
959 (quoting Crymes v. DeKalb County, 923 F.2d 1482, 1485 (11th Cir. 1991) (internal citations omitted)). Prospective "zoning-type
decisions made by an elected body" are often legislative or quasi-legislative.
75 Acres, 338 F.3d at 1296 n.12.
In the Eleventh Circuit, an arbitrary or capricious legislative act may provide the basis for a substantive due process claim, which is
called an "arbitrary and capricious due process claim." Villas of Lake Jackson, 121 F.3d at 611, 615; see also Eide, 908 F.2d at 721-
22 (stating that while other courts refer to a claim based on arbitrary and capricious legislation as a substantive due process claim,
the Eleventh Circuit refers to this claim as an arbitrary and capricious due process claim). A balancing test is used to determine
whether the city's decision was arbitrary and capricious or whether it was substantially related to general welfare interests,
including its effect on aesthetics and surrounding property values. Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 997 F.2d 1369, 1374-75 (11th
Cir. 1993).
A legislative act may also support other types of claims. See Villas of Lake Jackson, 121 F.3d at 615 (describing four potential claims
based on a zoning regulation that deprives the plaintiff of a constitutionally-protected right to use the property for a certain
purpose).*fn2 For instance, a legislative act may form the basis for an action under the Equal Protection Clause*fn3 or the Takings
Clause of the Constitution. See Villas of Lake Jackson, 121 F.3d at 612, 615.
To illustrate, a plaintiff may establish a Takings Clause claim if a regulation or state action "goes too far" and destroys the value of
the land entirely, even if temporarily, without compensating the property owner. See First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of
Glendale v. Los Angeles County, Cal., 482 U.S. 304, 316-18 (1987). A Takings claim must be asserted under the Takings Clause of
the Fifth Amendment. See Villas of Lake Jackson, 121 F.3d at 611 (noting that the possible "due process takings" claim mentioned in
the Eleventh Circuit's Eide opinion was no longer cognizable under Supreme Court jurisprudence). A Takings Clause claim addresses
government action that is invalid absent compensation, while an arbitrary and capricious substantive due process claim addresses
government action that is invalid the moment it occurs despite any subsequent remedy or compensation. See Tampa Hillsborough
County Expressway Auth. v. A.G.W.S. Corp., 640 So.2d 54, 57 (Fla. 1994).
However, mere fluctuations in the value of real property due to governmental decision-making are generally just "incidents of
ownership" and do not amount to a Taking. See First English, 482 U.S. at 320. In addition, a challenge to a regulatory deprivation of
a single use of real property must be considered in light of the remaining use of the property as a whole. See Villas of Lake Jackson,
121 F.3d at 614 (illustrating that destroying one strand in the bundle of property rights does not constitute a Taking; rather, a
Taking would chop through all the strands in the bundle).
Furthermore, a Takings claim must be ripe in order for the federal court to have jurisdiction. See Eide, 908 F.2d at 725. The plaintiff
must meet the "ripeness prerequisite of exhaustion of the state-court inverse condemnation remedy." Villas of Lake Jackson, 121
F.3d at 612; see also Bickerstaff Clay Prods. Co. v. Harris County, Ga. Bd. of Comm'rs, 89 F.3d 1481, 1490-91 (11th Cir. 1996) ("A
Takings clause claim does not become ripe unless the state provides no remedy [such as an action for inverse condemnation] to
compensate the landowner for the taking."). The state of Florida ensures that full and just compensation be paid if a Taking occurs
which "substantially" interferes with private property. See Joint Ventures, Inc. v. Dep't of Transp., 563 So.2d 622, 624, 627 (Fla.
1990) (describing the guarantee of just compensation granted by the Florida constitution and the Florida courts); see also Executive
100, Inc. v. Martin County, 922 F.2d 1536, 1539, 1542 (11th Cir. 1991) (recognizing that property owners may bring reverse
condemnation proceedings for regulatory takings in Florida courts).
If a plaintiff's Takings claim is ripe after using state court inverse condemnation remedies, he may bring a facial or as applied
challenge to the zoning regulation. See Eide, 908 F.2d at 725. For an as applied challenge, the plaintiff must pass an additional two-
part test. See Eide, 908 F.2d at 716 n.16. First, the zoning decision must be made finally and applied to the property. Eide, 908 F.2d
at 716 n.16. Second, the city "must have made all other decisions necessary for the court to determine whether the landowner has
been deprived of substantially all economically beneficial value of the property." Eide, 908 F.2d at 716 n.16.
To summarize the previous distinctions, a plaintiff's state-created property interest is only entitled to procedural due process for a
potential deprivation by an executive act. A legislative act, however, can support a substantive due process claim if it is arbitrary
and capricious. Before a court can even consider a Takings Clause claim, the plaintiff must exhaust the state's inverse condemnation
remedies. To determine the available claim, if any, a court must analyze the interest at stake and classify the disputed state action.
III. ANALYSIS
Against this complicated legal framework, the Court will examine the factual allegations of Romero's complaint to determine if he has
stated a claim.
A. Count I: Procedural Due Process
A successful § 1983 claim "alleging a denial of procedural due process requires proof of three elements: (1) a deprivation of a
constitutionally-protected liberty or property interest; (2) state action; and (3) constitutionally-inadequate process." Grayden v.
Rhodes, 345 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted).
Romero has met the first two requirements. First, he alleged a protected property interest in his building permit. (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 21.)
This interest arises under Florida law through the doctrine of equitable estoppel. See Coral Springs St. Sys., 371 F.3d at 1334.
Romero has alleged expenditures made in reliance on the permit. (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 21.) Defendants have not challenged this state-
created interest.
Second, Romero alleged that state action caused the deprivation through the stop work order issued on his property. (Compl. ¶¶
47, 48.) Unfortunately, Defendants misread this allegation and direct their arguments to the moratorium rather than the stop work
order. In their motion to dismiss, Defendants argue that because the moratorium was a legislative act, Romero is entitled to no
additional due process protection beyond the legislative process. (Def.'s Mot.: 2-4); see 75 Acres, 338 F.3d at 1296 (holding that
legislative acts do not entitle a plaintiff to procedural due process). However, Romero never alleges that the moratorium violated his
procedural due process, but rather that the stop work order caused the deprivation. (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 48; Pl.'s Resp.: 2-3.) For this
reason, Romero properly alleges an executive state action caused his deprivation.
The third requirement, however, is not satisfied by the allegations in Romero's complaint and requires dismissal of Count I. Romero
must allege a constitutionally inadequate process, and Romero claims that the "Municipality of Alachua Land Use Regulations
provide no procedure upon which plaintiff ROMERO could administratively contest the stop work order." (Compl. ¶ 51.c) (emphasis
added). He restates this belief in his response. (Pl.'s Resp.: 10) ("such appeal opportunity appearing nowhere in the City of Alachua
LDRs"). Romero believes this lack of procedure also precluded him from review by the Florida circuit courts because there was no
record created for the circuit court to review. (Compl. ¶ 51.d.) However, even assuming circuit court review is precluded without a
record, such a procedure to contest the stop work order does exist, and the reason there was no record the circuit court could
review was because Romero failed to use the available post-deprivation remedies provided by the state. See McKinney, 20 F.3d at
1565 (stating that a plaintiff's failure to use procedures provided by state law does not render the procedures inadequate).
For example, Romero could have appealed the stop work order to the city of Alachua's Zoning Board of Appeals ("BOA").*fn4 The
Alachua Land Development Regulations ("LDRs") are available online and detail the appeal procedure.*fn5
Section 2.4.18, entitled "Mobile Home Move-On Permit," applies to the "placement, erection, and use of a mobile home in the City"
and enables "any person aggrieved or affected by a decision of the LDR Administrator [to] appeal such decision to the BOA in
accordance with section 2.4.20, Appeal of Interpretations or Decisions by LDR Administrator."*fn6 Land Dev. Reg. § 2.4.18 (B); (H)
(emphasis in original). Section 2.4.20 details the "Appeal Procedure," which includes appellant's ability to appear, with or without
counsel, and present evidence to support his appeal. Land Dev. Reg. § 2.4.20 (B)(1)-(5). Contrary to Romero's assertion, the city's
LDRs do include an appeal procedure.
Furthermore, if Romero had used the city's appeals process and then received an unfavorable decision from the BOA, he would have
had a record for the state court to review. The Florida circuit court could have used its broad powers of review to determine
whether Romero received due process. See McKinney, 20 F.3d at 1563-64. However, Romero's complaint mistakenly fails to
recognize the availability of any appeal procedure provided by the city and the opportunity for state court review of that procedure.
The state of Florida does provide post-deprivation remedies. Romero fails to recognize the availability of these remedies at all. For
this reason, Count I must be dismissed because it does not state a claim for a violation of Romero's procedural due process.
B. Count III: Substantive Due Process
Defendants argue that Count III, entitled "Substantive Due Process," must be dismissed because it is based on a state-created
property right which is not entitled substantive due process protection. The Court agrees. The building permit is entitled only to
procedural due process protections. See McKinney, 20 F.3d at 1556; Coral Springs St. Sys., 371 F.3d at 1334. For this reason,
Romero's claim for a substantive due process violation based on the building permit, and subsequent stop work order which
suspended his permit privileges, must be dismissed.
In addition, the Court holds that the stop work order was an executive act because it applied to only Romero, it was an act of
zoning enforcement (even if issued improperly), and it was not prospective or generally applicable to the city's citizens. See
McKinney, 20 F.3d at 1557 n.9; DeKalb Stone, 106 F.3d. at 959. This characterization of the stop work order as an executive act
applies despite the identity of the responsible party. See Reserve, 933 F. Supp. at 1043-44 (holding that the decision to revoke a
building permit was executive, even if made by the legislative branch, because it applied only to one person). Because the stop
work order was an executive act, Romero is only entitled to procedural due process protections for its potentially wrongful
suspension of his building privileges.
The only claim Romero could state for a violation of his substantive due process would involve an arbitrary and capricious legislative
act. See Villas of Lake Jackson, 121 F.3d at 615. While the moratorium could provide the basis for this claim if it were a legislative
act, Romero consistently states that he does not contest the moratorium and that the moratorium never applied to him. (Compl. ¶
37) (stating the moratorium applied only to "the approval or issuance of any new or subsequent mobile home permits and is not
applicable to plaintiff's previously issued [building] permit"). He explains:
[D]efendants unlawfully prevented the plaintiff from building activity as a result of an unlawful stop work order and not as a result of
a lawfully enacted moratorium . . . . [The moratorium] regulated future applications and building activity but did not address the
Plaintiff directly. It was the CITY MANAGER's stop work order, issued prior to the enactment of the emergency ordinance, that
prevented the Plaintiff from completing his building project. (Pl.'s Resp.: 2, 18.) Therefore, the Court need not classify the
moratorium as legislative or executive or determine whether it violated Romero's substantive due process. Romero asserts
definitively that he does not contest the moratorium.
For these reasons, Romero's substantive due process claim in Count III must be dismissed. Romero does not state a claim based on
an arbitrary and capricious legislative act.
C. Count IV: Substantive Due Process - Fundamental Liberty Interest
Count IV, entitled "Substantive Due Process - Fundamental Liberty Interest," mirrors Count III almost identically.*fn7 Romero
apparently asserts a fundamental right to build on his property in this count. (Pl.'s Resp.:11-12.) However, there is no fundamental
liberty interest in a specific use of one's property, such as the erection of a mobile home. See DeKalb Stone, 106 F.3d at 959-60
(stating that property rights, while important, are not fundamental); Collins, 38 F. Supp. 2d at 1342-43 (holding that the right to
"own, alienate, or otherwise use real property" does not fall within the set of fundamental rights protected by substantive due
process). For that reason, and because any other discernable claim in Count IV was previously stated in Count III, Count IV must be
dismissed with prejudice.
D. Count V: Temporary Taking of Property without Just Compensation
As Romero recognizes, a Takings claim is only ripe for adjudication if the plaintiff overcomes the just compensation hurdle, including
exhaustion of the state court inverse condemnation remedy. (Pl.'s Resp.: 14.); see Villas of Lake Jackson, 121 F.3d at 612. If the
claim is ripe, then the court must also determine whether a final decision was reached and applied to the property. See Eide, 908
F.2d at 716 n.16. The state of Florida provides an inverse condemnation remedy. See Executive 100, 922 F.2d at 1539. Romero,
however, fails to recognize the existence of this remedy and never overcame the required hurdle by using the state's remedy. (Pl.'s
Resp.: 15.)
In his response, Romero asserts a futility defense to justify this failure to exhaust the state court inverse condemnation remedy.
(Pl.'s Resp.: 16-17.) However, the available futility defense applies to the final decision hurdle, not to the just compensation hurdle.
See Eide, 908 F.2d at 726-727. There is no futility exception to the just compensation hurdle. See Williamson County Reg'l Planning
Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 194-95 (1985) ("if a State provides an adequate procedure for seeking just
compensation, the property owner cannot claim a violation of the Just Compensation Clause until it has used the procedure and
been denied just compensation."). Instead, a plaintiff may assert only the inadequacy of the state compensation procedures. See
id. Even assuming that Romero meets the final decision hurdle, he has not used "all state procedures for just compensation." See
Eide, 908 F.2dat 723; see also Williamson County, 473 U.S. at 194-95. Romero has also not alleged the inadequacy of Florida's just
compensation procedure. Therefore, Romero's claim is not ripe and Count V must be dismissed.
IV. CONCLUSION
To summarize, a property owner does possess a right to use and develop his property, but that right is subject to reasonable
regulation by the state. See DeKalb Stone, 106 F.3d at 959 n.6. If the state's action is improper, then the plaintiff may state a claim
based upon the type of act that caused the deprivation of the property right. If the state uses an arbitrary or capricious legislative
act to unreasonably regulate, then a substantive due process claim will lie. See McKinney, 20 F.3d at 1557 n.9. If the state uses an
improper executive act to deprive the plaintiff of his interest, then a procedural due process claim will lie. See DeKalb Stone, 106
F.3d at 959-60. If the state goes so far that its regulation cuts through all the strands in the property owner's bundle of rights,
depriving him of all economically viable uses of his land, then a Takings Clause claim will lie. See Villas of Lake Jackson, 121 F.3d at
614.
However, Romero's facts as stated in the complaint do not support a legally cognizable cause of action, even after construing the
facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and examining the cause of action for what it actually is, not for what Romero names
it. See Kirby, 195 F.3d at 1289; McKinney, 20 F.3d at 1560. Therefore, Defendants' motion to dismiss four counts of the complaint
will be granted. Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 6) is granted as to Counts I, III, and V.
2. Plaintiff shall have up to and including June 1, 2009, to file an amended complaint to state valid claims for relief on Counts I, III,
and V. If Plaintiff chooses not to amend by this date, the claims will be dismissed with prejudice.
3. Defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 6) is granted with prejudice as to Count IV.
DONE AND ORDERED this thirteenth day of May, 2009.
Opinion Footnotes
*fn1 Executive and adjudicative acts are grouped together for this purpose as "non-legislative" acts. For simplicity, this Order will
refer to both types of non-legislative acts as executive acts.
*fn2 The Eleventh Circuit in Villas of Lake Jackson also stated that a zoning regulation could provide the basis for a "procedural due
process claim challenging the procedures by which the regulation was adopted." 121 F.3d at 615. However, the court has since
clarified that statement, holding that for legislative acts, "property owners are generally not entitled to procedural due process"
because the legislative process itself provides all the required due process. 75 Acres, 338 F.3d at 1294; but cf. Busse v. Lee County
Fla., No. 08-13170, 2009 WL 549782, at *3 (11th Cir. March 5, 2009) (stating that a plaintiff could state a claim for procedural due
process "challenging the procedures by which a regulation was adopted," but then stating that "alleged problems with the adoption
of such acts cannot serve as the basis for a procedural due process claim").
*fn3 The Equal Protection claim is not addressed in this Order because the Defendants did not challenge Romero's Equal Protection
claim in Count II.
*fn4 As Romero points out in his response, Defendants cite the incorrect Land Development Regulation ("LDR") for the appeal
procedure. (Def.'s Mot.: 5; Pl.'s Resp.: 8.) The Court has taken judicial notice of the 549 pages of LDRs, and this Order cites the
correct LDR for the appeal.
*fn5 City of Alachua, Fla., Land Dev. Reg., available at http://www.cityofalachua.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={EEF21F5E-

EFB 5-4367-850C-1AF6A0A0D38D}.
*fn6 The "LDR Administrator" is previously defined in Section 2.1.6(A)(1) as the City Manager or his designee.
*fn7 The only difference between the two counts is the omission of five paragraphs found in Count III (although reincorporated by
reference in Count IV) and the substitution of paragraph 91 from Count III for paragraph 109 in Count IV. (Compl. ¶¶ 71-112.)
20090513
Buy Document Now


--
Retrieve Original
Court Records
Buy Document Now
Prescott v. Alejo

March 25, 2010

v.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Defendants, A. Brian Albritton, David P. Rhodes, Sean P. Flynn, and E. Kenneth Stegeby's
(USAO Defendants) Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Notices (Doc. # 74, 75, and 76) and for an Award of Monetary Sanctions (Doc. #80)
filed on March 9, 2010.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that the Court may order "any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous matter" be stricken from a pleading. Harvey v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2005 WL 1421170 (M.D. Fla. June
17, 2005). In evaluating a motion to strike, the court must treat all well pleaded facts as admitted and cannot consider matters
beyond the pleadings. Microsoft Corp. v. Jesse's Computers & Repair, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 681, 683 (M.D. Fla. 2002). A motion to strike
will usually be denied unless the allegations have no possible relation to the controversy and may cause prejudice to one of the
parties. Harvey, 2005 WL 1421170 (citing Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Services, Inc., 57 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 1347 (M.D. Fla. 1997).
The UASO Defendants move to strike the Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice of Appeal and Notice of Publications of Defendants'
Fraud (Doc.# 74), Motion for Judicial Notice of Defendants' Fraud upon the Court and Notice of Publications of Defendants' Fraud
(Doc. # 75), and Motion for Relief from Defendants' Fraud upon the Court and Notice of Publications of Defendants' Fraud (Doc. #
76), all filed on March 8, 2010, as an immaterial, impertinent and scandalous matter. The USAO Defendants further request the court
exercise its inherent authority to award sanctions against Plaintiffs Prescott and Busse.
As grounds, the USAO Defendants state that all three Motions contain irrelevant, scandalous material, and that the Plaintiffs are
merely using this case to harass any individual that has opposed them in their previous lawsuits. As an example, the Plaintiff
referred to AUSA Jennifer Corinis as "Jennifer Whore Corinis." (Doc. # 75 ¶ 15). The Plaintiff continually asserts that Judges in the
Middle District of Florida are corrupt and have participated in a conspiracy against him. The allegations appear to be based solely on
the fact that the Plaintiff received adverse rulings from judges in the Middle District of Florida and from the Eleventh Circuit. A review
of the Plaintiff's filings demonstrate that the Plaintiff's Motions are immaterial and scandalous, and do not present legal arguments
for the Court's review. Therefore, the Court finds good cause to strike the Motions.
The USAO Defendants also move the Court to impose sanctions, under Rule 11, on the Plaintiffs for bringing the Motions. The
purpose of Rule 11 sanctions is to reduce frivolous claims defenses, or motions and to deter costly meritless maneuvers.
Massengale v. Ray, 267 F.3d 1298, 1302 (11th Cir. 2001). Rule 11 requires district courts to impose appropriate sanctions, after
notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond where an attorney or party submits a pleading to the court that: (1) is not well-
grounded in fact and therefore has no reasonable factual basis; (2) is not legally tenable; or (3) is submitted in bad faith for an
improper purpose. Ricccard v. Prudential Insurance Company, 307 F.3d 1277, 1294 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)).
The USAO Defendant's Rule 11 Motion is due to be denied for failure to comply with the Rule's requirements. First, a motion for Rule
11 sanctions must be filed separately from other motions or requests. Nicarry v. Cannaday, 2006 WL 3931449 * 3 (M.D. Fla.
December 7, 2006). Further, the motion must be served in accordance with Rule 5, but should not be presented to the court until
after opposing counsel has been given a twenty-one (21) day "safe harbor" period in which to correct or withdraw the offending
document. Id.(citing DeShiro v. Branch, 183 F.R.D. 281 (M.D.Fla.1998) (explaining in detail the "safe harbor" period). Here, the USAO
Defendant's included the Rule 11 Motion with their Motion to Strike and they fail to comply with the "safety harbor" provision. Thus
the Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions is due to be denied at this time. However, the Court cautions the Plaintiffs that future filings
containing immaterial and scandalous matters may result in sanctions being imposed.
ORDERED:
The Defendants, A. Brian Albritton, David P. Rhodes, Sean P. Flynn, and E. Kenneth Stegeby's (USAO Defendants) Motion to Strike
Plaintiffs' Notices (Doc. # 74, 75, and 76) and for an Award of Monetary Sanctions (Doc. #80) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
(1) The Defendants, A. Brian Albritton, David P. Rhodes, Sean P. Flynn, and E. Kenneth Stegeby's (USAO Defendants) Motion to
Strike Plaintiffs' Notices is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to STRIKE (Docs. # 74, 75, and 76).
(2) The Defendants, A. Brian Albritton, David P. Rhodes, Sean P. Flynn, and E. Kenneth Stegeby's (USAO Defendants) Motion for Rule
11 Sanctions is DENIED.
20100325
Buy Document Now

