Letter of Demand and Intent To Sue

Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Government Corruption Victim
Dr. Jorg Busse, Public Corruption Victim

07/20/2010
CERTIFIED DELIVERY
John Ley, Clerk of U.S. Circuit Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
56 Forsyth ST, N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
RE: Public Corruption in 11th Circuit;

Falsification of “$5,048.60”; Extortion
Letter of Intent to Sue U.S. Clerk
Demand for Certification and Authentication of “$24.30 Judgment”
Dear 11th Circuit Clerk:
U.S. CLERK’S FALSIFICATION OF “$5,048.60”

1. The Clerk of the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, and
Defendant Clerk Drew Heathcoat falsified a “$5,048.60 judgment” and/or non-existent
mandate.
2. The Defendant District Clerk knew that the record “Judgment” and “Bill of Costs” issued
as mandate on 06/11/2009 were in the allowed amount of $24.30, Doc. # 365, 386.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 39.
U.S. CLERK’S FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT
3. Defendant Clerk Drew Heathcoat fraudulently concealed, e.g., the
a. Lack of any “Bill of Costs” in the falsified amount of “$5,048.60”
[see FRAP 39, attached]; and
b. Lack of any judgment awarding the falsified amount of “$5,048.60”. See Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228.
U.S. CLERK’S FALSIFICATION OF “WRIT OF EXECUTION”, “$5,048.60”
4. Here, a falsified and non-existent “$5,048.60 judgment” could not have possibly become
any lien on property under Florida law as fraudulently and illegally pretended by, e.g.,
Defendant Appellee Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office, Def.
Jack N. Peterson, Lee County Attorney’s Office, and Defendant Clerk. See, e.g., Doc. # 432.
5. The U.S. District Clerk falsified a “writ of execution” in the amount of “$5,048.60”. See
Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 425, 432, 386.
6. Defendant Judges in said District and Circuit Courts concealed said extortion-scheme and
covered up for crooked Defendants and Officials.
COVER UP AND CONCEALMENT OF GOVERNMENT CRIMES
7. The falsification and illegal alterations of official records and documents were crimes.
8. With corrupt intent to obtain unlawful benefits, the Lee County Defendants had fabricated
and/or forged a “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, and fake “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-
00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”.
1
PRIMA FACIE FRAUD AND EXTORTION
9. The Defendant U.S. Circuit and District Judges knew and concealed the prima facie
criminality and nullity of said fake “land parcels” and “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425.
DEMAND FOR AUTHENTICATION AND CERTIFICATION UNDER THE RULES
10. The undersigned Plaintiffs hereby demand the certification and authentication of said
“$24.30 Judgment” by the Circuit Clerk [who is the custodian of Court records], Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 365, (386). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 44 and Freedom of Information Act.
MISRERESENTATION
11. The Circuit Clerk concealed that by Appellee Wilkinson’s own publicly recorded admissions
and Exhibits, Defendant Appellee Kenneth M. Wilkinson had never filed any “Rule 38
motion” as misrepresented by the Clerk.
12. On “08/14/2008, Plaintiff “Dr. Jorg Busse” had filed “Appellant’s motion to strike appellee
property appraiser’s motion as frivolous” as evidenced by the Docket, Case No. 2008-13170-
BB.
/s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott

c/o International Court of Justice
Peace Palace
The Hague, Netherlands
/s/Jorg Busse, M.D., M.M., M.B.A.

Peace Palace
CC: Defendant Crooked Officials Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Jack N. Peterson

Florida Bar
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Florida Department of Law Enforcement
Chief Judges
2
24
3
FRAP 39. Costs
(a) Against Whom Assessed. The following rules apply unless the law provides or the court
orders otherwise:
(1) if an appeal is dismissed, costs are taxed against the appellant, unless the parties agree
otherwise;
(2) if a judgment is affirmed, costs are taxed against the appellant;
(3) if a judgment is reversed, costs are taxed against the appellee;
(4) if a judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, modified, or vacated, costs are taxed
only as the court orders.
(b) Costs For and Against the United States. Costs for or against the United States, its agency,
or officer will be assessed under Rule 39(a) only if authorized by law.
(c) Costs of Copies. Each court of appeals must, by local rule, fix the maximum rate for taxing
the cost of producing necessary copies of a brief or appendix, or copies of records
authorized by Rule 30(f). The rate must not exceed that generally charged for such work
in the area where the clerk’s office is located and should encourage economical methods
of copying.
(d) Bill of Costs: Objections; Insertion in Mandate.
(1) A party who wants costs taxed must — within 14 days after entry of judgment — file
with the circuit clerk, with proof of service, an itemized and verified bill of costs.
(2) Objections must be filed within 14 days after service of the bill of costs, unless the court
extends the time.
(3) The clerk must prepare and certify an itemized statement of costs for insertion in the
mandate, but issuance of the mandate must not be delayed for taxing costs. If the
mandate issues before costs are finally determined, the district clerk must — upon the
circuit clerk’s request — add the statement of costs, or any amendment of it, to the
mandate.
(e) Costs on Appeal Taxable in the District Court. The following costs on appeal are taxable
in the district court for the benefit of the party entitled to costs under this rule:
(1) the preparation and transmission of the record;
(2) the reporter’s transcript, if needed to determine the appeal;
Rev.: 12/09 154 FRAP 39

23
Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 236 Filed 07/02/10 Page 3 of 3
pending motion. Further, they are not motions which request affirmative relief by the Court. They
are immaterial to this case, which has been dismissed. Moreover, some of the documents contain
scandalous materials. These notices should, therefore, be stricken. See Rule 12 (f), Fed. R. Civ. P.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motions (Dkt. 215, 217, 218, 219, 231) are DENIED for lack
of jurisdiction.
2. The Clerk is directed to terminate these motions.
3. The Clerk is further directed to no longer accept ANY filings from Plaintiffs in
this case because a judgment has been entered and Plaintiffs have filed a notice
of appeal as to the Court’s Order (Dkt. 213), and this case is CLOSED.
4. Finally, the Clerk is also directed to strike Published Public Notices from the record
(Dkt. 220, 221, 223, 225, 226, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, 235).
DONE AND ORDERED at Ft. Myers, Florida, on July 2, 2010.
COPIES TO:
COUNSEL OF RECORD AND UNREPRESENTED PARTIES
-3-
Page 1 of 1
Unable to Locate Docket Number

Docket Number: 201010963
Send Comment Change Client Code View Billing History Search
http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/CHMSDKTP.FWX 7/14/2010
Page 1 of 4
United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit

56 Forsyth Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 335-6100
Cases for Jorg Busse, Dr.

Docket Date Withdrawn
Short Style Party Type
Number From Case
09-16202 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Gerald B. Tjoflat Appellant
09-16201 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Appellant
09-14715 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of Florida Appellant
http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/srchPtyCase.fwx?ID=610101050 7/14/2010
Page 2 of 4


Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 335-6100

Number From Case
09-14297 Dr. Jorg Busse v. State of Florida Appellant
09-14291 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of FL Appellant
09-14285 Jorg Busse v. Lee County, Florida Appellant
Page 3 of 4


Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 335-6100

Number From Case
09-12329 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazarra Appellant
08-15140 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. State of Florida Appellee
08-13170 Jorg Busse v. Lee County Florida Appellant
PACER Service Center
Page 4 of 4
Transaction Receipt
07/14/2010 22:12:10
PACER
we0083 Client Code:
Login:
List cases for Search Party=Jorg Busse,
Description:
party Criteria: Dr.
Billable Pages: 3 Cost: 0.24
Page 1 of 1

Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 335-6100
Cases for Jorg Busse

Number From Case
09-16215 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Susan H. Black Appellant
09-16208 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Roger Alejo Appellant
PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt
07/14/2010 22:11:55
PACER
we0083 Client Code:
Login:
List cases for Search Party=Jorg
Description:
party Criteria: Busse
Billable Pages: 1 Cost: 0.08
22
25
27
7/19/2010 Federal Bureau of Investigation - Tam…
This is Google's cache of http://tampa.fbi.gov/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on

Jul 15, 2010 01:03:36 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn
more
These search terms are highlighted: florida fbi Text-only version
Tampa Home Top Story Get Tampa Alerts

Contact Tampa
Contact Us
5525 West Gray Street
Territory/Jurisdiction Tampa, FL 33609
Phone: (813) 253-1000
About Us
E-mail: tampa.division@ic.fbi.gov
• Our People &
Capabilities
• What We Investigate
• Our Partnerships
Tampa Leadership
• Tampa History
Press Room
Wanted by the FBI -
Tampa Mortgage Fraud Special Agent in Charge
Charges Filed in ‘Operation Stolen Dreams’ Steven E. Ibison
In Your Community
Twenty-one additional people were charged in the
FBI Jobs Middle District of Florida in a massive collective
effort to confront mortgage fraud. Details Assistant Special Agents in Charge
Main FBI Website
• Christopher W. Davis (Orlando)
Search FBI Website More News • Kevin Ray Eaton • David F. Reign
Administrative Officer: John Gustafson
Take advantage of the Get advice and tips for Help us find wanted
many services we protecting your family, fugitives and missing
offer to the public and your community, and persons. Rewards
to law enforcement. your workplace. are being offered in
some cases.
• Criminal Background Checks • New E-Scams and Warnings • Wanted by the FBI - Tampa
• Requests for FBI Records • Reporting Internet Crime • Most Wanted Terrorists
• FBI Training Academy • Sex Offender Registry • Seeking Terrorism Info
• Name Checks • Crime Statistics • Top Ten Fugitives
• Victim Assistance • Submitting Case Tips • Featured Fugitives
• Laboratory Services • Common Fraud Schemes • Crime Alerts
• Fingerprint Card Orders • A Parent's Guide to Internet Safety • Kidnappings, Missing Persons
• More Services • More Tips and Suggestions • Unknown Bank Robbers
Accessibility | eRulemaking | Freedom of Information Act | Legal Notices | Legal Policies and Disclaimers | Links
Privacy Policy | USA.gov | White House
FBI.gov is an official site of the U.S. Federal Government, U.S. Department of Justice.
…googleusercontent.com/search?q=ca… 1/1
Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Government Corruption Victim
Dr. Jorg Busse, Public Corruption Victim
07/20/2010
CERTIFIED DELIVERY
Defendant Drew Heathcoat
Defendant Supervising Clerk
Defendant Crooked Charlene Edwards Honeywell
Corrupted U.S. District Court, U.S. Courthouse
2110 First Street
Fort Myers, FL 33901
F: 239-461-2179
RE: Extortion, Public Corruption, and Anarchy in U.S. District Court, M.D. of Florida
Falsification and Destruction of Official Records
Criminal Investigation of Public Corruption in District Court and Clerk’s Office
Falsification of $5,048.60 judgment and writ of execution
Concealment and Cover-Up
Forgery of “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”
Dear Sirs:
1. On, e.g., 07/16/2010 and 07/20/2010, Defendant Drew Heathcoat and the U.S. District Clerk
obstructed justice and concealed the non-existence of
a. Any recorded judgment in the falsified amount of $5,048.60;
b. Any genuine writ of execution;
c. Any electronic filing privileges for Plaintiffs Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin
Prescott.
2. In particular, Defendant Drew Heathcoat unlawfully refused the perform ministerial acts such
as, e.g., determining:
a. “Did the U.S. District Clerk issue any authentic writ of execution in Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228; Yes or No?”
b. Did the U.S. District Clerk falsify any writ of execution in Case No. 2:2007-cv-
00228; Yes or No?”
c. “And if so, what was the amount?”
d. “Did the Clerk alter or illegally modify the judgment in the amount of $24.30 issued
as mandate on 06/11/2009 in Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 365; Yes or No?”
e. “Has there been any recorded judgment in the amount of $5,048.60 in Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228; Yes or No?”
f. “Is the U.S. District Clerk obstructing the filing of Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal from
order, Doc. # 213, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791; Yes or No?”
g. “Why is the U.S. District Clerk obstructing the filing of Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal
from order, Doc. # 236, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791?”
h. “Is the District Court obstructing a written statement by the Clerk, who is the
Custodian of Court records, that after diligent search no recorded judgment in the
amount of $5,048.60 could be found; Yes or No?”
i. “Does the District Clerk have any record of any “electronic filing privileges” in the
name of Dr. Jorg Busse and/or Jennifer Franklin Prescott; Yes or No?”
3. The Plaintiffs were entitled to be free of said public corruption and criminal & unlawful
acts by Defendant Clerk Drew Heathcoat and the U.S. District Clerk.
4. Given the publicly recorded extortion, coercion, and falsification and destruction of
official records and documents by the U.S. District Clerk in Plaintiffs’ Cases such as, e.g., ##
2:2007-cv-00228; 2:2009-cv-00791; 2:2010-cv-00089, the Plaintiffs seek criminal
investigation and stay of any further proceedings in the prima facie corrupt U.S. District
Court, Middle District of Florida.
5. Because of the record coercion, threats of, e.g., arrest and civil contempt, retaliatory
punishment and sanctions, and extortion of money in the falsified amount of “5,048.60”,
the Plaintiffs will no longer respond to any further unlawful communications and crimes of
this Court.
6. The Plaintiffs have left this jurisdiction and are prosecuting in a so far undisclosed venue.
Govern yourself accordingly!