Buy Document Now
Busse v. Lee County

December 11, 2007
JORG BUSSE PLAINTIFF,

v.
LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; BOARD OF LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER; STATE OF
FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPEARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, DEFENDANTS.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Amended Report and Recommendation (Doc. #252), filed
November 14, 2007, recommending that defendant Lee County Property Appraiser's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (Doc. #97) should
be granted. No objections have been filed and the time to do so has expired.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify
the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982),
cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual
findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or
in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in
the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno,
826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff'd, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table).
After conducting an independent examination of the file and upon due consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the Court
accepts the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge. The Court further agrees that monetary sanctions would not be
appropriate.
ORDERED: The Amended Report and Recommendation (Doc. #252) is hereby adopted and defendant's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions
(Doc. #97) is GRANTED as follows:
1. Plaintiff's future pleadings, motions, or filings with the Court must first be reviewed by an attorney, who will not be required to
make a formal appearance on behalf of plaintiff and plaintiff is not required to hire to represent him;
2. Plaintiff's filings must reflect affirmation that the attorney has reviewed the pleading, motion, or filing, and the document must be
signed by the attorney indicating review;
3. In the alternative, plaintiff will not be permitted to file any pleadings, motions, or miscellaneous filings without first being granted
permission from the assigned United States Magistrate Judge after review for frivolity; and
4. All pleadings, motions, or other miscellaneous filings that are not reviewed by an attorney or the Magistrate Judge will be stricken
from the record.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 11th day of December, 2007.
20071211
6/15/2010 FindACase™ | Burgess v. Holmes Cou…
Buy Document Now
Burgess v. Holmes County Board of County Commissioners
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION

May 7, 2010
WANDA LOU BURGESS AND DANNY BURGESS PLAINTIFFS,

v.
HOLMES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, HOLMES COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT, AND DON BENTON,
DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Smoak United States District Judge
ORDER
Before me is Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 3).
One of the elements required before a district court may grant a preliminary injunction is a showing by the movant that it has a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case. Horton v. City of St. Augustine, 272 F. 3d 1318, 1326 (11th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiffs cannot satisfy this element, because it is doubtful that this case presents issues for federal jurisdiction.
A takings clause claim does not become ripe unless the state provides no remedy to compensate the landowner for the taking.
Bickerstaff Clay Products Co. v. Harris County, 89 F.3d 1481, 1490-91 (11th Cir. 1996). Florida courts have long recognized that an
inverse-condemnation remedy is available for alleged takings violations. See Busse v. Lee County, 317 Fed. Appx. 968, 972 (11th
Cir. 2009). Furthermore, Florida law provides a remedy for landowners who dispute the "dedication" of a road to the public. Fla.
Stat. § 95.361(4). Plaintiffs do not allege that they have unsuccessfully pursued the available state procedures. Thus, their takings
claim is not ripe and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Without subject matter jurisdiction, it is impossible for Plaintiffs to
succeed on the merits of the case. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the first requirement for a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs argue that subject matter jurisdiction is present because they are making a challenge based on the "public use clause,"
which was found to confer federal jurisdiction in another case brought by Plaintiffs' counsel, Hughes v. Holmes Co. Brd. of Co.
Comm'rs et. al., 5:03-cv-265/RV-MD. However, the Eleventh Circuit has held that reaching the "public use" issue is error when a
takings claim is not yet ripe. Bickerstaff Clay Products Co. v. Harris County, 89 F.3d 1481, 1489 n. 14 (11th Cir. 1996).
It is unnecessary to have a hearing on the factual issues of Plaintiffs' motion since Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the first element required
for a preliminary injunction--likelihood of success on the merits--without federal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction (Doc. 3) is denied.
ORDERED on May 7, 2010.
20100507
Buy Document Now

6/15/2010 FindACase™ | Prescott v. Lazzara
Buy Document Now
Prescott v. Lazzara

February 6, 2009
JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT AND DR. JORG BUSSE, PLAINTIFFS,

v.
RICHARD A. LAZZARA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard A. Lazzara United States District Judge
ORDER
Upon due and careful consideration of Plaintiffs' latest motions filed this day, it is ordered and adjudged that these motions, found
at dockets 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 are denied as being wholly without factual or legal merit. Plaintiffs are put on notice that
any future motions having no basis in fact or law will be summarily denied by endorsed order. Plaintiffs are reminded of their
obligation to file on or before February 13, 2009, a proper response to this Court's order to show cause entered January 30, 2009,
at docket 8, failing which this case will be dismissed with prejudice and without further notice.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on February 6, 2009.
20090206
Buy Document Now

6/15/2010 FindACase™ Network FL

--
Retrieve Original
Court Records
Search A gain
Search results for: BUSSE, Dated: 01/01/2006 - 06/15/2010

18
Docresults found. Sorted by relevance.
# Description
1 [U] Busse v. Lee County

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Retrieve Original
Dated: March 5, 2009 Court Records From
2 Prescott v. Alejo
ANY COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT
MYERS DIVISION
Dated: April 1, 2010
Nam e of Court:
3 [U] Prescott v. State of Florida
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT State:
Dated: April 21, 2009 --
4 Prescott v. Alejo Court Records Request:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT Full Docket
MYERS DIVISION
Dated: March 31, 2010 Standard service
24 Hour Rush
5 New World Music Co. v. Tampa Bay Downs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA
DIVISION
Dated: January 6, 2009
6 Prescott v. Alejo
MYERS DIVISION
Dated: March 30, 2010
7 Busse v. Lee County

MYERS DIVISION
Dated: February 1, 2010
8 Prescott v. Alejo
MYERS DIVISION
Dated: June 11, 2010
9 Prescott v. Alejo
MYERS DIVISION
Dated: April 30, 2010
10 Prescott v. Alejo
MYERS DIVISION
12

fl.findacase.com/…/wfrmResults.aspx 1/1
6/15/2010 FindACase™ Network FL
Search A gain
Search results for: BUSSE, Dated: 01/01/2006 - 06/15/2010

18
Docresults found. Sorted by relevance.
# Description
MYERS DIVISION
12 Busse v. State
MYERS DIVISION
13 Romero v. Watson
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION
Dated: May 13, 2009
MYERS DIVISION
15 Busse v. Lee County

MYERS DIVISION
Dated: December 11, 2007
16 Burgess v. Holmes County Board of County Commissioners

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
Dated: May 7, 2010
17 City of Tampa v. Addison

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
Dated: August 8, 2007
18 Prescott v. Lazzara
MYERS DIVISION
12

fl.findacase.com/…/wfrmResults.aspx 1/1
Beyond Perverted
IN CORRUPTION WE TRUST
TITLE FORGERY IN FLORIDA

GREAT SEAL OF BRIBERY
LAND & BLOOD
NOTHING WAS DONE …
…UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE

AMERICA’S LOVE AFFAIR:
CORRUPTION
O.R. 569/875
BP
ENRON
MADOFF
KATRINA
DOT COM
WORLDCOM
HALLIBURTON
VEXATIOUS & VILE
JUDICIAL CORRUPTION
JUD
Beyond Perverted
Bribed U.S. Judge

John E. Steele
CERTIFIED DELIVERY
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EQUAL COURT ACCESS
7. Again, the Plaintiffs move for equal court access in this electronic Court. For the criminal
purpose of extending and concealing Governmental fraud and extortion scheme O.R. 569/875”,
this Court has obstructed the pro se Plaintiffs’ electronic Court access. Here, electronic court
access is the only practical court access from remote parts of the world where mail is
unavailable.
JUDICIAL CRIMES & OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
8. In Doc. # 338, p. 12, Civil Rights Case # 2:07-cv-228-FtM-JES-SPC, Defendant crooked Judge
John Edwin Steele expressly verbalized his obstruction of justice and prejudice:
“The copy of the Resolution attached to the Third Amended Complaint establishes
that it was signed, executed, and duly recorded in the public records, and plaintiff
will not be allowed to assert otherwise.”
3
JUDICIAL CORRUPTION:
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT SCAM
CROTCH KICKING IN COURT
PUNISHING
PRO SE PLAINTIFFS
AS “VEXATIOUS”
HOW I CONCEAL FORGERY
O.R. 569/875
Judge Charlene E. Honeywell

6/13/2010 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
INTAPP
U.S. District Court

Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW
Busse et al v. Steele et al Date Filed: 02/09/2010

Assigned to: Judge Charlene E. Honeywell Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Case in other court: 10-12133-I Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff
Jorg Busse represented by Jorg Busse
Suite 2200
C/O Legal and Consular Department
100 N. Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, Fl 33132
239/595-7074
PRO SE
Plaintiff
Jennifer Franklin Prescott represented by Jennifer Franklin Prescott
P.O. Box 845
Palm Beach, FL 33480
PRO SE
V.
Defendant
John Edwin Steele
Defendant
Sheri Polster Chappell
Defendant
Roger Alejo
Defendant
Kenneth M. Wilkinson represented by Jack Neil Peterson
Lee County Attorney's Office
2115 Second St
PO Box 398
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 1/5
Ft Myers, FL 33902
239/533-2236
Fax: 239/485-2118
Email: peterj@leegov.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Jack N. Peterson
Defendant
Gerald Bard Tjoflat
Defendant
Richard Jessup
Defendant
Judge Birch
Defendant
Judge Dubina
Defendant
Richard A. Lazzara
Defendant
Charlie Crist
Defendant
Lee County Value Adjustment Board
Defendant
Lori Rutland
Defendant
Executive Title Co.
Defendant
Johnson Engineering, Inc.
Date Filed # Docket Text

02/09/2010 1 COMPLAINT and independent action for relief from fraud, fraud on the courts, and writ
of execution and EMERGENCY MOTION to enjoin fraud on courts and fraudulent writ
of execution against Roger Alejo, Judge Birch, Sheri Polster Chappell, Charlie Crist,
Judge Dubina, Executive Title Co., Richard Jessup, Johnson Engineering, Inc., Richard A.
Lazzara, Lee County Value Adjustment Board, Jack N. Peterson, Lori Rutland, John
Edwin Steele, Gerald Bard Tjoflat, Kenneth M. Wilkinson with Jury Demand (Filing fee $
350 receipt number F013439) filed by Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse.(SPB)
(Entered: 02/10/2010)
02/10/2010 2 STANDING ORDER: Filing of documents that exceed twenty-five pages. Signed by All
Divisional Judges on 12/7/09. (SPB) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
02/10/2010 Summons issued as to Jack N. Peterson, Gerald Bard Tjoflat, Kenneth M. Wilkinson.
(SPB) (Entered: 02/11/2010)
02/12/2010 3 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically emergency motion for
release of fraudulent lien by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (SPB) (Entered:
02/16/2010)
02/16/2010 4 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Motions to enjoin federal judicial crimes,
fraud, fabrications, false pretenses, and fraudulent sale of plaintiffs' land pretenses of
"frivolity" by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (SPB) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
03/03/2010 5 RELATED CASE ORDER AND NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 - track
2. Notice of pendency of other actions due by 3/17/2010. Signed by All Divisional
Judges on 3/3/2010. (DH) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
03/03/2010 6 INTERESTED PERSONS ORDER. Certificate of interested persons and corporate
disclosure statement due by 3/17/2010. Signed by All Divisional Judges on 3/3/2010.
(DH) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
03/23/2010 Mail returned as Undeliverable/ Return to sender re: 5 Related case order and notice of
designation of track 2, 6 Interested persons order. Mail was resent to Jorg Busse. (SPB)
(Entered: 03/24/2010)
03/26/2010 Summons issued as to Sheri Polster Chappell, Charlie Crist, Executive Title Co., John
Edwin Steele. (SPB) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
04/30/2010 7 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
(SPB) (Entered: 04/30/2010)
05/04/2010 8 ORDER OF RECUSAL. Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell, Magistrate Judge
Douglas N. Frazier, and Judge John E. Steele recused. The Clerk shall reassign the case
to the next available District Judge and the next available magistrate judge. Signed by
Judge John E. Steele on 5/4/2010. (RKR) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
05/04/2010 9 Case Reassigned to Judge Charlene E. Honeywell. New case number: 2:10-cv-89-FtM-
36SPC. (SPB) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
05/05/2010 10 MOTION to dismiss Complaint by Kenneth M. Wilkinson. (Peterson, Jack)
ATTORNEY notified that the wrong image is attached to docket entry. Attorney to refile
correctly. Modified on 6/4/2010 (kma). (Entered: 05/05/2010)
05/06/2010 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 7 Notice of interlocutory appeal. (slp) (Entered: 05/06/2010)
05/06/2010 11 Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson. NOTE: District Judge Charlene
E. Honeywell previously reassigned. New case number: 2:10-cv-89-FtM-36TAW (kma)
Modified on 6/4/2010 (kma). (Entered: 05/06/2010)
05/26/2010 Mail returned as Undeliverable/ Adressee unknown return to center re: 8 Order of
recusal. Mail resent to Jorg Busse. (SPB) (Entered: 05/26/2010)
06/01/2010 Summons issued as to Richard Jessup, Johnson Engineering, Inc.. (SPB) (Entered:
06/01/2010)
06/01/2010 12 RETURN of service executed on 5/1/2010 by Jorg Busse as to John Edwin Steele.
(SPB) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
06/01/2010 13 RETURN of service executed on 5/4/10 by Jorg Busse as to Sheri Polster Chappell.
(SPB) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
06/01/2010 14 RETURN of service executed on 4/30/10 by Jorg Busse as to Kenneth M. Wilkinson.
(SPB) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
06/01/2010 15 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for full faith, credit and
equal court access by Jorg Busse. (SPB) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
06/01/2010 16 EMERGENCY MOTION to compel defendants to show good cause by Jorg Busse.
(SPB) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson. (Entered: 06/04/2010)
06/04/2010 17 MOTION to dismiss Complaint by Kenneth M. Wilkinson. (Peterson, Jack) (Entered:
06/04/2010)
06/04/2010 Summons issued as to Roger Alejo. (drn) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
06/04/2010 Summons issued as to Richard A. Lazzara. (SPB) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
06/04/2010 18 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically from fraud on courts by
Jorg Busse. (SPB) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
06/04/2010 19 MEMORANDUM in support of re 18 Motion for miscellaneous relief filed by Jorg
Busse. (See document for full title of pleading.) (SPB) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
06/07/2010 20 ORDER referring motion to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson for disposition: 17
MOTION to dismiss Complaint filed by Kenneth M. Wilkinson. Signed by Judge
Charlene E. Honeywell on 6/7/2010. (BGS) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
06/11/2010 21 ORDER of Court finding no emergencies have been presented as to 15 and 18 . The
Motions will be addressed in due course after Defendants have had the opportunity to
respond. See attached Order for complete details. Signed by Judge Charlene E.
Honeywell on 6/11/2010. (BGS) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt
06/13/2010 15:51:44
PACER
we0083 Client Code:
Login:
Docket Search 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-
Description:
Report Criteria: TGW
Billable
3 Cost: 0.24
Pages:
Honey well I lied:
It’s not any title …

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

Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell.
STEAMROLLER
DRIVEN BY:
CHARLENE C. HONEYWELL
JUDICIAL STEAMROLLING:
FLATTENING PLAINTIFFS AS
“VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS”
http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud
STEAMROLLER:
I trust in title forgery

FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE
U.S. PUNISHMENT & ‘SANCTIONS’
U.S. COVER-UP OF SCAM O.R. 569/875:
U.S. JUDICIAL CASE FIXING:

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

U.S. District Court
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC
Prescott et al v. Alejo et al Date Filed: 12/04/2009

Referred to: Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Case in other court: 09-16203-H Jurisdiction: Federal Question
09-16205-H
09-16206H
09-16207-H
09-16208-H
10-10645-F
10-11628-D
10-11629-D
10-11630-D
10-11631-D
10-11632-D
10-11633-D
10-11634-D
10-12134-H
Florida Southern, 9:09-cv-82359
Plaintiff
Jennifer Franklin Prescott represented by Jennifer Franklin Prescott
P.O. Box 845
Palm Beach, FL 33480
PRO SE
Plaintiff
Jorg Busse represented by Jorg Busse
P.O. Box 11124
Naples, Fl 34101-11124
239/595-7074
PRO SE
V.
Defendant
Roger Alejo represented by Jack Neil Peterson
Lee County Attorney's Office
2115 Second St
PO Box 398
Ft Myers, FL 33902
239/533-2236
Fax: 239/485-2118
Email: peterj@leegov.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Kenneth M. Wilkinson represented by Jack Neil Peterson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Jack N. Peterson represented by Jack Neil Peterson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Roger Desjarlais represented by Jack Neil Peterson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Lee County Florida represented by Jack Neil Peterson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Lee County Value Adjustment Board
Defendant
Lori L. Rutland
Defendant
State of Florida, Board of Trustees of
the Internal Improvement Trust Fund
Defendant
State of Florida, Department of
Environmental
Protection
Defendant
Chad Lach
Defendant
Reagan Kathleen Russell
Defendant
Karen B. Hawes represented by Jack Neil Peterson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Charlie Green represented by Jack Neil Peterson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Bob Janes represented by Jack Neil Peterson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Brian Bigelow represented by Jack Neil Peterson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Ray Judah represented by Jack Neil Peterson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Tammy Hall represented by Jack Neil Peterson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Frank Mann represented by Jack Neil Peterson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
United States Attorney(s) represented by Jennifer Waugh Corinis
United States Attorney
400 North Tampa Street
Suite 3200
Tampa, Fl 33602
813/274-6310
Fax: 813/274-6200
Email: jennifer.corinis@usdoj.gov
TERMINATED: 05/12/2010
LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven A. Nisbet
US Attorney's Office - FLM
Suite 3200
400 N Tampa St
Tampa, FL 33602
813/274-6333
Fax: 813/274-6198
Email: steven.nisbet@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Sean P. Flynn represented by Jennifer Waugh Corinis
LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven A. Nisbet
US Attorney's Office - FLM*
Suite 3200
400 N Tampa St
Tampa, FL 33602
813/274-6333
Fax: 813/274-6198
Email: steven.nisbet@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
E. Kenneth Stegeby represented by Jennifer Waugh Corinis
LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven A. Nisbet
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
David P. Rhodes represented by Jennifer Waugh Corinis
LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven A. Nisbet
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
A. Brian Albritton represented by Jennifer Waugh Corinis
LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven A. Nisbet
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Cynthia A. Pivacek represented by Gerald D. Siebens
Office of the Attorney General
Suite 1100
501 E Kennedy Blvd
Tampa, FL 33602-5242
813/233-2880
Fax: 813/233-2886
Email: gerald.siebens@myfloridalegal.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Johnson Engineering, Inc. represented by Clifford Gorman
Clifford Gorman, LLC
450 N.E. 2nd Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3270
954/467-9100
Fax: 954/467-9797
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Steven Carta
Defendant
Mike Scott represented by John W. Lewis
Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, PA
1715 Monroe St
PO Box 280
Ft Myers, FL 33902-0280
239/344-1120
Fax: 239/344-1200
Email: John.lewis@henlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Hugh D. Hayes represented by Gerald D. Siebens
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Gerald D. Siebens
Defendant
State of Florida Attorney General
Defendant
William M. Martin
Defendant
Peterson Bernard
Defendant
Skip Quillen
Defendant
Tom Gilbertson
Defendant
Charles Barry Stevens