Peace Palace

Peace Palace
2
PUBLISHED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
AGAINST DEF. CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL
CORRUPT U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
CERTIFIED DELIVERY
Federal Bureau of Investigation
5525 West Gray Street
Tampa, FL 33609
Phone: (813) 253-1000
CERTIFIED DELIVERY
U.S. Dept. of Justice
Criminal Division
DEFENDANT CHARLENE E. HONEYWELL

RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS
1. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant corrupt U.S. District Judge
Charlene Edwards Honeywell (“Honeywell”), a female Afro-American Judge, in her private
individual capacity and official capacity. Defendant Honeywell’s unlawful and criminal acts
on record were outside any immunity and official capacity.
FELONIES OUTSIDE ANY “official” CAPACITY
2. Defendant Corrupt Honeywell had knowledge of the actual commission of felonies and
concealed them. Here even though Def. Honeywell had knowledge of, e.g., judicial Co-
Defendant Chappell’s, Steele’s, Pizzo’s, and Lazzara’s obstruction of justice and
fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels”, a falsified “writ of execution”,
falsified “$5,048.60 judgment”, Corrupt Honeywell did not make the same known to some
judge or person in authority, but covered up for said Offenders in exchange for bribes, 18
U.S.C. §§ 3, 4.
ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT
3. Defendant Crook Honeywell knew that Defendant principal Offenders Steele, Chappell,
Pizzo, and Lazzara had committed record offenses and assisted said Offenders, 18 U.S.C. §§
3, 4. See, e.g., Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 50, assistance with facially fraudulent
“writ of execution”; see Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. ## 213, 236, assistance with record
forgeries.
DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS UNDER COLOR OF FAKE “writ” AND “resolution”
4. Defendant Government Whore deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs, e.g., under color of a
fake “writ of execution” and “resolution 569/875”, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242.
RECORD RETALIATION UNDER COLOR OF WRIT OF EXECUTION & SANCTIONS
5. With the intent to retaliate, Corrupt Honeywell knowingly took actions harmful to the
Plaintiff public corruption victims, which included interference with Plaintiffs’ livelihood
and record land ownership, because the Plaintiff landowners had provided truthful
information relating to the commission of Federal offenses to law enforcement, 18 U.S.C. §§
1513.
6. Knowingly, Honeywell extorted Plaintiffs’ property and/or threatened to do so, with
corrupt intent to retaliate against the Plaintiffs because the Plaintiffs had blown the whistle
on public corruption; in particular, because the Plaintiffs had produced records and testimony
conclusively evidencing Government corruption and fraud, and information about the
commission of Federal offenses by Government Officials. Here, Plaintiff Government crime
and corruption victims had the right to be reasonably protected from the Government
Offenders and Judges of record, 18 U.S.C. § 3771.
RECORD POLICY, CUSTOM, AND CULTURE OF CORRUPTION
7. Customarily, and over and over again, Honeywell coerced the Plaintiffs to refrain from
prosecuting and producing crime evidence. Idiotic lies and threats of “sanctions” have played
a central role in Honeywell’s record crimes and concealment. Just like Jews and
Government opponents in Nazi Germany, the Plaintiff Government crime victims are
running from the anarchy, extortion, and coercion in Honeywell’s court of perversions
where un-recorded and non-existent judgments can be perverted into a “lien on property”.
BLACKMAIL, EXTORTION, UNLAWFUL COMMUNICATIONS & THREATS
8. In retaliation and exchange for bribes, Defendant Crooked Judge Honeywell made
threatening demands without any justification under color of law, authority, and falsified
official records. In particular, Defendant Corrupt Judge threatened, e.g., “monetary
sanctions”, “civil contempt”, and/or arrest, merely because the Plaintiff public corruption
victims had exposed and blown the whistle on, e.g., Honeywell’s crimes, extortion,
coercion, and fraud on the Court.
EXACTION OF MONEY BY THREAT OF, E.G., ARREST AND CIVIL CONTEMPT
9. Honeywell exacted, threatened to exact, and/or conspired with other Officials and
Defendants to exact money from Plaintiffs by threat of “monetary sanctions”, “civil
contempt”, and/or arrest under color of, e.g., office and falsified official records. In
particular, Def. Honeywell conspired to extort $5,048.60” in the absence of any recorded
authentic judgment and justification. Honeywell caused other Government Officials to
falsify, alter, and destroy official records for criminal and illegal purposes of concealing
Honeywell’s extortion, coercion, obstruction of justice and other crimes of record.
Honeywell made unlawful communications and threatened Plaintiff public corruption
whistleblowers. See, e.g., Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 50, p. 3:
“Shortly thereafter, the writ was issued (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 425).”
Defendant Government Whore Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that no “writ”
had ever been issued and/or could have possibly been issued, because, e.g., no recorded
“$5,048.60 judgment” had ever existed. For criminal & illegal purposes of, e.g., extorting
and obstructing justice, said Defendant falsely and idiotically pretended lack of
“authority” over record extortion under color of a falsified official record by U.S.
Defendants, Case No. 2:2010-00089, Doc. # 50, 07/14/10, p. 3:
“Because Case No. 2:07-CV-228 was assigned to Judge John Steele, this Court does
not have the authority to grant relief from the writ of execution.”
10. Just like a bungling Government idiot, Def. Honeywell contradicted herself in the next
paragraph, in which she cited “Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)”, Doc. # 50, pp. 3-4:
“A party may move for relief from a final judgment or order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).”
“As such, the matter is closed, except for the issue of sanctions.”
“Plaintiffs have given the Court more than enough grounds to impose sanctions for
their misconduct.”
2
MISCONDUCT AND EXTENSION OF RECORD CRIMES AND FALSIFIED “WRIT”
11. Def. Honeywell recklessly extended the record Government crimes and falsified “writ”,
Doc. # 425:
“To the extent that Plaintiffs request injunctive relief, the Motions will be denied.”
See Doc. # 50, p. 4.
12. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed that sanctions were not any “issue” but
Honeywell’s record crimes and unlawful acts such as, e.g., extortion, concealment, and
fraud were. In said organized cover-up, Defendant Honeywell concealed that there had
never been any “$5,048.60 judgment” of record and that no “judgment” of record had ever
even referenced any “frivolous appeal”.
13. Honeywell promoted the record culture and policy of corruption, anarchy, lawlessness
and perversion of law and facts. With corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits, Honeywell
“incomprehensibly” and “disjointedly” copied and pasted together illegal “orders” and
judicial trash without ever addressing the complained about legal issues and claims for relief.
RECKLESS DEPRIVATIONS AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & COURT ACCESS
14. For criminal and illegal purposes of obstructing justice, extorting, coercing, and
concealing, Defendant Criminal Honeywell obstructed, and caused other Officials and
Defendants to obstruct, the filing of, e.g., Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal from “order”, Doc. #
213, Notice of Appeal from “order”, Doc. # 236, Case No. 2-2009-cv-00791:
“The Clerk is directed to terminate these motions.
3. The Clerk is further directed to no longer accept ANY filings from Plaintiffs
in this case because a judgment has been entered and Plaintiffs have filed a
notice of appeal as to the Court’s Order (Dkt. 213), and this case is CLOSED.
4. Finally, the Clerk is also directed to strike Published Public Notices from the
record (Dkt. 220, 221, 223, 225, 226, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, 235).”
ILLEGAL DESTRUCTION AND MUTILATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
15. With corrupt intent to extort, blackmail, coerce, defraud, deprive, and obtain illegal
benefits, Defendant Corrupt Honeywell destroyed, mutilated, caused others to destroy and
mutilate, and conspired with, e.g., other Officials to destroy and mutilate official records,
Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. # 236, 07/02/2010, p. 3:
“Plaintiffs have also filed several documents entitled “Published Public Notice” (Dkt.
220, 221, 223, 225, 226, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, and 235). These documents do not
relate to any pending motion. Further, they are not motions which request affirmative
relief by the Court. They are immaterial to this case, which has been dismissed.
Moreover, some of the documents contain scandalous materials. These notices
should, therefore, be stricken.” See Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. # 236, pp. 2-3.
MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE, CONCEALMENT, AND COVER UP
16. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Government Whore Honeywell obstructed, delayed, and
prevented the communication of judicial and Government corruption information relating to
the commission of felonies by, e.g., U.S. Agents J. E. Steele, S. Polster Chappell, M. A.
Pizzo, R. A. Lazzara, and Def. record Forger of “land parcels” K. M. Wilkinson, and
Crooked Attorney Jack N. Peterson, § 838.022 (1)(c), Fla. Stat.
DELIBERATE DERPRIVATIONS AND PERVERSIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
17. U.S. Defendant Honeywell recklessly perverted express Florida and Federal Constitutional
guarantees of, e.g., the rights to due process, equal protection of the law, to own property,
exclude Governments from private property, redress Government grievances, prosecute by
3
jury trial, be free of Government corruption, extortion, coercion, oppression, falsification of
records, unlawful seizure of private property under fraudulent pretenses such as, e.g.:
a. Idiotically and brazenly, Def. Whore Honeywell manufactured and conspired with other
Government Officials to pervert express Constitutional guarantees and concoct that
property rights are not fundamental rights;
b. Def. Honeywell concocted and conspired to concoct that Plaintiffs could not assert their
perfected “state claims” against U.S. Agents in U.S. Courts;
c. Def. Honeywell fabricated and conspired to fabricate that Defendant Forger of “land
parcels” Wilkinson had filed a non-existent “Rule 38 motion”. Here, Defendant
Honeywell falsified and caused others to falsify dockets, docket entries, and official
records. See § 838.022 (1)(a), Fla. Stat.;
d. Def. Predator Honeywell concealed, covered up, and/or altered official records and
documents, § 838.022 (1)(b), Fla. Stat.;
e. With corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits for Lee County Officials and to harm the
Plaintiff record landowners & corruption victims, Def. Honeywell maliciously fabricated
and conspired to fabricate a “regulation” by nameless, un-named, and non-existent
“legislators”. See § 838.022 (1), Fla. Stat.
OBSTRUCTION OF COURT ACCESS & FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL, DOC. 213
18. On or around 07/16/2010, Defendant Whore Honeywell prevented and conspired with other
Officials such as, e.g., Defendant Clerks Drew Heathcoat and Diane Nipper the filing of
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal from Order, Doc. # 213 …, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, and the
communication of information relating to the commission of felonies in the U.S. District
Court, Fort Myers, Florida.
19. Recklessly, Honeywell’s illegal and felonious acts deprived the Plaintiffs of their rights as
stated in Doc. # 214, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791.
“RULE 38/WRIT OF EXECUTION”-FRAUD-SCHEME, CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT
20. Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39, costs may be taxed against the appellant, if a judgment is
affirmed. Defendant Whore Honeywell knew and concealed that the “costs allowed” and/or
taxed were “$24.30”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 365, p. 15; 386-3, p. 15. Def.
Honeywell concealed that no costs were ever allowed under purported “Rule 38”.
“FRIVOLOUS APPEAL”-FRAUD & EXTORTION-SCHEME
21. “FRAP 38, Frivolous Appeal - Damages and Costs” provides that
“if a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately
filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award
just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.”
22. Defendant Government Whore Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that pursuant to
11th Cir. R. 38-1, Time for Filing Motions, Motions for damages and costs pursuant to FRAP
38 must be filed no later than the filing of appellee’s brief. Here, Defendant Wilkinson had
tendered and/or filed his prima facie fraudulent brief on or around 08/08/2008. See Appellate
Case No. 2008-13170-BB, certified Docket sheet. Admittedly, Defendant Wilkinson never
filed any “Rule 38 motion” before 08/08/2008.
23. Admittedly, Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any Rule 38 motion. Rule 38 only provided
for damages and costs. Here, Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any such motion and
perpetrated fraud on the Court. See certified Docket. Defendant Government Whore
Honeywell concealed said “Rule 38 motion”-fraud-scheme and conspiracy to extort.
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL ILLEGALITY & CRIMINALITY OF FAKE “WRIT”
4
24. On or around 07/14/10, Defendant corrupt U.S. Judge Honeywell conspired with, e.g., U.S.
Defendants Chappell and Steele to fraudulently conceal the prima facie nullity and illegality
of a facially forged “writ of execution” and “July judgment”, Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089,
Doc. # 48, p. 1:
“On February 1, 2010, Magistrate Judge Chappell issued an order granting Defendant
Kenneth M. Wilkinson's Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution (2:07-CV-228,
Dkt. 424). Shortly thereafter, the writ was issued (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 425).”
25. Defendant crooked Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that
Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any “Rule 38 motion”, Fed.R.App.P.
26. Defendant corrupt U.S. Judge Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal
that Defendant Co-conspirator Chappell had fabricated a mandate and/or judgment, Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 424:
“On July 28, 2009, the Eleventh Circuit issued a Judgment awarding Wilkinson
$5,000.00 in attorney’s fees and double costs in the amount of $48.60, as sanctions
for Busse’s pursuit of a frivolous appeal.”
27. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that admittedly
Defendant Wilkinson had never alleged a “frivolous appeal” and that no mandate or
“judgment awarding Wilkinson $5,000.00 in attorneys fees…” had ever existed, Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228.
28. In the certified record absence of any “Rule 38 motion” by Def. Wilkinson, a fraudulent
“judgment” in the amount of “$24.30” “issued as mandate on June 11 2009”, Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228.
29. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that the mandated
“amount of $24.30” had been paid and was not “outstanding”:
“The Judgment to date remains outstanding.”
30. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired with other U.S. Agents to
conceal that
a. No such mandated “judgment” existed, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228;
b. No mandated “judgment” was ever “recorded in the Public Records of Lee County”;
c. The fraudulently alleged “certification” was facially forged;
d. “Instrument No. 2009000309384” could not have possibly become any “lien” on any
property pursuant to Ch. 55, 56; and 55.10 Florida Statutes; and
e. No “writ of execution” legally existed.
31. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired with U.S. Defendants Chappell,
Steele, and other U.S. Agents to conceal that nothing in that or any other Case could have
possibly “served as a lien against” any property under Florida and Federal law:
“A certified copy of the Judgment was recorded in the Public Records of Lee County,
Florida at Instrument No. 2009000309384 and serves as a lien against the property.”
32. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that
a. Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any “Rule 38 motion”;
b. Kenneth M. Wilkinson had never been awarded any mandated “judgment”;
c. Def. Wilkinson was not “entitled to tax….”;