12/01/2009 1 COMPLAINT against A. Brian Albritton, Roger Alejo, Peterson Bernard, Brian
Bigelow, Steven Carta, Roger Desjarlais, Sean P. Flynn, Tom Gilbertson, Charlie
Green, Tammy Hall, Karen B. Hawes, Hugh D. Hayes, Bob Janes, Johnson
Engineering, Inc., Ray Judah, Chad Lach, Lee County Florida, Lee County Value
Adjustment Board, Frank Mann, William M. Martin, Jack N. Peterson, Cynthia A.
Pivacek, Skip Quillen, David P. Rhodes, Reagan Kathleen Russell, Lori L. Rutland,
Mike Scott, Gerald D. Siebens, State of Florida Attorney General, State of Florida,
Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, State of Florida, Department
of Environmental, E. Kenneth Stegeby, Charles "Barry&quo Stevens, United States
Attorney(s), Kenneth M. Wilkinson., filed by Jennifer Franklin Prescott.(lh) [Transferred
from flsd on 12/4/2009.] (Entered: 12/02/2009)
12/01/2009 2 Filing fee: For new case $ 350.00, receipt number 726644 (lh) [Transferred from flsd
on 12/4/2009.] (Entered: 12/02/2009)
12/04/2009 3 ORDER Transferring and Closing Case. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to
CLOSE this case. Signed by Senior Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 12/3/2009. (asl)
[Transferred from flsd on 12/4/2009.] (Entered: 12/04/2009)
12/04/2009 4 Case transferred in from Florida Southern; Case Number 9:09-cv-82359. Original file
with documents numbered 1 - 3, certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet
received. (Entered: 12/04/2009)
12/04/2009 5 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin fraudulent
judgments and execution of fraudulent judgments case #2:07-00228-cv-FtM-29-SPC,
DOC. #386 by Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. (Attachments: # 1 Main
Document, # 2 Main Document, # 3 Main Document)(kma) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
12/07/2009 6 Case reassigned Unassigned Judge and Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell. New
case number: 2:09-cv-791-FtM-99SPC. (drn) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 7 STANDING ORDER: Filing of documents that exceed twenty-five pages.Signed by All
Divisional Judges on 8/20/08. (drn) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to Mike Scott, Lee County Value Adjustment Board, Lori L.
Rutland. (SLU) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to Cynthia A. Pivacek, Hugh D. Hayes, Kenneth M. Wilkinson.
(SLU) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to Peterson Bernard, Roger Alejo, Jack N. Peterson. (SLU)
(Entered: 12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to Charlie Green, A. Brian Albritton, Steven Carta. (SLU) (Entered:
12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to Chad Lach, Johnson Engineering, Inc., State of Florida Attorney
General, Skip Quillen, Roger Desjarlais. (SLU) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to State of Florida, Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement
Trust Fund, Reagan Kathleen Russell, Bob Janes. (SLU) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to David P. Rhodes, William M. Martin. (SLU) (Entered:
12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to Charles Barry Stevens. (SLU) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 8 NOTICE OF APPEAL; MOTION to reconcile "order transferring & closing case",
Doc. #3, with 04/21/2009 Federal Appellate denial of Def. Wilkinson's motion and the
dispositive declaration of plaintiffs' unimpeachable riparian gulf-front street record
ownership; NOTICE of summons and/or service upon defendants U.S. Attorney,
Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Roger Alejo, Jack N. Peterson, A. Brian Albritton, Lee County,
FL by Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. Filing fee not paid. (kma) (Entered:
12/08/2009)
ownership; NOTICE of transcript of November 7, 2007 proceedings, in further support
of judicial fraud and corruption, Case #2:07-cv-228-FtM-29SPC by Jennifer Franklin
Prescott, Jorg Busse. Filing fee not paid. (kma) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/07/2009 10 NOTICE OF APPEAL; NOTICE of appeal from "order transferring and closing case"
and another criminal act of case fixing in exchange for bribes (See Doc #3);
CONCLUSIVE dispositive de novo record evidence by Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg
Busse. Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4
Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(kma) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/08/2009 Summons issued as to State of Florida, Department of Environmental, Karen B. Hawes,
Tom Gilbertson. (SLU) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/08/2009 Summons issued as to Brian Bigelow, Sean P. Flynn, Gerald D. Siebens. (SLU)
(Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/08/2009 Summons issued as to Ray Judah, Tammy Hall, E. Kenneth Stegeby. (SLU) (Entered:
12/08/2009)
to USCA re 8 Notice of appeal. (kma) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/08/2009 Summons issued as to Frank Mann, Lee County Florida. (SLU) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/08/2009 11 NOTICE OF APPEAL and fraud on court(s); 60(b) MOTION for relief from
governmental corruption and fraud pursuant to de novo record evidence of gov. crimes
& corruption in Cases #2:07-cv-228-FtM-JES-SPC and 2:09-cv-00791-UA-SPC;
NOTICE of corruption, criminal case fixing, extrinsic fraud by named defendant corrupt
Judge John E. Steele, who dis-allowed the plaintiff(s) "to assert" the truth and obstructed
justice by Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. Filing fee not paid. (kma) (Entered:
12/08/2009)
12/08/2009 12 NOTICE OF APPEAL and fraud on court(s); DEMAND for filing of plaintiffs' entire
complaint and independent action for relief from fraud, fraud on courts, governmental
corruption & extension of "Lee County" forgeries pursuant to de novo record evidence
of gov. crimes & corruption; NOTICE of incompletely filed complaint by Jennifer
Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. Filing fee not paid. (kma) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/08/2009 13 NOTICE OF APPEAL and fraud on court(s); Governmental corruption and forgery
record evidence: Record transcript of proceedings on 11/07/07, 2:07-cv-228-FtM-
JES-SPC in support of fraudulent governmental pretenses of "frivolity" and custom &
policy of sanctioning the pro se plaintiff owners; Well-proven custom and policy of
governmental corruption by Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. Filing fee not paid.
(kma) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/10/2009 14 Case reassigned to Judge Charlene E. Honeywell. New case number: 2:09-cv-791-
FtM-36SPC. Unassigned Judge no longer assigned to the case. (kma) (Entered:
12/10/2009)
12/11/2009 15 NOTICE of extrinsic fraud on courts: governmental corruption & extrinsic fraud record
evidence in support of independent actions for relief and R. 6(b) motions by Jennifer
Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. (drn) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
12/11/2009 16 NOTICE of extrinsic fraud on courts: public corruption & extrinsic fraud record
evidence & exhibits in support of independent actions for relief and R. 60(b) motions by
Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. (drn) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
evidence in support of independent actions for relief and R.60(b) motions by Jennifer
evidence & exhibits in support of independent actions for relief and R.60(b) motions by
12/11/2009 21 NOTICE OF extrinsic fraud on courts: MOTION for default judgment in favor of
Plaintiffs because O.R. 569/875 was not any genuine issue of material fact, or
instrument, but on its face a governmental fraud scheme, and Lee County never had any
claim nor any chance of success by Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. (drn)
Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell. (Entered: 12/18/2009)
evidence & exhibits in support of independent actions for relief and R. 60(b)motions by
12/11/2009 26 NOTICE of extrinisic fraud on court(s); Public corruption & extrinsic fraud record
evidence & exhibit(s) in support of independent actions for relief and R. 60 (b) motions:
record evidence in support of extrinsic fraud and fraudulent concealment of 'Lee Couty'
facial forgeries: non-existent 'parcels' ##'12-44-21-01-0000.00' & '07-44-21-01-
00001.0000' by Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse (kma) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/11/2009 27 NOTICE of extrinsic fraud on court(s); Governmental corruption & extrinsic fraud
record evidence in support of independent actions for relief and R. 60(b) motions:
Transcript of 02/29/2009 deposition and perjury by defendant corrupt official Jack N.
Peterson who fraudulently concealed "Lee County" facial forgeries: non-existent 'parcels'
## '12-44-20-01-00000.00A0' & '07-44-21-01-00001.0000' by Jennifer Franklin
Prescott, Jorg Busse (kma) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/11/2009 28 NOTICE of extrinsic fraud on court(s); governmental corruption & extrinsic fraud
federal survey evidence in support of fraudulent concealment of "Lee County" facial
forgeries: non-existent 'parcels' ## '12-44-20-01-00000.00A0' & '07-44-21-01-
Transcript of fraudulent 2007 judicial proceedings before defendant crooked U.S.
Magistrate S. Polster-Chappell who fraudulently concealed "Lee County" facial
12/16/2009 30 NOTICE of fraud on court(s)in previous cases; notice of crooked John Edwin Steele's
recusal obligation in related case(s) and extrinsic fraud by Jennifer Franklin Prescott,
Jorg Busse (kma) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/18/2009 31 MOTION for waiver of any and all appeal fees, which are the direct and proximate
result of facially fraudulent judgments, governmental corruption, extrinsic fraud, fraud on
the courts, extra-judicial fraud, breach of public trust, and coercion under public policy
and the rules of procedure; FRCP 60(b) motion for relef from extrinsic eminent domain
fraud, governmental coruption, perjury, perversion of public record under false
pretenses of "frivolity" of the conclusive proof of the facial illegality of fake eminent
domain "claim"; Notice of de novo perjury by defendants J.N. Peterson, R. Alejo, and
facially false and fraudulent pretenses of a "resolution", which could not have possibly
legally existed or transferred any property interest or title to Lee County, Florida by
Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. (kma) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/21/2009 32 MOTION for mandatory recusal under 28 USC 455; Motion for mandatory recusal of
def. corrupt U.S. Magistrate S. Polster Chappell, who concocted a "legislative act"
(O.R. 569/875) and/or extended the record " Lee County" fraud schemes for bribes;
Notice of corruption, criminal case fixing, extrinsic fraud by named defendants Polster
Chappell and Steele, who dis-allowed plaintiff(s) "to assert" the truth and obstructed
justice & law; Notice of 12/11/2009 arrest threats against plaintiff Dr. Busse by Jennifer
Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. (kma) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
def. corrupt U.S. Magistrate S. Polster Chappell, who concocted a "legislative act" (OR
569/875) and /or extended the record "Lee County" fraud schemes for bribes; Notice of
corruption, criminal case fixing, extrinsic fraud by named defendants Polster Chappell
and Steele, who dis-allowed plaintiff(s) "to assert" the truth and obstructed justice & law
notice of 12/11/2009 arrest threats against plaintiff Dr. Busse by Jennifer Franklin
Prescott, Jorg Busse. (kma) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/29/2009 34 RELATED CASE ORDER AND NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 -
track 2. Notice of pendency of other actions due by 1/11/2010. Signed by All Divisional
Judges on 12/29/2009. (LAF) (Entered: 12/29/2009)
(LAF) (Entered: 12/29/2009)
01/08/2010 36 ORDER denying 32 the Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busses
Motion for Mandatory Recusal 28 U.S.C. § 445.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri
Polster Chappell on 1/8/2010. (LMH) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
Motion for Mandatory Recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 445. Signed by Magistrate Judge
Sheri Polster Chappell on 1/8/2010. (LMH) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on
1/8/2010. (LMH) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
01/08/2010 45 MOTION for mandatory recusal of def. corrupt U.S. Magistrate S. Polster
Chappell...(see scanned pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
01/08/2010 46 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS & victims of false, forged and
unrecorded scam O.R. 569/875. (drn) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
01/08/2010 47 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to set aside fraudulent order (Doc. 36)
and for relief by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
01/08/2010 48 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for relief from crooked Polster Chappell's
fraud...(see scanned pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
01/11/2010 39 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) dismissing for want of prosecution as to 12 Notice
of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. EOD: 1/7/10; USCA number:
09-16207-H. (slp) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
09-16206-H. (slp) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
01/11/2010 42 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) dismissing for want of prosecution as to 9 Notice of
appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. EOD: 1/7/10; USCA number:
09-16203-H. (slp) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
09-16205-H. (slp) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
09-16204-H. (slp) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
01/11/2010 49 MOTION to set aside fraudulent order re: 38 Order on motion for default judgment,
MOTION for recusal (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
MOTION for recusal (see scanned pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
01/11/2010 51 MOTION to set aside fraudulent order re: 37 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous
Relief, MOTION for recusal (see scanned pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse,
Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
09-16208-H. (slp) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
01/15/2010 52 NOTICE of fraud & fabrication of "resolution" by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
01/15/2010 53 NOTICE of fraud & fabrication of resolution by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
(drn) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
01/15/2010 54 NOTICE OF APPEAL, fraud & fabrication of resolution as to 38 Order on motion for
default judgment, 36 Order on motion for recusal, 37 Order on Motion for
Miscellaneous Relief by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (drn)
(Entered: 02/01/2010)
01/15/2010 55 NOTICE of doc. 282 in appeal by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn)
(Entered: 02/01/2010)
01/15/2010 56 NOTICE of doc. 282 in appeal by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott (Attachments:
#(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
01/26/2010 57 NOTICE of vab fraud & fabrication of resolution by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
01/26/2010 60 MOTION for recusal by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1)
Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
01/26/2010 62 NOTICE of fraud & fabrication of resoltuion by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
02/08/2010 64 EMERGENCY MOTION to stay writ of execution in related Case # 2-07-cv-228-
FtM-29SPC by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: # 1 Main
Document)(kma) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
to USCA re 54 Notice of appeal. (slp) (Entered: 02/09/2010)
02/16/2010 67 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically emergency motion for release of
fraudulent lien by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (SPB) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
02/17/2010 68 ORDER denying 64 Emergency Motion To Stay Writ of Execution as this Court has no
authority to stay the writ. Additionally, Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Relief 5 and 67
is not deemed an emergency and will be addressed in due course. Signed by Judge
02/26/2010 69 MOTION to dismiss Complaint and for Prescreening Injunction by A. Brian Albritton,
Sean P. Flynn, David P. Rhodes, E. Kenneth Stegeby. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
A)(Corinis, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
02/26/2010 70 MOTION to transfer case to the Honorable Richard A. Lazzara by A. Brian
Albritton, Sean P. Flynn, David P. Rhodes, E. Kenneth Stegeby. (Corinis, Jennifer)
(Entered: 02/26/2010)
03/01/2010 71 NOTICE of plaintiffs' previous notice of appeal (see scanned document for complete
title of pleading) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott (Attachments: #(1)
Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
03/01/2010 72 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin "judge shopping" and enforce
courts own order by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) #(1) Exhibit) (drn).
(Entered: 03/02/2010)
03/05/2010 73 EMERGENCY MOTION to enjoin defendants' title fraud & fraud on the court, and
any government/judicial sale by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (kma) (Entered:
03/05/2010)
03/05/2010 74 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for judicial notice of
appeal and payment of appeal fees in U.S. District Court (see scanned pleading for full
title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) Modified on 3/29/2010.
PLEADING STRICKEN PER ORDER 98 (drn). (Entered: 03/08/2010)
03/05/2010 75 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically judicial notice of defendants' fraud on the
court (see scanned pleading for full title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) Modified on 3/29/2010. PLEADING STRICKEN
PER ORDER 98 (drn). (Entered: 03/08/2010)
03/05/2010 76 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically from defendants' fraud on court (see
scanned pleading for full title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments:
#(1) Exhibits)(drn) Modified on 3/29/2010. PLEADING STRICKEN PER ORDER
98 (drn). (Entered: 03/08/2010)
03/05/2010 77 NOTICES of unavailability by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered:
03/09/2010)
03/05/2010 78 AFFIDAVIT in support of governmental corruption, fraud, and fraud on the court of
Jorg Busse by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn)
(Entered: 03/09/2010)
03/09/2010 79 ORDERED that upon review of Plaintiff's Emergency Motion 73 , the Court finds no
emergency has been presented. Therefore, the motion will be addressed in due course
after Defendants have had the opportunity to respond. Signed by Judge Charlene E.
03/09/2010 80 MOTION to strike and for sanctions by A. Brian Albritton, Sean P. Flynn, David P.
Rhodes, E. Kenneth Stegeby. (Corinis, Jennifer) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge
Sheri Polster Chappell. (Entered: 03/09/2010)
03/12/2010 81 NOTICE of unavailability notice of publication of defendants' fraud & fraud on the court
(see scanned document for complete title) Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn)
(Entered: 03/12/2010)
03/12/2010 82 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically enjoin governmental fraudulent
concealment of uncontroverted eminent domain record forgeries and obstruction of
justice and court access by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered:
03/15/2010)
03/12/2010 83 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for reconsideration and declaratory
statements of the emergency of judicial case fixing, fraud on the courts and bribery by
Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
03/12/2010 84 MOTION to compel defendants' responses and declare defendants' previous pleadings
not responsive (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott. (drn) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell.
(Entered: 03/15/2010)
03/15/2010 85 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for immediate
(emergency) screening of the prima facie illegality and nullity of Lee County scam O.R.
569/875 (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
03/15/2010 86 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin governmental
extortion & threats by defendant U.S. Agents, judges and counsel (see scanned
document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments:
03/15/2010 87 PROOF of service by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott as to Kenneth M.
Wilkinson. (drn) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
03/15/2010 88 PROOF of service by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott as to Mike Scott. (drn)
(Entered: 03/17/2010)
03/15/2010 89 MOTION for default judgment in plaintiffs' favor in this independent action for relief
from governmental fraud and direct attack on governmental extortion & fraud (see
scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster
Chappell. (Entered: 03/17/2010)
03/15/2010 90 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically immediate removal of court officer
Corinins and objection to perpetration of fraud (see scanned document for complete
title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
03/15/2010 91 MEMORANDUM and record evidence of extrinsic fraud by defendant U.S. Attorneys
and counsel Jennifer Waugh Corinis filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
03/16/2010 92 PROOF of service by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott as to Charlie Green.
03/16/2010 93 PROOF of service by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott as to Jack N. Peterson.
03/16/2010 94 NOTICE to the Courts to take judicial notice (see scanned document for complete title
of pleading) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn)
(Entered: 03/18/2010)
03/16/2010 95 NOTICE to the Courts to take judicial notice (see scanned document for complete title)
by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered:
03/18/2010)
03/22/2010 96 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) DISMISSING for want of prosecution as to 54
Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. EOD: 03/17/10;
USCA number: 10-10645-F. (slp) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
03/23/2010 97 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Injunctive Relief by A. Brian Albritton,
Sean P. Flynn, David P. Rhodes, E. Kenneth Stegeby. (Corinis, Jennifer) (Entered:
03/23/2010)
03/25/2010 98 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 80 The Defendants, A. Brian Albritton,
David P. Rhodes, Sean P. Flynn, and E. Kenneth Stegebys (USAO Defendants)
Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Notices (Doc. # 74, 75, and 76) and for an Award of
Monetary Sanctions. The Defendants, A. Brian Albritton, David P. Rhodes, Sean P.
Flynn, and E. Kenneth Stegebys (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 Stegebys (USAO Defendants) Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions is
DENIED Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 3/25/2010. (LMH)
(Entered: 03/25/2010)
03/26/2010 99 ORDER denying 84 the Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Jorge Busses Motion
to Compel Defendants Responses and Declare Defendants' Previous Pleadings not
Responsive to Proven Judicial Case Fixing, Corruption, Fraud in the Court(s) and
Bribery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 3/26/2010. (LMH)
(Entered: 03/26/2010)
03/26/2010 100 ORDER denying 89 the Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Jorge Busse's Motion
for Default Judgment in Plaintiffs' Favor. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster
Chappell on 3/26/2010. (LMH) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
concealment of evidence (see scanned pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse,
Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits(drn) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
concealment of evidence (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse,
Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) Modified on 3/29/2010
(drn). (Entered: 03/29/2010)
03/26/2010 104 PROOF of service by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott as to Johnson Engineering,
Inc. (drn) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
03/29/2010 105 EMERGENCY MOTION for recusal (see scanned document for complete title) by
03/29/2010 106 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin the case-fixing
on record (see scanned document for complete title), EMERGENCY MOTION for
recusal (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
03/29/2010 107 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically timely objections to clear
judicial error (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
03/29/2010 108 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for judicial notice of the
dispositive declaration (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
judicial error, corruption and case fixing (see scanned document for complete title) by
03/29/2010 111 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for injunction of criminal
concealment, MOTION to strike Doc. 76 by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
(drn) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell. (Entered:
03/30/2010)
03/29/2010 112 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for judicial notice of defendants' fraud on
the court and fraudulent pleadings by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (# 1
Exhibits) (drn). (Entered: 03/30/2010)
appeal (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
03/29/2010 119 MOTION for summary judgment against defendant U.S. Attorneys by Jorg Busse,
03/29/2010 121 MOTION for sanctions after expiration of 21 days and memorandum by Jorg Busse,
03/29/2010 122 MOTION to extend time for service by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn)
03/29/2010 123 MOTION to change venue because of record corruption, concealment, fraud on the
court and obstruction of justice by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn)
(Entered: 03/31/2010)
03/29/2010 124 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically from defendants' fraud on court and
memorandum (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
03/29/2010 125 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 98 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Order on
motion to strike and any and all orders (see scanned document for complete title) by
Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (drn) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
03/30/2010 113 NOTICE of pendency of related cases re per Local Rule 1.04(d) by Lee County
Florida. Related case(s): yes (Peterson, Jack) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
03/30/2010 114 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement for
Defedants Wilkinson, Alejo, Desjarlais, Peterson, Hawes, Green, Janes, Judah,
Hall, Mann and Lee County by Lee County Florida. (Peterson, Jack) (Entered:
03/30/2010)
03/30/2010 115 MOTION to dismiss Complaint Adopted by Wilkinson, Alejo, Desjarlais, Peterson,
Hawes, Green, Janes, Bigelow, Judah, Hall, Mann and by Lee County Florida.
(Peterson, Jack) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
03/30/2010 116 ORDER denying 45 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's
Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge; denying 60 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin
Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge; denying 105
The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for
Recusal of Magistrate Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on
3/30/2010. (LMH) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
03/31/2010 117 ORDER denying 101 the Plaintiffs, Jennifer Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency
Motion for Judicial Notice of Concealment of Evidence ; denying 102 The Plaintiffs,
Jennifer Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Judicial Notice of
Concealment of Evidence and Objection to Order (Doc. # 98) which was Procured by
Fraud on the Court; denying 103 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's
Emergency Motion Objections to Order (Doc. # 98) and Judicial Notice of
Concealment of Evidence; denying 106 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Prescott and Dr. Jorge
Busse's Emergency Motion to Enjoin the Case Fixing on Record and Conspiracy of
Case Fixing and for Judge to Recuse; denying 107 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin
Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Miscellaneous Relief to Clear
Judicial Error; denying 108 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge
Busse's Emergency Motion of the Dispositive Declaration of Plaintiffs' Record
Ownership by U.S. Court of Appeals ; denying 109 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin
Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Specifically
Timely Objections to Clear Judicial Error ; denying 110 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin
Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Miscellaneous Relief ; denying
111 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion
for Injunction of Criminal Concealment and Striking of Document 76 by Judge Chappell
; denying 112 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for
Judicial Notice of Defendants' Fraud on the Court and Fraudulent Pleadings. Signed by
Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 3/31/2010. (LMH) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
03/31/2010 120 SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOTICE by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott re 119
MOTION for summary judgment. (drn) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
03/31/2010 126 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to Plaintiffs Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
Plaintiffs have SEVEN (7) DAYS to show cause as to 1) why this Court should not
impose sanctions based on Judge Lazzara's Order that explicitly warned Plaintiffs about
filing another complaint based on the same claims and 2) why this Court should not
impose sanctions for their prolific filing of repetitious "emergency" and miscellaneous
motions and superfluous notices and for their name calling and personal attacks on
Magistrate Judge Chappell. FAILURE TO RESPOND WILL RESULT IN THE
IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. Signed by Judge
Motion for Waiver of Any and All Fees ; denying 47 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin
Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busses Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Specifically to Set
Aside Fraudulent Order (Doc. 36); denying 48 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott
and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell;
denying 49 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busses Motion to Set
Aside Order (Doc. # 38) and to Adjudicate New Issues; denying 50 Motion to Set
Aside Judgment; denying 50 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge
Busse's Motion to Set Aside Order (Doc. # 38) and Mandatory Recusal of Magistrate
Judge Chappell ; denying 51 Motion to Set Aside Judgment; denying 51 The Plaintiffs
Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busses Motion to Set Aside Order (Doc. # 37)
and Mandatory Recusal of Magistrate Judge Chappell ; denying 67 The Plaintiffs
Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Release of Lien; denying 72
The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busses Motion to Enjoin Judge
Shopping and Enforce Courts Own Order for Removal of Corrupt R.A. Lazzara ;
denying 73 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency
Motion to Enjoin Defendants' Title Fraud & Fraud on the Court, and Any Government/
Judicial Sale (; denying 82 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's
Motion to Specifically Enjoin Governmental Fraudulent Concealment of Uncontroverted
Eminent Domain Record Forgeries and Obstruction of Justice and Court Access ;
denying 83 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for
Reconsideration and Declaratory Statement(s) of the Emergency of Judicial Case Fixing,
Fraud on the Court(s) ; denying 85 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr.
Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Immediate Screening of the Prima Facie Illegality
and Nullity of Lee County Scam O.R. 569/875 ; denying 86 The Plaintiffs Jennifer
Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion to Enjoin Governmental
Extortion & Threats by Defendant U.S. Agents, Judges, and Counsel (Doc. # 80) and
for Removal from all Proceedings of Magistrate Judge S. Polster Chappell ; denying 90
The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for
Immediate Removal of Court Officer Corinins and Objection to Perpetration of Fraud
on Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 4/1/2010. (LMH)
(Entered: 04/01/2010)
04/02/2010 128 NOTICE of pendency of related cases re 34 Related case order and notice of
designation of track 2 per Local Rule 1.04(d) by United States Attorney(s). Related
case(s): yes (Corinis, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/02/2010)
04/02/2010 129 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re 35
Interested persons order by United States Attorney(s). (Corinis, Jennifer) (Entered:
04/02/2010)
04/06/2010 130 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 126 Order to show cause by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (drn) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
04/07/2010 133 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for equal court access
by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
04/07/2010 134 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin defendants'
cyber & other bullying, harassment and hate mail by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
04/07/2010 135 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for corrections of docket and filing of
entire complaint by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
04/07/2010 136 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 99 Order on motion to compel by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
04/07/2010 137 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 100 Order on motion for default judgment by Jorg Busse,
Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (drn) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
04/07/2010 138 NOTICE of publication of open letter regarding judicial corruption and fraud on the
courts and criminal concealment of Lee County's lack of any street title by Jorg Busse,
04/07/2010 139 NOTICES OF PROOF of service by Lee County Sheriff's Office upon defendants
Mike Scott, Johnson Engineering, Jack N. Peterson, Charlie Green, Kenneth M.
Wilkinson by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
04/07/2010 140 OBJECTION re 99 Order on motion to compel by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
04/07/2010 141 OBJECTION re 100 Order on motion for default judgment by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
concealment of governmental forgeries (for complete title of pleading see scanned
document) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn)
(Entered: 04/12/2010)
04/09/2010 145 OBJECTION re 117 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Order on motion for
recusal Order on motion to strike, 116 Order on motion for recusal, 127 Order on
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Order on motion to set aside judgment Order on
motion for recusal by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered:
04/12/2010)
04/09/2010 146 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically judicial notice by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott. (See document for complete title). (kma) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
04/09/2010 147 OBJECTION re 127 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Order on motion to set
aside judgment Order on motion for recusal by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
(drn) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
04/12/2010 142 NOTICE OF APPEAL from order 127 Order on Motion by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (See document for complete title) (kma) (Entered:
04/12/2010)
04/12/2010 144 MOTION for recusal by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (See document for
complete title) (kma) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
04/12/2010 148 MOTION to dismiss Complaint by Hugh D. Hayes, Cynthia A. Pivacek. (Siebens,
Gerald) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
04/13/2010 149 MOTION for sanctions and for pre-filing injunction by A. Brian Albritton, Sean P.
Flynn, David P. Rhodes, E. Kenneth Stegeby. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit
B, # 3 Appendix Part I, # 4 Appendix Part II)(Corinis, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
04/16/2010 150 ORDER denying 70 Defendants' Motion to Transfer Case to the Tampa Division of the
Middle District of Florida. Signed by Judge Charlene E. Honeywell on 4/16/2010.
(BGS) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
04/16/2010 151 ORDER denying 133 Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Equal Court Access. Signed by
Judge Charlene E. Honeywell on 4/16/2010. (BGS) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
04/16/2010 152 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin nazi-style
governmental tactics of terror, oppression, retaliation, fraud on the court (see pleading
for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered:
04/19/2010)
04/16/2010 153 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid.
(drn) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
04/19/2010 154 NOTICE of unavailability of counsel byA. Brian Albritton, Sean P. Flynn, David P.
Rhodes, E. Kenneth Stegeby, United States Attorney(s) from May 10, 2010 to May
14, 2010. (Corinis, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
04/19/2010 155 NOTICE by Roger Alejo Ken Wilkinson, Jack Peterson, Roger Desjarlais, Lee
County, Karen Hawes, Bob Janes, Brian Bigelow, Ray Judah, Frank Mann of
Adoption of USAO's Motion for Sanctions, ETC. (Peterson, Jack) (Entered:
04/19/2010)
04/19/2010 156 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 1 Complaint by Johnson
Engineering, Inc. (drn) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell.
(Entered: 04/20/2010)
04/20/2010 157 INTERESTED PERSONS ORDER as to Johnson Engineering, Inc. Certificate of
interested persons and corporate disclosure statement due by 5/4/2010. Signed by All
04/20/2010 158 MOTION to dismiss Complaint by Mike Scott. (Lewis, John) (Entered: 04/20/2010)
04/21/2010 159 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 119 Motion for summary judgment filed by A.
Brian Albritton, Sean P. Flynn, David P. Rhodes, E. Kenneth Stegeby. (Corinis,
Jennifer) (Entered: 04/21/2010)
04/23/2010 160 EMERGENCY MOTION for judgment on the merits against defendants Lee County,
MOTION for sanctions against said defendants for ciminal concealment of fake law (see
scanned document for complete title of pleading) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
04/23/2010 161 EMERGENCY MOTION for judgment on the merits against federal judgments,
MOTION for sanctions against said defendants (see scanned document for complete
title of pleading) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1)
04/23/2010 162 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to cease and desist case
fixing and adjudicate pro se plaintiffs' claims in their favor under the law by Jorg Busse,
04/23/2010 163 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin reverse
discrimination & fraud by afro american Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell against the
pro se caucasian plaintiffs by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered:
04/26/2010)
04/23/2010 164 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin hate mail &
threats by defendant psychopath Jack N. Peterson by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
04/23/2010 165 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to comply with Fed. R.
Evidence and to enjoin final solution of frivolity hate crimes against pro se plaintiffs by
04/23/2010 166 MOTION for sanctions against defendant judges who concealed criminal invasion of
private property rights under fraudulent pretenses of frivolity by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
04/23/2010 167 NOTICE of nazi style crimes by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered:
04/26/2010)
04/23/2010 168 NOTICE of nazi style crimes by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott (Attachments:
04/23/2010 169 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 151 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Filing fee
not paid. (drn) (Entered: 04/26/2010)
04/28/2010 170 ORDER granting 156 the Defendant, Johnson Engineering, Inc.'s Motion for Extension
of Time within which to File Responsive Pleading on Behalf of the Defendant. The
Plaintiff shall have 10 days to supply the Defendant Johnson Engineering, Inc. with a
complete copy of the Complaint. The Defendant, Johnson Engineering, Inc. shall then
have twenty (20) days to file a responsive pleading or dispositive motion. Signed by
04/28/2010 171 NOTICE of appeal from bad governmental joke O.R. 569/875 and governmental fraud
on the courts, pro se plaintiff's public notice of intent to settle and public notice of bad
criminal government joke. by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid.
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) NOTE: Duplicative/not treated as a direct appeal to
the 11th Circuit (kma) (Entered: 04/29/2010)
04/28/2010 172 NOTICE of O.R. 569/875 fraud on courts by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
Interested persons order by Johnson Engineering, Inc. (drn) (Entered: 04/30/2010)
04/30/2010 175 ORDER denying 122 the Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's
Motion to Extend Time for Service. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell
on 4/30/2010. (LMH) (Entered: 04/30/2010)
05/04/2010 176 ORDER denying 134 Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Enjoin Defendants' Cyber &
Other Bullying, Harassment and Hate Mail. Signed by Judge Charlene E. Honeywell on
5/4/2010. (BGS) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
05/11/2010 177 Notice of substitution of AUSA. Steven A. Nisbet substituting for Jennifer Waugh
Corinis. (Nisbet, Steven) (Entered: 05/11/2010)
Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott, 132 Notice of appeal
filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott, 131 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg
Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott, 130 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott, 137 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott,
142 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott, 136 Notice of
10-11628-D;10-11629-D;10-11630-D;10-11631-D;10-11632-D;10-11633-D;10-
11634-D. (slp) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
05/24/2010 179 MOTION to dismiss complaint and incorporated memorandum of law in support
thereof by Johnson Engineering, Inc. (drn) (Entered: 05/25/2010)
06/01/2010 180 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 176 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Jorg
Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (drn) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
06/01/2010 181 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 175 Order on motion to extend time by Jorg Busse,
06/01/2010 182 MOTION for reconsideration re 175 Order on motion to extend time by Jorg Busse,
06/01/2010 183 MOTION for reconsideration of order re 176 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous
Relief by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
06/04/2010 184 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for relief from fraud on
courts independent action for relief by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn)
(Entered: 06/07/2010)
06/04/2010 185 INDEPENDENT ACTION for relief from fraud filed by Jennifer Franklin Prescott and
Jorg Busse. (drn) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
Notice of appeal. EOD: 06/02/10; USCA number: 10-12134-H. (slp) (Entered:
06/10/2010)
06/07/2010 186 ORDER directing Plaintiffs 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. At this hearing, the Plaintiffs are to show cause why they
should not be sanctioned for violating Local Rules of this Court and prior Orders of this
Court as set forth in the Order To Show Cause entered on March 31, 2010. The Court
will also hear argument on the USAO Defendants' Motion for Pre-filing Injunction,
Monetary Sanctions, and Dismissal With Prejudice 149 . Signed by Judge Charlene E.
06/08/2010 187 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 149 MOTION for sanctions and for pre-filing
injunction : Motion Hearing set for 6/22/2010 at 10:00 AM in Ft. Myers Courtroom 6
B before Judge Charlene E. Honeywell. (LAF) (Entered: 06/08/2010)
Motion for Recusal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 6/11/2010.
(LMH) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
Motion to Reconsider Order Denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Enlarge Time to Serve
Defendant. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 6/11/2010. (LMH)
(Entered: 06/11/2010)