d. The prima facie fraudulent “Writ” was due to be denied as unlawful and unauthorized.
5
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF JURISDICTION & FRAUD ON THIS COURT
33. On or around 06/23/10, Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed the jurisdiction of this
Court over the unlawful acts of the Defendant U.S. Agents and recklessly deprived the
Plaintiffs of any chance of justice and adjudication of their perfected claims, Doc. # 213:
“B. Supplemental Jurisdiction
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). Once a district court dismisses all claims over which it had
original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
remaining state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). This Court, therefore, declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state claims.”
34. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that this Court had jurisdiction of
any and all claims involving the Defendant U.S. Government Officials and including “state
claims”. Defendant Honeywell had no “discretion” but was absolutely obligated to adjudicate
Plaintiffs’ claims, because United States Agents had perpetrated unlawful and criminal acts
of record.
35. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Co-Defendant U.S. Judges Steele and
Chappell themselves had removed Plaintiffs’ State action, 2006-CA-003185, BUSSE v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, to Federal Court. See 2:2008-cv-00899.
36. “Declining jurisdiction” over unlawful and criminal U.S. Governmental acts proved
Defendant Honeywell’s fraud on the Courts and required her disqualification.
RECKLESS OBSTRUCTION OF COURT ACCESS
DISPARATE DENIAL OF COURT ACCESS RIGHTS
37. Recklessly, Defendant Honeywell again obstructed Plaintiffs’ court access on 06/23/10, Doc.
# 213, p. 21:
“With its discretionary authority, the Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state claims.”
OBSTRUCTION OF COURT ACCESS UNDER FALSE PRETENSES OF “misconduct”
38. On 07/07/10, Defendant Honeywell again fabricated “misconduct” and/or “loss” of
“electronic filing privileges” in response to Plaintiffs’ “specific” demand for “equal court
access and privileges for filing purposes.” See Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 38, p. 1;
see Def. Honeywell’s previous fabrications, Case No. 2:09-CV-791, Doc. ## 133, 151.
RECORD CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE & ADJUDICATION
39. Defendant Honeywell conspired with other Defendant U.S. Judges and Officials not to justly
and speedily adjudicate Plaintiffs’ conclusively proven “state claims” against Federal
Defendants.
DENIAL & FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS
40. On or around 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell recklessly and disparately denied the
Plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws under fraudulent pretenses, Doc. # 213, p. 19:
“In this case, Plaintiffs claim that they were denied equal protection of the laws by
Defendants in relation to Lot 15A. As a general matter, Florida counties may exercise
eminent domain over property not owned by the state or federal government. Fla.
Stat. § 127.01(1)(a); id. “Since a state landowner would not be subject to eminent
domain power but [Plaintiffs], as . . . [alleged] private landowner[s], would be,”
Plaintiffs cannot be similarly situated to a state landowner. Busse, 317 Fed. Appx. at
973. Plaintiffs, “therefore cannot rely on [their] disparate eminent domain treatment
6
vis-a-vis state landowners as the basis for an equal protection claim.” Id.
Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted and dismisses their Equal Protection claim.”
41. In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, Defendant Honeywell fixed and fraudulently concealed
Plaintiffs’ perfected “equal protection claim” and the record absence of any “eminent
domain” “exercise”. On 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed that none
of the Government Defendants ever had any “eminent domain power” and perpetrated fraud
on the Court.
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL U.S. JURISDICTION & OBSTRUCT COURT ACCESS
42. Defendant Honeywell conspired with other Federal Defendants to conceal Federal
jurisdiction and obstruct Plaintiffs’ meaningful court access.
43. In particular, Defendant Honeywell conspired to conceal that of course, the Plaintiffs
rightfully prosecuted 1st, 14th, 4th, 7th and 5th Amendment violations by Federal Defendants in
Federal Court.
44. On or around 06/23/10, Defendant U.S. Judge Honeywell fabricated “necessary state
procedures”, Doc. # 213, p. 18:
“They have not exhausted the necessary state procedures to address their dispute
prior to filing in federal court. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Seventh Amendment
claim.”
45. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that Plaintiffs’ prosecution of
Federal Defendants for Seventh Amendment Violations did of course not require “necessary
state procedures”. Brazenly and idiotically, Defendant Honeywell concocted “necessary
state procedures” on the record. Said reckless fabrications were outside Honeywell’s scope
of immunity and official capacity.
DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS OF COURT ACCESS UNDER FALSE PRETENSES
46. Without any meritorious “defense” or “claim”, and under facially idiotic pretenses of
“frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, Defendant Honeywell deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of
court access.
CONCEALMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY AND
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL THAT PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE FUNDAMENTAL
47. Defendant Honeywell conspired to fraudulently conceal that property rights are most
fundamental rights. On or around 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell conspired to brazenly
and irrationally concoct, Doc. # 213, p. 20:
“Property rights would not be fundamental rights since they are based on state law.”
Id. Here, Plaintiffs claim that they have been denied their alleged property rights in
Lot 15A. These property rights are defined by state law. Therefore, the Court finds
that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses
their Substantive Due Process Claim.”
48. No halfway intelligent and non-corrupt judge in Defendant Honeywell’s shoes could have
possibly denied that property rights and the right to own property are most fundamental
rights. Honeywell’s above assertion was recklessly false and for unlawful and criminal
purposes of extorting property and fees and illegally bypassing due process and equal
protection of the law.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF PLAINTIFFS’ PREVIOUS “STATE ACTION”
7
49. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed Plaintiffs’ State action, Case No. 2006-CA-
003185 (Lee County Circuit Court), BUSSE v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Doc. # 213, p. 15:
“Although they have been previously told by the Eleventh Circuit that they must
proceed in state court prior to bringing suit in federal court for several of their claims,
Plaintiffs refuse to do so and continue to re-file their complaints with additional
Defendants and claims all surrounding the same property dispute.”
50. Defendant Honeywell conspired with other Officials such as, e.g., Defendants Steele and
Polster Chappell to conceal Plaintiffs’ 2006 State action of record, 2006-CA-003185.
Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Defendants Steele and Chappell had removed
Plaintiffs’ record 2006 State action to Federal Court. See 2:2008-cv-00899.
51. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed Plaintiffs’ fundamental entitlement to sue
Defendant U.S. Agents in Federal Court for any and all claims.
06/23/2010 SLANDER OF RECORD REAL PROPERTY TITLE, DOC. # 213
52. On or around 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell unintelligently slandered Plaintiffs’ record
marketable title to riparian Lot 15A, “Cayo Costa”, Doc. # 213, 2:2009-cv-00791:
“In a resolution adopted in December 1969 by the Board of Commissioners of Lee
County, Florida, Lot 15A, among other property, was claimed as public land
(“Resolution 569/875") (Dkt 5, Ex. 3, p. 9). See Prescott, et al., v. State of Florida, et
al., 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2009); Busse, et al. v. Lee County,
Florida, et al., 317 Fed. Appx. 968, 970 (11th Cir. Mar 5, 2009).”
07/14/2010 FABRICATION OF “WRIT OF EXECUTION”