Transaction Receipt
06/13/2010 15:45:31
PACER Login: we0083 Client Code:
Description:
Report Criteria: SPC
Billable
18 Cost: 1.44
Pages:
6/13/2010 Civil - Small Claims Detail
Civil / Small Claims Detail Information
* The data displayed below was last modified 1/20/2010 7:03:35 PM
BUSSE, JORG ETAL PLAINTIFF VS STATE OF FLORIDA ETAL DEFENDANT
Case Number: 06-CA-003185

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8/4/2008
jurisdiction in this arbitrary taking
8/11/2008 Notice of Filing Response
8/22/2008 Order of Dismissal
8/29/2008 Notice of unavailability and letter of unavailability to counsel for defendant appellee
8/29/2008 Amended Notice of Hearing 9-22-08 @ 9am
Motion or evidentiary hearing oral argument to secure just speedy and inexpensive federal
8/29/2008
adjudication in favor of appellant in the US Court of appeals for the 11th circuit
9/2/2008 Request for Production
9/4/2008 Notice of Change of Address
9/4/2008 Notice
9/5/2008 Notice of Change of Address
9/5/2008 Notice
9/5/2008 Motion for Sanctions
9/5/2008 Notice
9/5/2008 Notice
9/5/2008 Motion to Compel
Notice of Filing appellants emergency motion in the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in
9/8/2008
Support of his Motion for Sanctions against Defendant JN Peterson
9/10/2008 Amended Notice of Hearing 11-10-08 @ 2:30pm
Brief reply brief in the United States Court of appeals for the 11th circuit in support of his
9/10/2008
emergency motion
9/10/2008 Motion emergency motion to enjoin defendants state form trespassing onto lot
9/11/2008 Motion to Compel Response to Interrogatories