53. On or around 07/14/2010, Defendant Honeywell irrationally fabricated a “writ of
execution”, Doc. # 48, p. 1, 2:2010-cv-00089:
“In the motion, Plaintiffs appear to seek a release of the writ of execution and
attachment of a lien to property issued in Busse v. Lee County, Florida, et al., Case
No. 2:07-CV-228-FtM-29SPC. That case was before Judge John Steele and
Magistrate Judge Sheri Chappell.”
54. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed the record lack of any “writ of execution”
mandated “July 2009 judgment”, and of any ‘Rule 38 motion” by Def. “land parcel” Forger
Wilkinson. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228; see Case Docket as certified on 07/16/2010 by
Def. Clerk D. Nipper.
55. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the record 03/05/2009 “judgment” and paid
“amount of $24.30” “issued as mandate on 06/11/2009”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, had
ruled out any possibility of a “writ of execution”.
56. Because of her irrational contradictions on record, Defendant Honeywell’s “orders” were
facially arbitrary, capricious, incomprehensible, and idiotic:
57. In particular, no rational, competent, and honest judge in Defendant Honeywell’s shoes
could have possibly reconciled a fake “writ of execution” with a fake “claim”.
58. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that in the hypothetical event of any involuntary
title transfer to Government, no “writ of execution” could have possibly existed.
59. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that in the hypothetical event of a “writ of
execution”, there could not have possibly been any involuntary title transfer to Lee County,
Florida. For bribes, Def. Whore Honeywell conspired to extort Plaintiffs’ property under
fraudulent pretenses of a non-existent “Rule 38 motion”, fake “judgment”, and fake “writ”.
8
TRESPASS ONTO PRIMA FACIE PRIVATE “CAYO COSTA” SUBDIVISION
60. Defendant Honeywell’s unlawful and criminal acts of record, reckless orders, Case ##
2:2009-cv-00791; and 2:2010-cv-00089, slander of title, fraudulent pretenses and/or
fabrications of a non-existent mandated “judgment”, “writ of execution”, “lien” proximately
caused unlawful and criminal trespass onto Plaintiffs’ private street and up lands on the Gulf
of Mexico in the private undedicated residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision.
61. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that the public had no Subdivision
access, because as a matter of law, the public had no right to use any of the prima facie
private street and alley easements as legally conveyed in reference to the 1912 Plat of Survey
in PB 3 PG 25.
ILLEGAL FIRES AND ARSON
62. Defendant Honeywell’s reckless orders, Case ## 2:2009-cv-00791, and 2:2010-cv-00089,
slander of title, fraudulent pretenses and/or fabrications of a non-existent mandated
“judgment”, “writ of execution”, “lien” have been inducing the public to start unlawful fires
and perpetrate arson on private “Cayo Costa” Subdivision property, PB 3 PG 25 (1912).
CONSPIRACY TO COVER UP FOR GOVERNMENT CROOKS
63. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal the record crimes and
illegal acts of, e.g., U.S. Defendants John E. Steele, Sheri Polster Chappell, Richard A.
Lazzara, Mark Allan Pizzo, and to cover up for said Government Crooks.
RECORD THREATS AND FABRICATIONS OF “VIOLATION OF ORDER”
64. On or around 07/14/20, Defendant Honeywell again threatened, intimidated, and coerced
the Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecuting Defendant Honeywell, 2:10-cv-00089, Doc. # 49, p.
2:
“…Plaintiff Busse has directly violated an order of this Court.”
65. Defendant Government Whore Honeywell has been a named party Defendant, because she,
e.g., accepted Defendants’ bribes, fixed Plaintiff’s Cases under false pretenses of a
“regulation”, fabricated a “writ of execution”, perverted the Florida and Federal
Constitutional guarantees of the most fundamental rights to own property and exclude
Governments, redress Government grievances, be free of Government corruption,
oppression, unlawful seizure of property, et al. The Plaintiff corruption victims sued Def.
Honeywell in her individual private capacity outside any immunity, because Def.
Honeywell maliciously extended, e.g., record Government extortion, corruption, and crimes
and unlawful acts. See, e.g., Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. # 213, 236; Case No. 2:2010-
cv-00089, Doc. ## 48, 49, 50.
66. Under color of office, Defendant Honeywell falsified and/or caused other persons to falsify
official record and documents. See § 838.022, Fla. Stat.
RECORD EXTORTION OF FEES AND PROPERTY
67. For unlawful and criminal purposes of extorting fees and Plaintiffs’ record property,
Defendant Honeywell fabricated a “writ of execution”.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF RECORD “06/11/2009 MANDATE”
68. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that a facially fraudulent 03/05/2009 “judgment”
“issued as mandate on June 11, 2009” and was received by the U.S. District Court on
06/15/2009. See Doc. # 365; Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF CLOSURE OF CASE 08-17130-BB ON 06/11/2009
69. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
had closed Case No. 2008-13170-BB on 06/11/2009.
9
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF “$24.30” MANDATE
70. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
had “allowed the amount of $24.30” “issued as mandate on June 11, 2009”
71. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the “amount of $24.30” was not outstanding.
72. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that no “writ of execution” could have possibly
existed on the record.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF NON-EXISTENCE OF “RULE 38 MOTION”
73. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Defendant crooked Official Kenneth M.
Wilkinson had never filed any Rule 38 motion.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF RECORD COERCION
74. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson expressly
coerced the Plaintiff corruption victims to refrain from prosecution on the record. See
Wilkinson’s “Rule 27-4 motion”.
COERCION
75. On the record, Defendant Honeywell coerced the Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecution under
color of authority and office.
76. Without any authority or justification, Defendant Honeywell threatened, intimidated,
harassed, and “punished” the Plaintiffs on the record, including the obstruction of court
access.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF NON-EXISTENT “LAND PARCELS”
77. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Defendant Forger K. M. Wilkinson had
unlawfully and criminally forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-
01-00001.0000”. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that said forged
“parcels” did not appear on the 1912 “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat of Survey in Lee
County Plat Book 3 Page 25.
78. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that said non-existent and forged “land parcels”
had never been legally described, platted, and/or conveyed in reference to said Plat of
Survey, PB 3 PG 25 (1912) and had never existed.
BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION
79. In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, Defendant Honeywell concealed said evident record
forgeries and covered up for Defendant K. M. Wilkinson.
80. Defendant Honeywell accepted Defendants’ bribes and enforced the culture and policy of
corruption in her office even though Honeywell knew that the prima facie fake “writ of
execution”, “lien”, “judgment”, and “land parcels” had never existed and could not have
possibly existed.
DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS & FRAUD ON THE COURT
81. With wanton disregard for Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights to, e.g.
a. Be free of Government corruption, extortion, coercion, and threats;
b. Be free of unlawful seizure;
c. Redress Government grievances without coercion, extortion, and threats;
d. Have meaningful and free court access;
e. Have due process and equal protection of the law;
f. Own property;
g. Exclude Defendant Governments from Plaintiffs’ record property.
Defendant Honeywell perpetrated fraud on the Court and deliberately deprived the
Plaintiffs of their express fundamental rights under the Federal and Florida Constitutions.
10
Peace Palace