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

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

11/5/2008
11/5/2008
property in private undedicated Cayo Costa
Response to defendants appellees Lee County Motion for Protective Order after Illegal Seizure
11/6/2008
of Appellants Priviate Property in Private Cayo Casta
11/6/2008 Response to Request For Production
11/6/2008 Answers to Interrogatories
11/6/2008 Notice of Appeal non final
11/10/2008 Notice of Filing letter of intent to sue the Lee County Sherif and Charles J Ferrante
Complaint to Chief Judge G. Keith cary regarding Corrupt Circuit Judge Lynn Gerald Jr and
11/10/2008
Forged Documents O R 569/875
Response to 11-5-08 Order Denying Motion to Disqualify and Emergency Motion for the
11/10/2008
Recusal of Lynn Gerald Jr
11/10/2008 Order Denying Motion to disqualify
Complaint to Chief Judge G. Keith Cary regarding Corrupt Circuit Judge Lynn Gerald Jr and
11/12/2008
Forged Documents O R 569/875
Motion for Extension of Time to respond to unserved order by corrupt Judge Lynn Gerald Jr
11/12/2008
allegedly filed on 10-17-08 and th forged resolution draft O R 569/875
Notice of Filing of 11-6-08 Official Receipt no ODFM-2008-201657 by Lee County Clerk of

11/12/2008
Courts and E Docket Regarding Appeal from Corrupty Judge Gerald Jr's Office
Notice of Filing of 11-8-08 letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation Regarding Corrupt
11/12/2008
Circuit Judge Lynn Gerald Jr and Forged Document O R 569/875
Notice of Filing letter of intent to sue Chad Lach for deliberate deprivations of his
11/13/2008 constitutional rights under the 14th 4th and 5th amendments criminal trespass and life
theatening fires in Private Cayo Costa under color of forged
Notice of letter to the New York Times regarding Corrupt Circuit Judge Lynn Gerald Jr and
11/13/2008
forged document
Notice letter to News Press regarding corrupt Circuit Judge Lynn Geralnd Jr and forged
11/13/2008
documents
Notice of filing of production of Lee County Community Parks by defendant Lee County
11/13/2008
regarding corrupt Circuit Judge Lynn Gerald Jr and forged document
Notice of Filing production of Cayo Costa State Park by defendants State of Florida regarding
11/13/2008
corrupt Circuit Judge Gerald Jr and forged documents
11/13/2008 Copy of defendants property appraisers response to request for production
11/14/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Steele, John E (Served 11/18/2008)
11/14/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Gerald, Lynn, Jr. (Served 11/18/2008)
11/14/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Scott, Mike (Served 11/18/2008)
11/14/2008 Notice of Cancellation of hearing
11/14/2008 Notice of unavailability from 12-15-08 thru 1-10-09
11/17/2008 Notice of Filing requests for Admissions upon Defendant Donna marie Collins
11/17/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Green, Charlie (Served 11/19/2008)
11/17/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Owen, David W (Served 11/18/2008)
11/17/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Janes, Bob (Served 11/18/2008)
11/17/2008 Minutes
11/19/2008 Copy of emergency motion for injunction and judical notice of binding legal precedent
Copy of emergency motion for the recusal of corrupt defendant Lynn Gerald Jr based
11/19/2008
defendant Ken Wilkinsons Admissions
11/20/2008 Notice of return of service and receipts Lee County Sheriffs Office
Notice of Filing self authenticating public record San Carlos on the Gulf Plat of Survey in
11/20/2008
Supprt of Defendants Arbitrary Capricious Denial of appellants Equal Riparian rights
11/20/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Lach, Chad (Served 12/01/2008)
11/20/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Carta, Steven W (Served 11/24/2008)
11/20/2008 Copy of emergency motion for injunction and Judical notice of binding legal precedent
Copy of emergency motion for the recusal of corrupt defendant Lynn Gerald Jr based on
11/20/2008
defendant Ken Wilkinsons admissions
11/24/2008 Notice of Hearing 11-25-08 at 11:45am
11/25/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Brigham, Tony Prince
11/25/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Chappell, Sheri Polster
11/25/2008 Memorandum regarding evidentiary hearing as to defendant John E. Stelles Fraudulent Claim
11/25/2008 Order Denying Motion to disqualify
11/25/2008 Notice of Filing execution of summons upon defendant Lynn Gerald Jr
11/25/2008 Notice of Filing return of service upon defendant David M Owen
11/25/2008 Motion for injuction and sanctions against corrupt defendant Lynn Gerald Jr
11/26/2008 Order from DCA
12/1/2008 Acknowledgment from DCA new case 08-5797 non final

12/1/2008 Amended Notice of Hearing 12-4-08 at 9:30am
12/1/2008 Order from DCA directing appellant to pay there fees
12/1/2008 Summons (20 day) Issued Chappell, Sheri Polster
12/1/2008 Motion to compel
12/1/2008 Notice of Cancellation of Hearing
12/2/2008 Motion for Disqualification
12/2/2008 Notice of Service of Interrogatories
12/3/2008 Notice of non service and cancellation of hearing 12-4-08
Notice of their response to defendant appellee Wilkinsons Cross Appeal in the US Court of
12/3/2008
Appeals 11th Circuit regarding the Fraud of Lee County
12/4/2008 Minutes
12/5/2008 Notice of Removal to US District Court
12/5/2008 Notice of Removal to US District Court
Order from DCA appellants emergency motion for injunction and sanctions against corrupt
12/8/2008
defendant Lynn Gerald jr is denied
12/8/2008 Order Granting Motion to Disqualify Judge Lynn Gerald Jr
12/8/2008 Request for Admissions (Appellant) upon Sherri L Johnson
12/8/2008 Memorandum in Support (Appellant) of their motion(s) for disqualification
12/8/2008 Request for Admissions (Appellant) upon Reagan K Russell
12/8/2008 Request for Admissions (Appellant) upon Kenneth M Wilkinson
12/10/2008 Notice of fraud and govermental corruption to Chief Judge Keith Cary (copy)
1/12/2009 Order from DCA dated 12-24-08 and filed 12-29-08 is now final
1/16/2009 Order from DCA appellants motion for judicial notice of said brief is denied
6/29/2009 Notice
8/7/2009 Notice of Appeal 2D09-3829
8/10/2009 Notice of fraud on courts and disositive judgment
8/14/2009 Notice of Appeal evidence III copy provided to the Judge
8/14/2009 Notice of Appeal Evidence II copy provided to the Judge
8/21/2009 Acknowledgment from DCA 2D09-3829
Order from DCA appellant has 15 days to show cause why appeal should not be dismissed
8/21/2009
09-3829
8/21/2009 Order from DCA directing appellant to pay the fees 09-3829
Order from DCA directing appellant to file an amended notice of appeal within 15 days 09-
8/21/2009
3829
8/28/2009 Motion -to enjoin State of Florida from trespassing
8/28/2009 Motion -to enjoin Florida Park Rangers from arson
8/28/2009 Motion -to enjoin State of Florida from arson
8/28/2009 Motion -to enjoin Lee County from trespassing
8/28/2009 Motion -to enjoin K M Wilkinson from concealing
8/28/2009 Motion to Set Aside
8/28/2009 Notice
Charlene Edwards Honeywell
GOVERNMENTAL TRICKERY & DECEPTION:
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
th
11 CIRCUIT
Beyond Anarchy
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED

________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAR 5, 2009
No. 08-13170
THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-00228-CV-FTM-29-SPC
JORG BUSSE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
KENNETH M. ROESCH, JR., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
versus
LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA,

BOARD OF LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER,
STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND,
KENNETH M. WILKINSON, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(March 5, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jorg Busse, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
third amended complaint in his civil rights action against various state and local
governmental entities and officials in Florida, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and
1985. The district court dismissed Busse’s federal claims because he had either
failed to adequately plead them or had not established federal subject matter
jurisdiction. In the absence of any viable federal claims, the court declined to
retain jurisdiction over Busse’s state law claims. Based on our review of the
record and the parties’ briefs, we AFFIRM the dismissal.
I. BACKGROUND
On 10 December 1969, the Board of Commissioners of Lee County, Florida
(“the Board”) adopted a resolution claiming certain lands in the Cayo Costa
subdivision as public lands (“the Resolution”). R10-288 at 9. In the Resolution,
the Board identified the relevant lands by reference to a map of the subdivision
which showed that, along with a number of designated land parcels in the
subdivision, there were also a number of unidentified areas on the eastern and
western edges of the subdivision. Id. The Board laid claim to all of these non-
designated parcels “and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of the public for
public purposes.” Id.

Busse asserts that he currently owns Lot 15A of the Cayo Costa subdivision
along with all accretions thereto and that the Resolution violates his property rights
under both federal and state law. Id. at 1. To vindicate his rights, he brought suit
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against an
array of state and local parties, including the Lee County Board of Commissioners,
the county property appraiser, and the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection.1 Id. In his third amended complaint, Busse made six claims:
unconstitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; unconstitutional temporary
takings; trespass; conspiracy, fraud, and malfeasance regarding the designation of
certain unplatted lots; conspiracy to materially misrepresent and defraud; and
oppression or slander of title. Id. at 3–8. He asserted that an array of statutory and
constitutional provisions supported the exercise of jurisdiction: two civil rights acts
— 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343; Articles Three and Four and the Due
Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States Constitution; the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act (33
U.S.C. § 403); the 1862 Homestead Act, the federal common law doctrine of
1
The full list of defendants includes: Lee County, Florida; the Board of Lee County
Commissioners, in their official and private capacities; Kenneth M. Wilkinson, the Lee County
property appraiser, in his official and private capacity; the State of Florida Board of Trustees of
the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida, in their official and private
capacities; the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida Division of
Recreation and Parks, and the Cayo Costa State Park staff, in their individual and private
capacities; and Jack N. Peterson, Lee County Attorney, in his official and private capacity. Id.
accretion and erosion; the Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice, and 12 U.S.C. §§ 3331–3351; and the Federal
Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201). Id. at 2–3.
The defendants subsequently filed separate motions to dismiss Busse’s third
amended complaint, primarily based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
failure to state a claim. R10-285, 291, 303, 304. The district court granted these
motions and dismissed Busse’s third amended complaint. R11-338. In so doing,
the court first found that Busse had made out a valid takings claim but that it had
no jurisdiction over that claim since he had failed to show that he had pursued all
available state remedies before bringing suit. Id. at 7–10. The court then
concluded that Busse had not made out a valid claim under any of his other alleged
federal bases. Id. at 10–15. Given that the court did not have jurisdiction over any
of Busse’s federal claims, it chose to dismiss his state law claims. Id. at 15. Busse
now appeals the dismissal of all of the claims in his third amended complaint.
II. DISCUSSION
We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions regarding subject
matter jurisdiction, including the determinations that a claim is not ripe or that the
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over it. See Lanfear v. Home Depot, Inc.,
536 F.3d 1217, 1221 (11th Cir. 2008); Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1204
(11th Cir. 2006). We also “review a grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim de novo, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Gandara v. Bennett, 528 F.3d
823, 826 (quotation marks and citation omitted). The decision not to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
See Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., 468 F.3d 733, 738 (11th Cir. 2006).
Since Busse is proceeding pro se, we construe his pleadings liberally. See Miller
v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008).
On appeal, Busse argues that the district court erred in dismissing his federal
claims. He asserts that his Takings Clause claim was ripe for review and that he
had properly stated claims involving violations of his procedural due process,
equal protection, and substantive due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments.2 Additionally, we read Busse’s brief liberally to argue that the
district court abused its discretion in refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over his state law claims. We address these arguments in turn.
A. Takings Clause Claims
2
Busse’s brief on appeal does not discuss the other jurisdictional bases cited in his third
amended complaint — Articles Three and Four of the United States Constitution; the 1899
Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act; the 1862 Homestead Act; the federal common law
doctrine of accretion and erosion; the Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice, and 12 U.S.C. §§ 3331–3351; and the Federal Declaratory
Judgment Act. Generally arguments not raised in a brief on appeal are deemed abandoned. See
Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1131 n.1 (11th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, we agree with the
district court’s analysis of these provisions and find that none of them could serve as a potential
jurisdictional basis for Busse’s claims. See, e.g., Arthur v. Haley, 248 F.3d 1302, 1303 n.1 (11th
Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting that appellate courts can and should sua sponte inquire into
subject matter jurisdiction whenever it appears to be lacking).
Busse contends that the Resolution constituted an unconstitutional taking of
his property rights in Lot 15A. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of
private property “for public use, without just compensation” — a condition made
applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. Const. amend. V;
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617, 121 S. Ct. 2448, 2457 (2001)
(noting that the Fourteenth Amendment made the Takings Clause applicable to the
States). A plaintiff can bring a federal takings claim only if he can show that he
did not receive just compensation in return for the taking of his property. See Eide
v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 720 (11th Cir. 1990). As a result, for a takings
claim to be ripe, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he unsuccessfully “pursued the
available state procedures to obtain just compensation” before bringing his federal
claim. Id. at 721.
In this case, Busse’s claim would not be ripe because he has not shown that
he attempted to obtain or secure relief under established Florida procedures. Since
at least 1990, Florida courts have recognized that an inverse-condemnation remedy
is available for alleged takings violations. See Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d
1412, 1417 (11th Cir. 1994). Busse contends that his claim would still be ripe
since that remedy was unavailable in 1969 when the Board of Commissioners
enacted the Resolution. However, our past circuit precedent dictates “that a
Florida property owner must pursue a reverse condemnation remedy in state court
before his federal takings claim will be ripe, even where that remedy was
recognized after the alleged taking occurred.” Id. Accordingly, regardless of
whether Busse has a valid property interest in Lot 15A, because he has not alleged
that he sought and was denied compensation through available state procedures, his
Takings Clause claim would not be ripe for review. We thus conclude that the
district court did not err in finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over
Busse’s Takings Clause claim.
B. Procedural Due Process Claims
Busse asserts that his procedural due process rights were violated since Lee
County had no authority to take his land nor jurisdiction over it and because the
Resolution was improperly executed. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no
state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. A plaintiff could make a procedural due
process claim by challenging the procedures by which a regulation was adopted,
including the failure to provide pre-deprivation notice and hearing. See Villas of
Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610, 615 (11th Cir. 1997); Zipperer
v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995). For such a claim to be
valid, however, the plaintiff would have to allege that state law failed to provide
him with an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378,
382 (11th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).

Based on these standards, we find that Busse has failed to state a valid
procedural due process claim. Florida provides him an adequate post-deprivation
remedy, inverse condemnation, and he makes no argument that this procedure is
inadequate. Even if it was inadequate, though, Busse still would not have a valid
procedural due process claim. The Resolution constituted a legislative act since it
was a general provision that affected a large number of persons and area, 200 acres
in all, rather than being specifically targeted at Busse or his immediate neighbors.
See 75 Acres, LLC v. Miami-Dade County, Fla., 338 F.3d 1288, 1294 (11th Cir.
2003). Since alleged problems with the adoption of such acts cannot serve as the
basis for a procedural due process claim, Busse could not cite them as the basis for
his claim. See id. (noting that “if government action is viewed as legislative in
nature, property owners generally are not entitled to procedural due process”).
Accordingly, we find that the district court did not err in dismissing Busse’s
procedural due process claims.
C. Equal Protection Claims
Busse also argues that his equal protection rights were violated because the
Board, in adopting the Resolution, treated differently privately-owned property and
state-owned property.3 The Fourteenth Amendment forbids states from “deny[ing]
3
In his brief on appeal, Busse argues that he experienced different treatment than other
landowners in Lee County. However, we need not address this argument since he did not
mention this in his third amended complaint and we find that none of the exceptions that would
allow us to consider an issue not raised before the district court would apply here. See Narey v.
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const.
amend. XIV, § 1. “[T]o properly plead an equal protection claim, a plaintiff need
only allege that through state action, similarly situated persons have been treated
disparately.” Thigpen v. Bibb County, 223 F.3d 1231, 1237 (11th Cir. 2000)
abrogated on other grounds by National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S.
101, 122 S. Ct. 2061 (2002).
Under Florida law, counties can exercise eminent domain over any land that
is not owned by the state or federal government. See Fla. Stat. § 127.01(1)(a)
(2006). Since a state landowner would not be subject to the eminent domain power
but Busse, as a private landowner, would be, Busse could not be similarly situated
to a state landowner. Busse therefore cannot rely on his disparate eminent domain
treatment vis-a-vis state landowners as the basis for an equal protection claim.
Since Busse made no other allegations of disparity in his third amended complaint,
we find that he has failed to plead a valid equal protection claim and that the
district court correctly dismissed this claim.
D. Substantive Due Process Claim
Busse also appears to allege that the Resolution denied him his substantive
due process property rights. Substantive due process protects only those rights that
are “fundamental,” a description that applies only to those rights created by the
Dean, 32 F.3d 1521, 1526-27 (11th Cir. 1994) (discussing the exceptions to this general rule).
United States Constitution. See Greenbriar Village, L.L.C. v. Mountain Brook,
City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Property rights would
not be fundamental rights since they are based on state law. See id. Busse thus
could not bring a viable substantive due process claim based on the alleged denial
of a state-defined property right. See id. Accordingly, we find that the district
court properly dismissed his substantive due process claims.4
E. Supplemental Jurisdiction
Busse also contends that the court abused its discretion in not hearing his
pendent state law claims. “The decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
pendent state claims rests within the discretion of the district court.” Raney v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Since the
district court “had dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it
therefore had the discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Busse’s
state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Furthermore, we expressly encourage
district courts to take such action when all federal claims have been dismissed pre-
trial. See Raney, 370 F.3d at 1089. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse
4
The district court, in addressing Busse’s substantive due process claim, mentions that
assertions of irrational and arbitrary government action could not serve as the basis for such a
claim. Even under a liberal reading of Busse’s complaint, though, we do not think he made such
allegations. In the third amended complaint, he discusses takings violations and procedural
problems with the enactment of the Resolution but never questions the rationale for its passage.
Accordingly, we need not address whether he has a valid substantive due process claim based on
arbitrary and capricious government action.
its discretion when it chose not to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Busse’s
state law claims.
III. CONCLUSION
Busse contends that the district court incorrectly dismissed his federal claims
regarding alleged takings and deprivations of property rights. Since Busse’s
takings claim was not ripe because he had not pursued available state remedies and
he failed to adequately plead his other federal claims, the district court correctly
dismissed all of these claims. As a result, despite Busse’s objections to the
contrary, the district court also did not commit an abuse of discretion in not
exercising jurisdiction over his state law claims. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the
district court’s dismissal of Busse’s third amended complaint.
AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JORG BUSSE
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-29SPC
LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; BOARD OF LEE

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; KENNETH M.
WILKINSON; LEE COUNTY PROPERTY
APPRAISER’S OFFICE; STATE OF
FLORIDA, BOARD OF [PAST & PRESENT]
TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT
TRUST FUND, STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION, AND DIVISION OF
RECREATION AND PARKS; LEE COUNTY
ATTORNEY; JACK N. PETERSON,
Defendants.
___________________________________
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the following motions:
(1) defendant Property Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss and Close File
(Doc. #285), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #302); (2)
defendants State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees) and Florida Department of
Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Cause of Action (Doc.
#291), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #316); (3)
defendant The Lee County Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of