Peace Palace
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
26
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE CORRUPT ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
____________________________
No. 10-10963-I
____________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:07-00228-CV-FtM-JES-SPC
DR. JORG BUSSE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
KENNETH M. ROESCH, J.R., 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,
KIENNETH M. WILKINSON, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
___________________________________
Not Docketed in Violation of Law
Nazi-style Mock U.S. Proceedings Without any Due Process

___________________________________
APPELLANT(S)’ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM VEXATIOUS NAZI STYLE 04/06/10 “ORDER”
(April 14, 2009)

PETITION FOR AND JURISDICTION ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
1. Hereby, Plaintiff(s)-Appellant(s) petition for a Writ of Certiorari and supervisory
review of the fraud on the Court by U.S. Judges since 2007 on the record(s).
2. “A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States
court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only
upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify
deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination
in this Court. See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e); Rule 11, Certiorari to a United States
Court of Appeals before Judgment.
NAZI STYLE JUDICIAL CRIMES ON THE RECORD
3. Here, the Nazi-style crimes by U.S. District and Circuit Judges and their
fraudulent concealment of Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were shown
and conclusively proven to be “of such imperative public importance as to justify
deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate
determination” in the U.S. Supreme Court. In particular, the (extra)judicial crimes
in these Case(s) & Appeal(s) destabilized real property ownership in America and
any confidence in the American judicial system, where on the record, Federal
Judges corruptly fabricated that Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were
purportedly “law” and/or “authorized” Government to criminally seize and
confiscate private property without any due process and equal protection of the
law. Here just like Nazi Officials, U.S. Judges extended record facial forgeries
“O.R. 569/875” and facially forged “land” “parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”
and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, which never legally existed, Lee County Plat
Book 3, Page 25 (1912).
COMPELLING REASONS SUCH AS MASSIVE JUDICIAL CORRUPTION
4. Here, said U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, entered facially idiotic decisions in
conflict with its own decisions, other U.S. Appellate Court, and Supreme Court
decisions on the same important matters. Here, judicially fabricated
condemnation, eminent domain, and/or involuntary alienation by forged
“resolution”, “legislative act”, “legislative” “claim” and/or Governmental
forgeries such as, e.g., “O.R. 569/875” were criminal acts prohibited by law and
violative of Constitutional checks and balances. Here, U.S. Judges criminally
retaliated and conspired to criminally “deter”, “sanction”, and “punish” pro se
Plaintiff(s) with an illegal “writ of execution” and criminal seizure of Plaintiff(s)
riparian Gulf-front property, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A”, Accreted Gulf-
front Lot 15A, as legally described in reference to the 1912 “Cayo Costa”
Subdivision Plat of Survey in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25.
CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION OF MEANINGFUL “JUDICIAL REVIEW”
5. Just like Nazi Government Officials, the corrupt Judges in the Eleventh Circuit
obstructed justice and court access by fabricating a “resolution”:
2
“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.”
See corrupt March 5, 2009 Appellate “Opinion”, No. 08-13170, District Court
Docket No. 07-00228-CV-FTM-29-SPC, p. 2.
RECORD JUDICIAL CRIMES & FRAUD ON THE COURT(S)
6. Here, U.S. Judges perpetrated fraud on the Court(s), procured another unlawful
“order” through trickery & malice, and fabricated a “resolution”. Here, no
evidentiary support of a “resolution” had ever existed, and the Governmental
concoctions of condemnation by Governmental facial forgeries “O.R. 569/875”
were record crimes.
RECORD PSYCHOPATHOLOGICAL LIES OF “RESOLUTION” & “CLAIM”
7. Here, no “resolution” had ever legally existed, and Defendant “Board” never
“adopted” Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”. Here, no name of any
“Board” member appeared on Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”. Here, no
“resolution” had ever been legally recorded. Here, no original of any “resolution”
ever existed. Here, there was rampant judicial corruption and fraud on the Court.
Therefore, any and all Federal “opinions” and “orders” since 2006 were null and
void from the outset.
PERVERSIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS OF “CLAIM”
8. Florida and Federal Constitutions expressly prohibited confiscating and/or
“claiming” “land” by “adoption” of a “resolution” and/or any “law”. Here, the
Nazi-style Judges in the 11th Court lied and criminally perverted said
Constitutions’ checks and balances. Here, the law did not recognize criminal
confiscation and seizure by any “resolution”, “law”, and/or Governmental
forgeries “O.R. 569/875”.
9. Here, said outlaw Judges were out of control when they brazenly concocted a
“resolution” and/or “legislative act” and then punished the pro se Plaintiff(s)
merely for “redressing their Governmental grievances” and opposing the
psychopathological judicial lies and Governmental crimes on the record.
10. Just like Nazi Judges fabricated that Nazi Government could “claim” the property
of Jews and Nazi opponents, here criminal Judges idiotically concocted that
Defendant Governments could “claim” Plaintiff(s) “raid lands” Nazi style and by
criminal means of forged “O.R. 569/875”.
THE JUDICIAL CROOKS COULD NOT ANSWER PLAIN QUESTIONS:
11. When asked plain and short: Who adopted what, where, when, and how, the
criminal Judges in this corrupt Court imposed” “sanctions” just like Nazi Judges
did when asked why Jews and Nazi opponents were murdered in Nazi
concentration camps.