Jurisdiction (Doc. #303), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc.
#317); and (4) defendant Board of Lee County Commissioners’ Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. #304), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc.
#318). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his pleadings are
held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by an
attorney and will be liberally construed. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d
1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003).
I.
On December 10, 1969, the Board of County Commissioners of Lee
County, Florida adopted the “Resolution Pertaining to Public Lands
in Cayo Costa Subdivision”, Book 569, page 875 (the Resolution).
The Resolution stated that the Second Revised Plat of the Cayo
Costa Subdivision contained certain designated lot and block areas
and other undesignated areas. The Resolution further noted that
the plat contained certain un-numbered and unlettered areas lying
East of the Easterly tier of blocks in the subdivision and lying
West of the Westerly tier of blocks in the subdivision. The
Resolution stated that Lee County claimed the lands to the east and
west of the tier of blocks as “public lands together with all
accretions thereto” and “does by this Resolution claim all of said
lands and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of the public
for public purposes.” (Doc. #288, p. 9.)
Plaintiff Jorg Busse (plaintiff or Dr. Busse) asserts he is
the current owner of Lot 15A of the Cayo Costa Subdivision and
-2-
accretions thereto. (Doc. #288, ¶¶ 1, 2.) Plaintiff describes Lot
15A as being more than approximately 2.5 acres fronting the Gulf of
Mexico with an estimated fair market value of more than $2 million.
(Id. at ¶6.) Plaintiff asserts that the Resolution violates his
property rights in Lot 15A, which includes accretions, under both
federal and state law.
Count 1 sets forth a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
alleges that the Resolution deprived him of his riparian rights,
private easements, accreted property and privileges secured by the
United States Constitution. Specifically, plaintiff asserts that
Lee County had no home rule powers or jurisdiction over the
undedicated Cayo Costa Subdivision, and therefore the Resolution
was unenforceable and in violation of the United States
Constitution. (Doc. #288, ¶13.) Plaintiff asserts that defendants
confiscated more than 2.5 acres of his accreted property without
compensation in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Id. at
¶14.) Plaintiff asserts that defendants also illegally took more
than 200 acres of private accretions onto Cayo Costa pursuant to
the Resolution, all without compensation. (Id. at ¶15.) Further,
plaintiff asserts that “Defendant State Actors” claimed riparian
rights to Lots 38A and 41A which they denied to plaintiff, thereby
unlawfully discriminating against plaintiff because he is entitled
to equal rights as the State property owner. (Id. at ¶¶ 16, 27.)
-3-
Count 2 alleges an unconstitutional temporary taking under
color of the Resolution. Plaintiff asserts that the Resolution was
never signed, executed or acknowledged and did not meet resolution
and recording requirements, and was therefore not entitled to be
recorded and must be stricken from the public record. (Id. at
¶17.) Plaintiff further alleges that the Cayo Costa Subdivision
was outside of Lee County’s home rule powers, and therefore the
State and County had no powers to adopt resolutions or ordinances,
and therefore the Resolution is unenforceable and ineffectual and
the County capriciously grabbed private accreted land and
easements. (Id. at ¶18.) Plaintiff asserts that defendants took
his accretions onto the riparian gulf front Lot 15A without
authority, justification, due process of law, public notice,
hearing, vote count, or compensation, and that this unauthorized
unconstitutional taking injured plaintiff and destroyed his
property value. (Id. at ¶19.)
Count 3 sets forth a state law claim for trespass. Plaintiff
alleges that since the 1969 Resolution the defendants have asserted
that Lee County is the owner of the Cayo Costa accretions and have
induced and caused the public to intrude onto the private beaches
and other areas on Cayo Costa, injuring plaintiff’s property. (Id.
at ¶¶ 20-21.) Plaintiff asserts that the State cannot exercise
power within the Subdivision east of the mean high water mark of
the Gulf of Mexico and west of the mean high water mark of
Charlotte Harbor. (Id. at ¶22.)
-4-
Count 4 alleges a conspiracy to fabricate, fraud and
malfeasance. Plaintiff asserts that the Lee County Property
Appraiser claimed that the Resolution entitled Lee County to
ownership of the accreted property, but the County Appraiser has
admitted that Lee County was not empowered to adopt the Resolution.
(Id. at ¶23.) Plaintiff asserts that the Resolution on its face
did not meet recording or resolution requirements, and that the
County Appraiser had a professional duty to verify the validity of
the sham Resolution under the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that without evidence
of title, defendants conspired to concoct an un-plated lot, block
and park for the benefit of the State and County. (Id. at ¶24.)
Plaintiff also asserts that defendant denied agricultural
classification to his accreted lot. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that
defendants destroyed most of his property value, deprived him of
private easements without compensation, and denied equal protection
in a land grab scheme. (Id.) Plaintiff describes the agreement as
being to assist the unconstitutional confiscation of the
accretions. (Id. at ¶25.) Plaintiff also asserts that the County
Appraiser made incompetent valuation reports which were
controverted by other comparable sales data and done in violation
of Federal Appraisal Standards, but defendant continued to slander
plaintiff’s perfect title. (Id. at ¶26.) As a result, plaintiff
received purchase offers far below market value and the County
Appraiser has committed malfeasance and abuse of position. (Id.)
-5-
Count 5 alleges a conspiracy to materially misrepresent and
defraud. Plaintiff asserts that Lee County does not hold title to
the accreted property pursuant to the Resolution, and there has
been no proceedings such as eminent domain or adverse possession.
(Id. at ¶29.) Plaintiff asserts that Lee County’s claims of
ownership of the accretions therefore violated the Fifth Amendment
Takings Clause, and therefore defendants deprived the public of tax
revenues which could have been received from the private accretions
and easements. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that defendants conspired
to misrepresent the extent of the Army Corps of Engineers’
authority over his lagoon. (Id. at ¶32.)
Count 6 alleges oppression and slander of title by defendant
Peterson for failing to challenge the invalidity of the Resolution
despite his questions about its validity. (Id. at ¶¶ 33-35.)
The Third Amended Complaint asserts the Court has jurisdiction
based on the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983), 28 U.S.C. § 1343,
Articles 3 and 4 of the United States Constitution, and Amendments
4 and 5 of the United States Constitution (Doc. #288, ¶7), the 1899
Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act (33 U.S.C. § 403)(id. at ¶8),
the 1862 Homestead Act (id. at ¶9), the federal common law Doctrine
of Accretion and Erosion (id. at ¶10), the Federal Appraisal
Standards, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (12
U.S.C. §§ 3331-3351), and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act (28
U.S.C. § 2201)(id. at ¶12).
-6-
III.
The Court will first address the federal claims, since these
claims are necessary to provide subject matter jurisdiction. Given
plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court reviews the Third Amended
Complaint liberally.
A. Takings Clause Claims:
A consistent theme which runs through several of plaintiff’s
counts is that the Resolution constitutes an unconstitutional
taking of his property rights in his subdivision Lot 15A on Cayo
Costa island.1 The legal principles are well-settled, and preclude
plaintiff’s takings claim.
Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Takings Clause of the
Fifth Amendment, which states in pertinent part “nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U.S.
CONST. amend. V. The Fifth Amendment is applied to the States
through the Fourteenth Amendment. Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New
York City, 438 U.S. 104, 121-23 (1978). The Third Amended
Complaint may also be read to allege a conspiracy to violate the
Takings Clause.
State law defines the parameters of a plaintiff’s property
interest, and whether state law has created a property interest is
a legal question for the court to decide. Morley’s Auto Body, Inc.
1
See Lee County v. Morales, 557 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
for a description of Cayo Costa island and the Lee County zoning
history of the island since 1978.
-7-
v. Hunter, 70 F.3d 1209, 1212 (11th Cir. 1996). Under Florida law
a riparian or littoral owner owns to the line of the ordinary high
water mark on navigable waters, and the riparian or littoral
property rights include the vested right to receive accretions to
the property. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust
Fund v. Sand Key Assocs., Ltd., 512 So. 2d 934, 936-37 (Fla. 1987);
Brannon v. Boldt, 958 So. 2d 367, 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). These
rights constitute property, and cannot be taken or destroyed by the
government without just compensation to the owners. Sand Key
Assoc., 512 So. 2d at 936; Lee County v. Kiesel, 705 So. 2d 1013,
1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). “By now it is beyond question that a
permanent physical occupation of private property by the state
constitutes a taking for which a landowner must be compensated.”
New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe County, 95 F.3d 1084, 1088 (11th
Cir. 1996)(citing Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S.
1003, 1015 (1992) and Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.,
458 U.S. 419, 434 (1982)).
Thus while plaintiff has adequately alleged a taking of his
property, “a property owner has not suffered a violation of the
Just Compensation Clause until the owner has unsuccessfully
attempted to obtain just compensation through the procedures
provided by the State for obtaining such compensation . . .”
Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473
U.S. 172, 195 (1972). “Williamson County boils down to the rule
that state courts always have a first shot at adjudicating a
-8-
takings dispute because a federal constitutional claim is not ripe
until the state has denied the would-be plaintiff’s compensation
for a putative taking, including by unfavorable judgment in a state
court proceeding.” Agripost, LLC v. Miami-Dade County, Fla.,
F.3d , 2008 WL 1790434 (11th Cir. 2008). Without having
pursued such available state court remedies, a plaintiff’s Takings
Clause claim is not ripe and therefore a federal district court
lacks jurisdiction to consider it. Williamson County, 473 U.S. at
195; Watson Constr. Co. v. City of Gainsville, 244 Fed. Appx. 274,
277 (11th Cir. 2007); Garbo, Inc. v. City of Key West, Fla., 162
Fed. Appx. 905 (11th Cir. 2006). It has been clear since at least
1990 that Florida law provides a remedy of an inverse or reverse
condemnation suit. Joint Ventures, Inc. v. Department of Transp.,
563 So. 2d 622, 624 (Fla. 1990); Tari v. Collier County, 56 F.3d
1533, 1537 n.12 (11th Cir. 1995); Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d
1412, 1417 (11th Cir. 1994). Additionally, plaintiff could have
pursued an state action for declaratory judgment under FLA . STAT . §
86.011, a suit to quiet title, Trustees of Internal Imp. Fund of
State of Florida v. Toffel, 145 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962), or
a suit in ejectment if the matter is viewed as a boundary dispute.
Petryni v. Denton, 807 So. 2d 697, 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
The Third Amended Complaint does not allege that plaintiff
pursued any state relief. Indeed, plaintiff has never suggested
that he has taken any action in state court to quiet title or
receive damages under an inverse or reverse condemnation claim.
-9-
Since there is no showing of federal jurisdiction as to the Takings
Clause claim, the Taking Clause claims and any conspiracy to
violate the Takings Clause in any count will be dismissed without
prejudice.
B. Substantive Due Process Claim:
A liberal reading of the Third Amended Complaint might suggest
that plaintiff also frames the alleged taking of his property
rights as a substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth
Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit has held, however, that there is
no independent substantive due process taking cause of action.
Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610, 612-14
(11th Cir. 1997). Additionally, substantive due process protects
only fundamental rights, that is, those rights which are implicit
in the concept of ordered liberty. Such rights are created by the
Constitution, and do not include property rights. Greenbriar
Village, LLC v. Mountain Brook City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir.
2003). Merely asserting that the government’s actions were
arbitrary and irrational does not bring the matter within the
protection of the substantive due process provision. Greenbriar
Village, 345 F.3d at 1263-64. Therefore, those portions of counts
in the Third Amended Complaint which attempt to assert a
substantive due process takings claim or conspiracy will be
dismissed.
-10-
C. Procedural Due Process Claim:
Plaintiff’s counts may also attempt to state a procedural due
process claim. For example, plaintiff asserts that Lee County had
no home rule powers or jurisdiction over the undedicated Cayo Costa
subdivision (Doc. #288, ¶¶ 13, 18, 23), that the Resolution was
never signed, executed or acknowledged and did not meet resolution
and recording requirements (id. at ¶¶ 17, 23), and that the taking
was without authority, justification, due process, public notice,
hearing, vote count, or compensation (id. at ¶19).
“Procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to
be heard before any government deprivation of a property interest.”
Zipperer v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995).
Not all government actions, however, are subject to a procedural
due process claim. The County’s action in passing the Resolution
constituted a legislative act, and therefore plaintiff cannot state
a procedural due process claim. 75 Acres, LLC v. Miami-Dade
County, Fla., 338 F.3d 1288, 1294 (11th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff
asserted that the Resolution effecting the taking of more than 200
acres other than his 2.5 acres. This is sufficient to constitute
a legislative act. See, e.g., Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of
Equalization, 239 U.S. 441, 445 (1915)(noting that it is
impractical to give every one a voice when a legislative act
applies to more than a few people). Additionally, even if not a
legislative act, a procedural due process claims does not exist
-11-
merely because state mandated procedures were not followed. First
Assembly of God of Naples, Florida, Inc. v. Collier County, Fla.,
20 F.3d 419, 422 (11th Cir. 1994). In this regard, some of the
allegations in the Third Amended Complaint are contradicted by the
Resolution which is attached to it. The copy of the Resolution
attached to the Third Amended Complaint establishes that it was
signed, executed, and duly recorded in the public records, and
plaintiff will not be allowed to assert otherwise. The remaining
claimed defects are arguments concerning state law which do not
arise to a constitutional level. Finally, plaintiff fails to state
a procedural due process claim because he has failed to allege that
Florida law provided him with an inadequate post-deprivation
remedy, Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378, 382 (11th Cir. 1996), and as
discussed above it is clear that Florida does provide adequate
post-deprivation remedies. Therefore, any claim founded on
procedural due process will be dismissed.
D. Equal Protection Claim:
Plaintiff also alleges that the Resolution violated his equal
protection rights. “To properly plead an equal protection claim,
a plaintiff need only allege that through state action, similarly
situated persons have been treated disparately.” Boyd v. Peet, 249
Fed. Appx. 155, 158 (11th Cir. 2007)(citation omitted). See also
Executive 100, Inc. v. Martin County, 922 F.2d 1536, 1552 (11th
Cir. 1991). The Third Amended Complaint does not identify any
similarly situated person with whom plaintiff can be compared. The

-12-
Third Amended Complaint states that defendants have taken over 200
acres pursuant to the Resolution, far in excess of his 2.5 acres.
The only assertion of disparate treatment is for those lots owned
by government, which plaintiff alleges did not have their rights
taken. However, a private owner such as plaintiff can not be
compared to a public owner such as a government unit. Therefore,
no equal protection claim is stated, and such claims will be
dismissed without prejudice.
E. Other Bases of Federal Jurisdiction:
Having found no federal claim set forth in the Third Amended
Complaint, the Court now examines the other purported bases of
federal jurisdiction.
Article III of the Constitution sets the outer boundaries of
the federal court jurisdiction, but vests Congress with the
discretion to determine whether and to what extent that power may
be exercised by lower federal courts. Therefore, lower federal
courts are empowered to hear only cases for which there has been a
congressional grant of jurisdiction. Morrison v. Allstate
Indemnity Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2000). Therefore
Article III does not provide any additional basis of federal
jurisdiction. Additionally, plaintiff’s reliance on Article IV of
the Constitution is misplaced because Article IV does not address
the jurisdiction of a federal court.
Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. § 1343 as a basis for federal
jurisdiction. Section 1343 sets forth the jurisdiction of district
-13-
courts for certain civil rights actions, but does not itself create
a private right of action. Albra v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 232
Fed. Appx. 885, 892 (11th Cir. 2007). Since none of plaintiff’s
federal civil rights claims are properly before the court, § 1343
is not a basis for jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims.
Plaintiff’s reliance on the 1899 Rivers and Harbors
Appropriation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 403 is misplaced. Section 403
relates to the creation of an obstruction not authorized by
Congress, and simply not relevant to any of the claims in this
case. The 1862 Homestead Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 161-64, cannot form
basis for jurisdiction because it was repealed in 1976. Assuming
there is a federal common law Doctrine of Accretion and Erosion, it
cannot provide a jurisdictional basis in federal court. The
Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice, 12 U.S.C. § 3331-3351, also do not create
federal jurisdiction. These standards relate to real estate
appraisals utilized in connection with federally related
transactions, 12 U.S.C. § 1331, and no such transaction was
involved in this case. Additionally, in Florida the county
property appraiser is a constitutionally created office whose
appraisals are carried out pursuant to state statute, FLA . STAT . §
193.011 as well as professional appraisal standards established by
the International Association of Assessing Officers and the
-14-
Appraisal Institute. Parrish v. Nikolits, 86 F.3d 1088, 1091 n.2
(11th Cir. 1996).
Therefore, the Court finds no other basis of federal
jurisdiction has been plead in the Third Amended Complaint.
F. Remaining State Law Claims:
The remaining possible claims in the Third Amended Complaint
are all state law claims. Read liberally, the Third Amended
Complaint may be read to allege a claim to invalidate the
Resolution for alleged state-law procedural defects, a state law
claim of trespass, a state law claim of conspiracy to misrepresent,
a state law claim of fraud, state law claims of malfeasance, a
state law claim of oppression, and a state law claim of slander of
title. Even assuming these are properly pled, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) the Court would exercise its discretion and
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state
claims. Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (11th
Cir. 2004)(encouraging district courts to dismiss state claims
where all claims which provided original jurisdiction have been
dismissed.) The dismissal of the state claims will be without
prejudice. Crosby v. Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339, 1352 (11th Cir. 1999).
Having found that this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, and will not retain supplemental jurisdiction, the
Court need not address the issues raised in the remaining
defendants’ motions to dismiss.
-15-
ORDERED:
1. Defendant Property Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (Doc. #303) is GRANTED to the
extent set forth in paragraph 5 below.
2. Defendant Property Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss and
Close File (Doc. #285) is DENIED as moot.
3. State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection
and Division of Recreation and Parks, State of Florida, and Board
of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund’s Joint Motion
to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a
Cause of Action (Doc. #291) is GRANTED to the extent set forth in
paragraph 5 below.
4. Defendants Lee County, Florida, Board of Lee County
Commissioners, Lee County Attorney, Jack N. Peterson’s Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. #304) is GRANTED to the extent set forth in paragraph
5 below.
5. The Third Amended Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice as to all defendants and all claims. The Clerk shall
enter judgment accordingly, terminate all pending motions as moot,
and close the case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 5th day of
May, 2008.
Copies: Parties of record
-16-
U.S. JUDICIAL SPILL “O.R. 569/875”
Beyond Perverted
Beyond Perverted
CRIMINAL
NOTHING WAS DONE – U.S. POLICY & PATTERN
“And when we took evidence of criminal activity to Judge William S
Duffey Jr during our civil suit against the County and State, nothing
was done (See our Petition for the Court for Federal Grand Jury). We
took the evidence to evidence to David Nahmias (now Supreme Court
of GA Justice) who sent us to the FBI. FBI said Nahmias won't
prosecute unless the $ amount was over $500,000.00 and we had …“
http://www.scribd.com/nootkabearmcdonald
CERTIFIED DELIVERY
14
CERTIFIED DELIVERY
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
DR. JORG BUSSE, JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT,

Plaintiffs,
versus Case # 2:10-CV-0089-FtM-JES-SPC
JOHN EDWIN STEELE; SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL; ROGER ALEJO;

KENNETH M. WILKINSON; JACK N. PETERSON; GERALD BARD TJOFLAT;
RICHARD JESSUP; CIRCUIT JUDGE BIRCH; CIRCUIT JUDGE DUBINA;
RICHARD ALLAN LAZZARA; CHARLIE CRIST; LEE COUNTY VALUE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD; LORI L. RUTLAND; EXECUTIVE TITLE CO.; JOHNSON
ENGINEERING, INC.,
Defendants.
EMERGENCY MOTION
_______________________________________________________________________/
EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO SHOW GOOD CAUSE
AFFIDAVITS & ABSENCE OF ANY CONDEMNATION ON THE RECORD
1. Pursuant to the multiple Affidavits before this Court, the Judicial Officers in this Court
fraudulently alleged “eminent domain” by virtue of Government scam “O.R. 569/875”.
However here, no eminent domain court proceedings ever occurred. No just compensation was
ever paid to the pro se Plaintiffs, and no title ever transferred. Here, Lee County, Florida, never
took any title by virtue of prima facie scam “O.R. 569/875”.
BRIBERY
2. Here, Defendant crooked Judges John Edwin Steele and Sheri Polster Chappell accepted
Defendants’ bribes for the criminal purpose of defrauding and deliberately depriving the
Plaintiffs of their equity. Here, said corrupt Judges and Judicial Officers violated their oath of
office.
CERTIFIED DELIVERY
17
CERTIFIED DELIVERY
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL FRAUD PUBLISHED AT:
http://www.scribd.com/judicial%20fraud
More than 90,000 Readers of
U.S. Governmental Crime Scheme “O.R. 569/875”
19
CERTIFIED DELIVERY
COVER UP OF GOVERNMENT SCAM “O.R. 569/875”
20
TRANSCRIPT OF 11/17/2009 ROGER ALEJO PERJURY
PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS DR. BUSSE & FRANKLIN PRESCOTT:

[VAB RECORD: 1:05:23 – 1:05:33; YOU TUBE: 1:54 - 2:04]
“Is our riparian Gulf-front land parcel, ending on 015A [Parcel # 12-44-20-
01-00015.015A] bounded by the natural boundary of the Gulf of Mexico?
YES or NO?”
Defendant Special Magistrate LORI L. RUTLAND:

[VAB RECORD: 1:05:34 – 1:05:42; YOU TUBE: 2:05 – 2:12]
“Mr. Alejo, does the property have the Gulf of Mexico next to it? Is it right up
next to the Gulf of Mexico?”
Defendant ROGER ALEJO:

[VAB RECORD: 1:05:42 – 1:05:43; YOU TUBE: 2:13 – 2:15]
“YES, Ma’am.”
ROGER ALEJO’S PERJURY & FRAUD ON YOU TUBE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYp-Mb242D0
U.S. District Court
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC
Prescott et al v. Alejo et al Date Filed: 12/04/2009

Referred to: Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Case in other court: 09-16203-H Jurisdiction: Federal Question
09-16205-H
09-16206H
09-16207-H
09-16208-H
10-10645-F
10-11628-D
10-11629-D
10-11630-D
10-11631-D
10-11632-D
10-11633-D
10-11634-D
10-12134-H
Florida Southern, 9:09-cv-82359

12/01/2009 1 COMPLAINT against A. Brian Albritton, Roger Alejo, Peterson Bernard, Brian
Bigelow, Steven Carta, Roger Desjarlais, Sean P. Flynn, Tom Gilbertson, Charlie
Green, Tammy Hall, Karen B. Hawes, Hugh D. Hayes, Bob Janes, Johnson
Engineering, Inc., Ray Judah, Chad Lach, Lee County Florida, Lee County Value
Adjustment Board, Frank Mann, William M. Martin, Jack N. Peterson, Cynthia A.
Pivacek, Skip Quillen, David P. Rhodes, Reagan Kathleen Russell, Lori L. Rutland,
Mike Scott, Gerald D. Siebens, State of Florida Attorney General, State of Florida,
Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, State of Florida, Department
of Environmental, E. Kenneth Stegeby, Charles "Barry&quo Stevens, United States
Attorney(s), Kenneth M. Wilkinson., filed by Jennifer Franklin Prescott.(lh) [Transferred
from flsd on 12/4/2009.] (Entered: 12/02/2009)
12/01/2009 2 Filing fee: For new case $ 350.00, receipt number 726644 (lh) [Transferred from flsd
on 12/4/2009.] (Entered: 12/02/2009)
12/04/2009 3 ORDER Transferring and Closing Case. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to
CLOSE this case. Signed by Senior Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 12/3/2009. (asl)
GOVERNMENTAL TRICKERY & DECEPTION:
[Transferred from flsd on 12/4/2009.] (Entered: 12/04/2009)
12/04/2009 4 Case transferred in from Florida Southern; Case Number 9:09-cv-82359. Original file
with documents numbered 1 - 3, certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet
received. (Entered: 12/04/2009)
judgments and execution of fraudulent judgments case #2:07-00228-cv-FtM-29-SPC,
DOC. #386 by Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. (Attachments: # 1 Main
Document, # 2 Main Document, # 3 Main Document)(kma) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
12/07/2009 6 Case reassigned Unassigned Judge and Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell. New
case number: 2:09-cv-791-FtM-99SPC. (drn) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 7 STANDING ORDER: Filing of documents that exceed twenty-five pages.Signed by All
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to Mike Scott, Lee County Value Adjustment Board, Lori L.
Rutland. (SLU) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to Cynthia A. Pivacek, Hugh D. Hayes, Kenneth M. Wilkinson.
(SLU) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to Peterson Bernard, Roger Alejo, Jack N. Peterson. (SLU)
(Entered: 12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to Charlie Green, A. Brian Albritton, Steven Carta. (SLU) (Entered:
12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to Chad Lach, Johnson Engineering, Inc., State of Florida Attorney
General, Skip Quillen, Roger Desjarlais. (SLU) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to State of Florida, Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement
Trust Fund, Reagan Kathleen Russell, Bob Janes. (SLU) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to David P. Rhodes, William M. Martin. (SLU) (Entered:
12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to Charles Barry Stevens. (SLU) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
ownership; NOTICE of summons and/or service upon defendants U.S. Attorney,
Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Roger Alejo, Jack N. Peterson, A. Brian Albritton, Lee County,
FL by Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. Filing fee not paid. (kma) (Entered:
12/08/2009)
ownership; NOTICE of transcript of November 7, 2007 proceedings, in further support
of judicial fraud and corruption, Case #2:07-cv-228-FtM-29SPC by Jennifer Franklin
Prescott, Jorg Busse. Filing fee not paid. (kma) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/07/2009 10 NOTICE OF APPEAL; NOTICE of appeal from "order transferring and closing case"
and another criminal act of case fixing in exchange for bribes (See Doc #3);
CONCLUSIVE dispositive de novo record evidence by Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg
Busse. Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4
Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(kma) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/08/2009 Summons issued as to State of Florida, Department of Environmental, Karen B. Hawes,
Tom Gilbertson. (SLU) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/08/2009 Summons issued as to Brian Bigelow, Sean P. Flynn, Gerald D. Siebens. (SLU)
(Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/08/2009 Summons issued as to Ray Judah, Tammy Hall, E. Kenneth Stegeby. (SLU) (Entered:
12/08/2009)
12/08/2009 Summons issued as to Frank Mann, Lee County Florida. (SLU) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/08/2009 11 NOTICE OF APPEAL and fraud on court(s); 60(b) MOTION for relief from
governmental corruption and fraud pursuant to de novo record evidence of gov. crimes
& corruption in Cases #2:07-cv-228-FtM-JES-SPC and 2:09-cv-00791-UA-SPC;
NOTICE of corruption, criminal case fixing, extrinsic fraud by named defendant corrupt
Judge John E. Steele, who dis-allowed the plaintiff(s) "to assert" the truth and obstructed
justice by Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. Filing fee not paid. (kma) (Entered:
12/08/2009)
12/08/2009 12 NOTICE OF APPEAL and fraud on court(s); DEMAND for filing of plaintiffs' entire
complaint and independent action for relief from fraud, fraud on courts, governmental
corruption & extension of "Lee County" forgeries pursuant to de novo record evidence
of gov. crimes & corruption; NOTICE of incompletely filed complaint by Jennifer
Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. Filing fee not paid. (kma) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/08/2009 13 NOTICE OF APPEAL and fraud on court(s); Governmental corruption and forgery
record evidence: Record transcript of proceedings on 11/07/07, 2:07-cv-228-FtM-
JES-SPC in support of fraudulent governmental pretenses of "frivolity" and custom &
policy of sanctioning the pro se plaintiff owners; Well-proven custom and policy of
governmental corruption by Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. Filing fee not paid.
(kma) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/10/2009 14 Case reassigned to Judge Charlene E. Honeywell. New case number: 2:09-cv-791-
FtM-36SPC. Unassigned Judge no longer assigned to the case. (kma) (Entered:
12/10/2009)
evidence in support of independent actions for relief and R.60(b) motions by Jennifer
12/11/2009 21 NOTICE OF extrinsic fraud on courts: MOTION for default judgment in favor of
Plaintiffs because O.R. 569/875 was not any genuine issue of material fact, or
instrument, but on its face a governmental fraud scheme, and Lee County never had any
claim nor any chance of success by Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. (drn)
evidence & exhibits in support of independent actions for relief and R. 60(b)motions by
12/11/2009 26 NOTICE of extrinisic fraud on court(s); Public corruption & extrinsic fraud record
evidence & exhibit(s) in support of independent actions for relief and R. 60 (b) motions:
record evidence in support of extrinsic fraud and fraudulent concealment of 'Lee Couty'
facial forgeries: non-existent 'parcels' ##'12-44-21-01-0000.00' & '07-44-21-01-
Transcript of 02/29/2009 deposition and perjury by defendant corrupt official Jack N.
Peterson who fraudulently concealed "Lee County" facial forgeries: non-existent 'parcels'
## '12-44-20-01-00000.00A0' & '07-44-21-01-00001.0000' by Jennifer Franklin
Prescott, Jorg Busse (kma) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/11/2009 28 NOTICE of extrinsic fraud on court(s); governmental corruption & extrinsic fraud
federal survey evidence in support of fraudulent concealment of "Lee County" facial
Transcript of fraudulent 2007 judicial proceedings before defendant crooked U.S.
Magistrate S. Polster-Chappell who fraudulently concealed "Lee County" facial
12/16/2009 30 NOTICE of fraud on court(s)in previous cases; notice of crooked John Edwin Steele's
recusal obligation in related case(s) and extrinsic fraud by Jennifer Franklin Prescott,
Jorg Busse (kma) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/18/2009 31 MOTION for waiver of any and all appeal fees, which are the direct and proximate
result of facially fraudulent judgments, governmental corruption, extrinsic fraud, fraud on
the courts, extra-judicial fraud, breach of public trust, and coercion under public policy
and the rules of procedure; FRCP 60(b) motion for relef from extrinsic eminent domain
fraud, governmental coruption, perjury, perversion of public record under false
pretenses of "frivolity" of the conclusive proof of the facial illegality of fake eminent
domain "claim"; Notice of de novo perjury by defendants J.N. Peterson, R. Alejo, and
facially false and fraudulent pretenses of a "resolution", which could not have possibly
legally existed or transferred any property interest or title to Lee County, Florida by
Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. (kma) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
def. corrupt U.S. Magistrate S. Polster Chappell, who concocted a "legislative act"
(O.R. 569/875) and/or extended the record " Lee County" fraud schemes for bribes;
Notice of corruption, criminal case fixing, extrinsic fraud by named defendants Polster
Chappell and Steele, who dis-allowed plaintiff(s) "to assert" the truth and obstructed
justice & law; Notice of 12/11/2009 arrest threats against plaintiff Dr. Busse by Jennifer
Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. (kma) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
def. corrupt U.S. Magistrate S. Polster Chappell, who concocted a "legislative act" (OR
569/875) and /or extended the record "Lee County" fraud schemes for bribes; Notice of
corruption, criminal case fixing, extrinsic fraud by named defendants Polster Chappell
and Steele, who dis-allowed plaintiff(s) "to assert" the truth and obstructed justice & law
notice of 12/11/2009 arrest threats against plaintiff Dr. Busse by Jennifer Franklin
Prescott, Jorg Busse. (kma) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/29/2009 34 RELATED CASE ORDER AND NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 -
track 2. Notice of pendency of other actions due by 1/11/2010. Signed by All Divisional
Judges on 12/29/2009. (LAF) (Entered: 12/29/2009)
(LAF) (Entered: 12/29/2009)
Motion for Mandatory Recusal 28 U.S.C. § 445.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri
Polster Chappell on 1/8/2010. (LMH) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
Motion for Mandatory Recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 445. Signed by Magistrate Judge
Sheri Polster Chappell on 1/8/2010. (LMH) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on
1/8/2010. (LMH) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
01/08/2010 45 MOTION for mandatory recusal of def. corrupt U.S. Magistrate S. Polster
Chappell...(see scanned pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
01/08/2010 46 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS & victims of false, forged and
unrecorded scam O.R. 569/875. (drn) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
01/08/2010 47 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to set aside fraudulent order (Doc. 36)
and for relief by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
01/08/2010 48 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for relief from crooked Polster Chappell's
fraud...(see scanned pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
09-16207-H. (slp) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
09-16206-H. (slp) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
09-16203-H. (slp) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
09-16205-H. (slp) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
09-16204-H. (slp) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
MOTION for recusal (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
MOTION for recusal (see scanned pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
01/11/2010 51 MOTION to set aside fraudulent order re: 37 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous
Relief, MOTION for recusal (see scanned pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse,
09-16208-H. (slp) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
01/15/2010 52 NOTICE of fraud & fabrication of "resolution" by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
(drn) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
01/15/2010 54 NOTICE OF APPEAL, fraud & fabrication of resolution as to 38 Order on motion for
default judgment, 36 Order on motion for recusal, 37 Order on Motion for
Miscellaneous Relief by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (drn)
(Entered: 02/01/2010)
01/15/2010 55 NOTICE of doc. 282 in appeal by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn)
(Entered: 02/01/2010)
01/15/2010 56 NOTICE of doc. 282 in appeal by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott (Attachments:
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
01/26/2010 60 MOTION for recusal by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1)
01/26/2010 62 NOTICE of fraud & fabrication of resoltuion by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
02/08/2010 64 EMERGENCY MOTION to stay writ of execution in related Case # 2-07-cv-228-
FtM-29SPC by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: # 1 Main
Document)(kma) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
02/16/2010 67 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically emergency motion for release of
fraudulent lien by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (SPB) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
02/17/2010 68 ORDER denying 64 Emergency Motion To Stay Writ of Execution as this Court has no
authority to stay the writ. Additionally, Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Relief 5 and 67
is not deemed an emergency and will be addressed in due course. Signed by Judge
02/26/2010 69 MOTION to dismiss Complaint and for Prescreening Injunction by A. Brian Albritton,
Sean P. Flynn, David P. Rhodes, E. Kenneth Stegeby. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
A)(Corinis, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
02/26/2010 70 MOTION to transfer case to the Honorable Richard A. Lazzara by A. Brian
Albritton, Sean P. Flynn, David P. Rhodes, E. Kenneth Stegeby. (Corinis, Jennifer)
(Entered: 02/26/2010)
03/01/2010 71 NOTICE of plaintiffs' previous notice of appeal (see scanned document for complete
title of pleading) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott (Attachments: #(1)
Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
03/01/2010 72 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin "judge shopping" and enforce
courts own order by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) #(1) Exhibit) (drn).
(Entered: 03/02/2010)
03/05/2010 73 EMERGENCY MOTION to enjoin defendants' title fraud & fraud on the court, and
any government/judicial sale by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (kma) (Entered:
03/05/2010)
appeal and payment of appeal fees in U.S. District Court (see scanned pleading for full
title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) Modified on 3/29/2010.
PLEADING STRICKEN PER ORDER 98 (drn). (Entered: 03/08/2010)
03/05/2010 75 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically judicial notice of defendants' fraud on the
court (see scanned pleading for full title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) Modified on 3/29/2010. PLEADING STRICKEN
PER ORDER 98 (drn). (Entered: 03/08/2010)
03/05/2010 76 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically from defendants' fraud on court (see
scanned pleading for full title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments:
#(1) Exhibits)(drn) Modified on 3/29/2010. PLEADING STRICKEN PER ORDER
98 (drn). (Entered: 03/08/2010)
03/05/2010 77 NOTICES of unavailability by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered:
03/09/2010)
03/05/2010 78 AFFIDAVIT in support of governmental corruption, fraud, and fraud on the court of
Jorg Busse by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn)
(Entered: 03/09/2010)
03/09/2010 79 ORDERED that upon review of Plaintiff's Emergency Motion 73 , the Court finds no
emergency has been presented. Therefore, the motion will be addressed in due course
after Defendants have had the opportunity to respond. Signed by Judge Charlene E.
03/09/2010 80 MOTION to strike and for sanctions by A. Brian Albritton, Sean P. Flynn, David P.
Rhodes, E. Kenneth Stegeby. (Corinis, Jennifer) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge
Sheri Polster Chappell. (Entered: 03/09/2010)
03/12/2010 81 NOTICE of unavailability notice of publication of defendants' fraud & fraud on the court
(see scanned document for complete title) Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn)
(Entered: 03/12/2010)
03/12/2010 82 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically enjoin governmental fraudulent
concealment of uncontroverted eminent domain record forgeries and obstruction of
justice and court access by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered:
03/15/2010)
03/12/2010 83 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for reconsideration and declaratory
statements of the emergency of judicial case fixing, fraud on the courts and bribery by
03/12/2010 84 MOTION to compel defendants' responses and declare defendants' previous pleadings
not responsive (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott. (drn) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell.
(Entered: 03/15/2010)
03/15/2010 85 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for immediate
(emergency) screening of the prima facie illegality and nullity of Lee County scam O.R.
569/875 (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
03/15/2010 86 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin governmental
extortion & threats by defendant U.S. Agents, judges and counsel (see scanned
document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments:
03/15/2010 87 PROOF of service by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott as to Kenneth M.
Wilkinson. (drn) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
03/15/2010 88 PROOF of service by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott as to Mike Scott. (drn)
(Entered: 03/17/2010)
03/15/2010 89 MOTION for default judgment in plaintiffs' favor in this independent action for relief
from governmental fraud and direct attack on governmental extortion & fraud (see
scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster
Chappell. (Entered: 03/17/2010)
03/15/2010 90 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically immediate removal of court officer
Corinins and objection to perpetration of fraud (see scanned document for complete
title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
03/15/2010 91 MEMORANDUM and record evidence of extrinsic fraud by defendant U.S. Attorneys
and counsel Jennifer Waugh Corinis filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
03/16/2010 92 PROOF of service by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott as to Charlie Green.
03/16/2010 93 PROOF of service by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott as to Jack N. Peterson.
03/16/2010 94 NOTICE to the Courts to take judicial notice (see scanned document for complete title
of pleading) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn)
(Entered: 03/18/2010)
03/16/2010 95 NOTICE to the Courts to take judicial notice (see scanned document for complete title)
by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered:
03/18/2010)
Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. EOD: 03/17/10;
USCA number: 10-10645-F. (slp) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
03/23/2010 97 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Injunctive Relief by A. Brian Albritton,
Sean P. Flynn, David P. Rhodes, E. Kenneth Stegeby. (Corinis, Jennifer) (Entered:
03/23/2010)
03/25/2010 98 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 80 The Defendants, A. Brian Albritton,
David P. Rhodes, Sean P. Flynn, and E. Kenneth Stegebys (USAO Defendants)
Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Notices (Doc. # 74, 75, and 76) and for an Award of
Monetary Sanctions. The Defendants, A. Brian Albritton, David P. Rhodes, Sean P.
Flynn, and E. Kenneth Stegebys (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 Stegebys (USAO Defendants) Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions is
DENIED Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 3/25/2010. (LMH)
(Entered: 03/25/2010)
03/26/2010 99 ORDER denying 84 the Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Jorge Busses Motion
to Compel Defendants Responses and Declare Defendants' Previous Pleadings not
Responsive to Proven Judicial Case Fixing, Corruption, Fraud in the Court(s) and
Bribery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 3/26/2010. (LMH)
(Entered: 03/26/2010)
03/26/2010 100 ORDER denying 89 the Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Jorge Busse's Motion
for Default Judgment in Plaintiffs' Favor. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster
Chappell on 3/26/2010. (LMH) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
concealment of evidence (see scanned pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse,
Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits(drn) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) Modified on 3/29/2010
(drn). (Entered: 03/29/2010)
03/26/2010 104 PROOF of service by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott as to Johnson Engineering,
Inc. (drn) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
03/29/2010 105 EMERGENCY MOTION for recusal (see scanned document for complete title) by
03/29/2010 106 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin the case-fixing
on record (see scanned document for complete title), EMERGENCY MOTION for
recusal (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
judicial error (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
03/29/2010 108 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for judicial notice of the
dispositive declaration (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
03/29/2010 111 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for injunction of criminal
concealment, MOTION to strike Doc. 76 by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
(drn) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell. (Entered:
03/30/2010)
03/29/2010 112 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for judicial notice of defendants' fraud on
the court and fraudulent pleadings by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (# 1
Exhibits) (drn). (Entered: 03/30/2010)
appeal (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
03/29/2010 119 MOTION for summary judgment against defendant U.S. Attorneys by Jorg Busse,
03/29/2010 121 MOTION for sanctions after expiration of 21 days and memorandum by Jorg Busse,
03/29/2010 122 MOTION to extend time for service by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn)
03/29/2010 123 MOTION to change venue because of record corruption, concealment, fraud on the
court and obstruction of justice by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn)
(Entered: 03/31/2010)
03/29/2010 124 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically from defendants' fraud on court and
memorandum (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
03/29/2010 125 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 98 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Order on
motion to strike and any and all orders (see scanned document for complete title) by
Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (drn) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
03/30/2010 113 NOTICE of pendency of related cases re per Local Rule 1.04(d) by Lee County
Florida. Related case(s): yes (Peterson, Jack) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
03/30/2010 114 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement for
Defedants Wilkinson, Alejo, Desjarlais, Peterson, Hawes, Green, Janes, Judah,
Hall, Mann and Lee County by Lee County Florida. (Peterson, Jack) (Entered:
03/30/2010)
03/30/2010 115 MOTION to dismiss Complaint Adopted by Wilkinson, Alejo, Desjarlais, Peterson,
Hawes, Green, Janes, Bigelow, Judah, Hall, Mann and by Lee County Florida.
(Peterson, Jack) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge; denying 60 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin
Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge; denying 105
The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for
Recusal of Magistrate Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on
3/30/2010. (LMH) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
03/31/2010 117 ORDER denying 101 the Plaintiffs, Jennifer Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency
Motion for Judicial Notice of Concealment of Evidence ; denying 102 The Plaintiffs,
Jennifer Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Judicial Notice of
Concealment of Evidence and Objection to Order (Doc. # 98) which was Procured by
Fraud on the Court; denying 103 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's
Emergency Motion Objections to Order (Doc. # 98) and Judicial Notice of
Concealment of Evidence; denying 106 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Prescott and Dr. Jorge
Busse's Emergency Motion to Enjoin the Case Fixing on Record and Conspiracy of
Case Fixing and for Judge to Recuse; denying 107 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin
Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Miscellaneous Relief to Clear
Judicial Error; denying 108 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge
Busse's Emergency Motion of the Dispositive Declaration of Plaintiffs' Record
Ownership by U.S. Court of Appeals ; denying 109 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin
Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Specifically
Timely Objections to Clear Judicial Error ; denying 110 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin
Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Miscellaneous Relief ; denying
111 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion
for Injunction of Criminal Concealment and Striking of Document 76 by Judge Chappell
; denying 112 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for
Judicial Notice of Defendants' Fraud on the Court and Fraudulent Pleadings. Signed by
03/31/2010 120 SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOTICE by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott re 119
MOTION for summary judgment. (drn) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
03/31/2010 126 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to Plaintiffs Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
Plaintiffs have SEVEN (7) DAYS to show cause as to 1) why this Court should not
impose sanctions based on Judge Lazzara's Order that explicitly warned Plaintiffs about
filing another complaint based on the same claims and 2) why this Court should not
impose sanctions for their prolific filing of repetitious "emergency" and miscellaneous
motions and superfluous notices and for their name calling and personal attacks on
Magistrate Judge Chappell. FAILURE TO RESPOND WILL RESULT IN THE
IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. Signed by Judge
Motion for Waiver of Any and All Fees ; denying 47 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin
Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busses Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Specifically to Set
Aside Fraudulent Order (Doc. 36); denying 48 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott
and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell;
denying 49 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busses Motion to Set
Aside Order (Doc. # 38) and to Adjudicate New Issues; denying 50 Motion to Set
Aside Judgment; denying 50 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge
Busse's Motion to Set Aside Order (Doc. # 38) and Mandatory Recusal of Magistrate
Judge Chappell ; denying 51 Motion to Set Aside Judgment; denying 51 The Plaintiffs
Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busses Motion to Set Aside Order (Doc. # 37)
and Mandatory Recusal of Magistrate Judge Chappell ; denying 67 The Plaintiffs
Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Release of Lien; denying 72
The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busses Motion to Enjoin Judge
Shopping and Enforce Courts Own Order for Removal of Corrupt R.A. Lazzara ;
denying 73 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency
Motion to Enjoin Defendants' Title Fraud & Fraud on the Court, and Any Government/
Judicial Sale (; denying 82 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's
Motion to Specifically Enjoin Governmental Fraudulent Concealment of Uncontroverted
Eminent Domain Record Forgeries and Obstruction of Justice and Court Access ;
denying 83 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for
Reconsideration and Declaratory Statement(s) of the Emergency of Judicial Case Fixing,
Fraud on the Court(s) ; denying 85 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr.
Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Immediate Screening of the Prima Facie Illegality
and Nullity of Lee County Scam O.R. 569/875 ; denying 86 The Plaintiffs Jennifer
Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion to Enjoin Governmental
Extortion & Threats by Defendant U.S. Agents, Judges, and Counsel (Doc. # 80) and
for Removal from all Proceedings of Magistrate Judge S. Polster Chappell ; denying 90
The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for
Immediate Removal of Court Officer Corinins and Objection to Perpetration of Fraud
on Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 4/1/2010. (LMH)
(Entered: 04/01/2010)
04/02/2010 128 NOTICE of pendency of related cases re 34 Related case order and notice of
designation of track 2 per Local Rule 1.04(d) by United States Attorney(s). Related
case(s): yes (Corinis, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/02/2010)
Interested persons order by United States Attorney(s). (Corinis, Jennifer) (Entered:
04/02/2010)
04/07/2010 133 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for equal court access
by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
04/07/2010 134 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin defendants'
cyber & other bullying, harassment and hate mail by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
04/07/2010 135 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for corrections of docket and filing of
entire complaint by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
04/07/2010 136 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 99 Order on motion to compel by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
04/07/2010 137 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 100 Order on motion for default judgment by Jorg Busse,
04/07/2010 138 NOTICE of publication of open letter regarding judicial corruption and fraud on the
courts and criminal concealment of Lee County's lack of any street title by Jorg Busse,
04/07/2010 139 NOTICES OF PROOF of service by Lee County Sheriff's Office upon defendants
Mike Scott, Johnson Engineering, Jack N. Peterson, Charlie Green, Kenneth M.
Wilkinson by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
04/07/2010 140 OBJECTION re 99 Order on motion to compel by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
04/07/2010 141 OBJECTION re 100 Order on motion for default judgment by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
concealment of governmental forgeries (for complete title of pleading see scanned
document) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn)
(Entered: 04/12/2010)
04/09/2010 145 OBJECTION re 117 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Order on motion for
recusal Order on motion to strike, 116 Order on motion for recusal, 127 Order on
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Order on motion to set aside judgment Order on
motion for recusal by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered:
04/12/2010)
04/09/2010 146 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically judicial notice by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott. (See document for complete title). (kma) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
04/09/2010 147 OBJECTION re 127 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Order on motion to set
aside judgment Order on motion for recusal by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
(drn) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
04/12/2010 142 NOTICE OF APPEAL from order 127 Order on Motion by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (See document for complete title) (kma) (Entered:
04/12/2010)
04/12/2010 144 MOTION for recusal by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (See document for
complete title) (kma) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
04/12/2010 148 MOTION to dismiss Complaint by Hugh D. Hayes, Cynthia A. Pivacek. (Siebens,
Gerald) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
04/13/2010 149 MOTION for sanctions and for pre-filing injunction by A. Brian Albritton, Sean P.
Flynn, David P. Rhodes, E. Kenneth Stegeby. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit
B, # 3 Appendix Part I, # 4 Appendix Part II)(Corinis, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
04/16/2010 150 ORDER denying 70 Defendants' Motion to Transfer Case to the Tampa Division of the
Middle District of Florida. Signed by Judge Charlene E. Honeywell on 4/16/2010.
(BGS) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
04/16/2010 151 ORDER denying 133 Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Equal Court Access. Signed by
Judge Charlene E. Honeywell on 4/16/2010. (BGS) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
04/16/2010 152 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin nazi-style
governmental tactics of terror, oppression, retaliation, fraud on the court (see pleading
for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered:
04/19/2010)
04/16/2010 153 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid.
(drn) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
04/19/2010 154 NOTICE of unavailability of counsel byA. Brian Albritton, Sean P. Flynn, David P.
Rhodes, E. Kenneth Stegeby, United States Attorney(s) from May 10, 2010 to May
14, 2010. (Corinis, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
04/19/2010 155 NOTICE by Roger Alejo Ken Wilkinson, Jack Peterson, Roger Desjarlais, Lee
County, Karen Hawes, Bob Janes, Brian Bigelow, Ray Judah, Frank Mann of
Adoption of USAO's Motion for Sanctions, ETC. (Peterson, Jack) (Entered:
04/19/2010)
04/19/2010 156 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 1 Complaint by Johnson
Engineering, Inc. (drn) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell.
(Entered: 04/20/2010)
04/20/2010 157 INTERESTED PERSONS ORDER as to Johnson Engineering, Inc. Certificate of
interested persons and corporate disclosure statement due by 5/4/2010. Signed by All
04/20/2010 158 MOTION to dismiss Complaint by Mike Scott. (Lewis, John) (Entered: 04/20/2010)
04/21/2010 159 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 119 Motion for summary judgment filed by A.
Brian Albritton, Sean P. Flynn, David P. Rhodes, E. Kenneth Stegeby. (Corinis,
Jennifer) (Entered: 04/21/2010)
04/23/2010 160 EMERGENCY MOTION for judgment on the merits against defendants Lee County,
MOTION for sanctions against said defendants for ciminal concealment of fake law (see
scanned document for complete title of pleading) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
04/23/2010 161 EMERGENCY MOTION for judgment on the merits against federal judgments,
MOTION for sanctions against said defendants (see scanned document for complete
title of pleading) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1)
04/23/2010 162 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to cease and desist case
fixing and adjudicate pro se plaintiffs' claims in their favor under the law by Jorg Busse,
04/23/2010 163 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin reverse
discrimination & fraud by afro american Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell against the
pro se caucasian plaintiffs by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered:
04/26/2010)
04/23/2010 164 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin hate mail &
threats by defendant psychopath Jack N. Peterson by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
04/23/2010 165 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to comply with Fed. R.
Evidence and to enjoin final solution of frivolity hate crimes against pro se plaintiffs by
04/23/2010 166 MOTION for sanctions against defendant judges who concealed criminal invasion of
private property rights under fraudulent pretenses of frivolity by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
04/23/2010 167 NOTICE of nazi style crimes by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered:
04/26/2010)
04/23/2010 168 NOTICE of nazi style crimes by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott (Attachments:
04/23/2010 169 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 151 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Filing fee
not paid. (drn) (Entered: 04/26/2010)
04/28/2010 170 ORDER granting 156 the Defendant, Johnson Engineering, Inc.'s Motion for Extension
of Time within which to File Responsive Pleading on Behalf of the Defendant. The
Plaintiff shall have 10 days to supply the Defendant Johnson Engineering, Inc. with a
complete copy of the Complaint. The Defendant, Johnson Engineering, Inc. shall then
have twenty (20) days to file a responsive pleading or dispositive motion. Signed by
04/28/2010 171 NOTICE of appeal from bad governmental joke O.R. 569/875 and governmental fraud
on the courts, pro se plaintiff's public notice of intent to settle and public notice of bad
criminal government joke. by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid.
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) NOTE: Duplicative/not treated as a direct appeal to
the 11th Circuit (kma) (Entered: 04/29/2010)
Interested persons order by Johnson Engineering, Inc. (drn) (Entered: 04/30/2010)
Motion to Extend Time for Service. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell
on 4/30/2010. (LMH) (Entered: 04/30/2010)
05/04/2010 176 ORDER denying 134 Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Enjoin Defendants' Cyber &
Other Bullying, Harassment and Hate Mail. Signed by Judge Charlene E. Honeywell on
5/4/2010. (BGS) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
05/11/2010 177 Notice of substitution of AUSA. Steven A. Nisbet substituting for Jennifer Waugh
Corinis. (Nisbet, Steven) (Entered: 05/11/2010)
Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott, 132 Notice of appeal
filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott, 131 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg
Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott, 130 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott, 137 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott,
142 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott, 136 Notice of
10-11628-D;10-11629-D;10-11630-D;10-11631-D;10-11632-D;10-11633-D;10-
11634-D. (slp) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
05/24/2010 179 MOTION to dismiss complaint and incorporated memorandum of law in support
thereof by Johnson Engineering, Inc. (drn) (Entered: 05/25/2010)

Transaction Receipt
05/29/2010 15:01:17
PACER Login: we0083 Client Code:
Description:
Report Criteria: SPC
Billable
14 Cost: 1.12
Pages:
5/28/2010 "JENNIFER WAUGH CORINIS" - Googl…
Web Images Videos Maps News Shopping Gmail more ▼CA11.USCOURTS.FRAUD@gmail.com | Web History | Settings ▼ | Sign out
Google
"JENNIFER WAUGH CORINIS" Search
About 2,050 results (0.14 seconds) Advanced search
Everything Starred results for "JENNIFER WAUGH CORINIS"

Videos YouTube - judicialfraud's Channel - www.youtube.com/user/judicialfraud
JUDICIAL FRAUD (JUDICIALFRAUD) on Twitter - twitter.com/JUDICIALFRAUD
More
Legal Whore Jennifer Waugh Corinis Covers up Corruption
"LEGAL WHORE" JENNIFER WAUGH CORINIS COVERS UP GOVERNMENTAL
Show search tools CORRUPTION & FRAUD obama eminent domain tiger woods richard a. lazzara charlie crist
kenneth m. ...
www.scribd.com/.../Legal-Whore-Jennifer-Waugh-Corinis-Covers-up-Corruption - Cached
I don't know that, Jennifer Waugh Corinis, ... | Scribd

May 12, 2010 ... Scribd is a way to easily put your documents online.
www.scribd.com/doc/.../I-don-t-know-that-Jennifer-Waugh-Corinis - Cached
Show more results from www.scribd.com
YouTube - judicialfraud's Channel

United State... more I dont know that , Jennifer Waugh Corinis. ... Jennifer Waugh
Corinis Assistant United States Attorney Florida Bar No. 49095 ...
www.youtube.com/user/judicialfraud - Cached
Videos for "JENNIFER WAUGH CORINIS"

I don't know that.AVI DENISE O'GUIN ON
21 sec - May 12, 2010 LAPTOP.AVI
www.youtube.com 6 min - Mar 24, 2010
www.youtube.com
Search for "Jennifer Waugh Corinis" - Justia Lawyer Directory

Home > Lawyer Directory > Search for Jennifer Waugh Corinis. All; Legal Aid & Services;
Law Firms; Lawyers. Sorry, there were no results for this area. ...
lawyers.justia.com/search?query=Jennifer+Waugh+Corinis - Cached
Legal Whore Jennifer Waugh Corinis Covers up... - Maria Augusta ...
Legal Whore Jennifer Waugh Corinis Covers up Corruption.
friendfeed.com/magu/.../legal-whore-jennifer-waugh-corinis-covers-up - Cached
Whore Jennifer - Email, Address, Phone numbers, everything ...

Legal Whore Jennifer Waugh Corinis Covers up Corruption "LEGAL WHORE" JENNIFER
WAUGH CORINIS COVERS UP GOVERNMENTAL CORRUPTION & FRAUD obama eminent
domain ...
www.123people.com/s/whore+jennifer
JUDICIAL FRAUD (JUDICIALFRAUD) on Twitter

Reading "I don't know that, Jennifer Waugh Corinis, ..." on Scribd http://scr.bi/9Zw5FK
#readcast 2:28 AM May 12th via Scribd ...
twitter.com/JUDICIALFRAUD - Cached - Similar
Reyes v. Brenowitz :: Justia Dockets & Filings

Mar 10, 2008 ... Represented By: Jennifer Waugh Corinis. Search Dockets, [ Dockets ].
Search Blogs, [ Justia BlawgSearch | Blawg.com | Bloglines | Google ...
dockets.justia.com/docket/court-flmdce/case_no.../case_id-211165/ - Cached
DENISE O'GUIN ON LAPTOP.AVI - Filestube Video Search

Mar 25, 2010 ... steele irs busse v. lee county sheri polster chappell busse v. steele pope
abuse aa brian albritton jennifer waugh corinis us attorney ...
video.filestube.com/watch.../DENISE-O-GUIN-ON-LAPTOP-AVI.html - Cached
1 2 3 4 5 Next
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en… 1/2

BOOK OF JUDICIAL CORRUPTION &amp; CONSPIRATORIAL CONCEALMENT - THE O.R. 569/875 CASES, FindACase™

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

BOOK OF JUDICIAL CORRUPTION &amp; CONSPIRATORIAL CONCEALMENT - THE O.R. 569/875 CASES, FindACase™

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

CHRONOLOGY

Buy Document Now

[U] Busse v. Lee County

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Docket Number available at www.versuslaw.com

JORG BUSSE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, KENNETH M. ROESCH, JR., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

A. Takings Clause Claims

B. Procedural Due Process Claims

C. Equal Protection Claims

D. Substantive Due Process Claim

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.; Pat. Pending

Buy Document Now

Buy Document Now

Docket Number available at www.versuslaw.com

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT; JORG BUSSE, PLAINTIFFS,

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.

Buy Document Now

Powered by VersusLaw, Inc.

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

Buy Document Now

[U] Prescott v. State of Florida

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Docket Number available at www.versuslaw.com

April 21, 2009

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, JORG BUSSE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS-CROSS-APPELLEES,

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

Before BLACK, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

B. Prior Similar Action

C. Dismissal of Current Action

A. Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim

B. Motion for the District Court to Recuse

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.; Pat. Pending

Buy Document Now

Powered by VersusLaw, Inc.

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

Buy Document Now

Docket Number available at www.versuslaw.com

March 31, 2010

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT; JORG BUSSE, PLAINTIFFS,

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.

Buy Document Now

Powered by VersusLaw, Inc.

Nam e of Court: State:

Buy Document Now

Docket Number available at www.versuslaw.com

March 30, 2010

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT; JORG BUSSE, PLAINTIFFS,

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.

Buy Document Now

Powered by VersusLaw, Inc.

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

Buy Document Now

Busse v. Lee County

Docket Number available at www.versuslaw.com

JORG BUSSE PLAINTIFF,

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.

Buy Document Now

Powered by VersusLaw, Inc.

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

Buy Document Now

Docket Number available at www.versuslaw.com

BOOK OF JUDICIAL CORRUPTION & CONSPIRATORIAL CONCEALMENT - THE O.R. 569/875 CASES, FindACase™

BOOK OF JUDICIAL CORRUPTION & CONSPIRATORIAL CONCEALMENT - THE O.R. 569/875 CASES, FindACase™