THE NAZI STYLE CRIMES OF “SICK” FEDERAL JUDGES
3
12. When the pro se Plaintiffs demanded to see the original of the forged “resolution”
and/or authenticated copies, the crooked Judges “deterred”, “sanctioned”, and
“punished” the Plaintiff(s) just like Nazi Judges “deterred” Nazi opponents in
death camps and pedophile priests “punished” raped children when they reported
the priests’ rape.
PREMEDITATED JUDICIAL FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD
13. Here, U.S. Judges fraudulently concealed that Governmental forgeries “O.R.
569/875” were “paste-ups”. Here, the illegible fake “recording” stamp(s) on said
Governmental forgeries were pasted by Governmental con men. Here for years,
U.S. Judges conspired with the Defendants to fraudulently conceal the criminality
of Nazi style forged “claims” of “raid lands”, Governmental forgeries “O.R.
569/875”.
FRAUDULENT JUDICIAL PRETENSES OF “REVIEW” & “FRIVOLITY”
14. Here in the absence of a docket, criminal Judges “faked” “judicial review” and
“frivolity”:
“these appeals have been reviewed and determined to be frivolous.”
See fraudulent “04/06/2010” 11th Circuit “order”.
Here, the Case Docket(s) disappeared just like Nazi court records disappeared at
the hands of Nazi judges. Here, sick Judges criminally concocted a “resolution”
and “frivolity”.
NAZI-STYLE “RESTRICTIONS” ON JUSTICE & FRAUD ON THE COURT
15. In their criminal “order”, post stamped “04/06/2010”, the objectively corrupt and
partial Judge(s) in this Court again “imposed” Nazi-style “restrictions”:
“As part of its Order, the Court imposed restrictions on Appellant’s ability…”
POLICY & CUSTOM OF NAZI-STYLE “RESTRICTIONS” & TERROR
16. Just like Nazi Government Officials maliciously “restricted” the “abilities” of
Jews and Nazi opponents, the crooked Judge(s) in this Court premeditated
obstruction of justice, “deterrence”, “punishment”, and “judicial concentration
camp” for the pro se Plaintiff(s), because the pro se Plaintiff(s) opposed, e.g.,
Governmental forgeries and scam “O.R. 569/875” and forged “Lee County”
“land” “parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”, and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & FRAUD ON THE COURTS, DOC. # 338
17. Here for years, the vexatious U.S. judicial policy and custom on the record was
obstruction of justice of the adjudication of the pro se Plaintiff(s)’ “claims”:
“The copy of the Resolution [Governmental Forgeries “O.R. 569/875”]
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.”
See vexatious and facially fraudulent “Opinion and Order”, Doc. # 338, p. 12,
Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-JES-SPC, by crooked District Judge John Edwin
Steele.
4
NAZI-STYLE ANARCHY INSTEAD OF ADJUDICATION
18. Even though the Defendants had ADMITTED that Lee County, Florida, and/or its
Commissioners had never “signed” and/or “executed” Governmental forgeries
“O.R. 569/875” as conclusively evidenced by the true and correct copies of said
fake “claims” on record, the Federal Judges conspired to uphold lawlessness and
judicial corruption.
JUDICIAL FAILURE TO “SHOW CAUSE” – FRIVOLITY FRAUD SCHEME
19. Here, the conspiring U.S. Judges in this Court never “showed any cause” for the
“punishment” and “sanctions” of the pro se Plaintiff(s) under fraudulent pretenses
of “frivolity” just like Nazi Official never “showed any cause” why they murdered
Jews and Nazi opponents.
20. Just like Nazi Officials made the crime records of Nazi killings disappear, here the
criminal Judges in this Court made dockets and records of oppression disappear.
See Case Dockets. Here, crooked U.S. Judges covered up for other outlaw Judges
in said U.S. Judicial Gang just like Nazis covered up for Nazis, and Catholic
bishops for priests.
NO AUTHENTICATION OF JUDICIALLY FABRICATED “RESOLUTION”
21. Even though the vexatious Judges in this Nazi-style Appellate Court had been
“unable” to authenticate any “resolution”, “legislative act”, “land use regulation”,
and/or “law”, they criminally continued to fraudulently pretend a “resolution” and
torture, terrorize, punish, and oppress the pro se Plaintiffs just like Nazi Officials
terrorized and oppressed Jews and Nazi opponents.
22. Just like Nazi Officials used forged papers to confiscate property of Jews in
concentration camps, here U.S. Judges used prima facie forgeries “O.R. 569/875”
to criminally confiscate pro se Plaintiff(s)’ riparian property.
FACIALLY IDIOTIC JUDICIAL “ARGUMENTS” ON THE RECORD
23. Here, prima facie Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were not any
“resolution”, because no “lawmaker” had ever “signed” and/or “executed” said
scam. Just like Nazi Government Officials seized the property of Jews and Nazi
opponents by criminal means of forged Nazi “claims”, here U.S. Judges fabricated
a “resolution” and/or “legislative act”. Here, District and Circuit Judges agreed
and conspired to “cover up” for crooked Judge Steele and conceal the idiotic
criminal fabrication that Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were purportedly
“law”. The law did not recognize said Nazi-style “claim”.
SCIENCE & FORENSICS CONTROVERTED OUTLAW JUDGES:
FORENSICS vs. NAZI-STYLE “FRIVOLITY” “CLAIM”
24. Here on the record, the Defendants themselves had CONTROVERTED the outlaw
Judges’ fabrications of a “legislative act” and/or “resolution”. Furthermore,
forensic examinations had conclusively proven that Governmental forgeries “O.R.
569/875” were not any “legislative act” and/or “resolution”. Here, U.S. Judges
5
kept lying, concealing, and covering up for crooked Judge Steele, his oppressive
Nazi style, Doc. # 338, and judicial crimes.
VEXATIOUS JUDICIAL FARCE & MOCKERY OF “ORDER” (“04/06/2010”)
25. Here, said 04/06/2010 “order to show cause” was a facial farce and mockery. On
their faces, Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” patently clearly portrayed the
facts and evidence of Governmental fraud, extortion, and crimes. Here, the law
expressly prohibited Governmental scam “claim all of raid lands”.
26. Here, only Nazi-style Judges needed “cause shown”. Just like Nazi Judges did not
comprehend the criminality of murdering Nazi opponents in concentration camps,
here these Nazi-type Judges did not “get” the patently clear criminality of
Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”, but needed “cause shown”. Just like the
Pope needed “cause shown” for the prosecution of rapist priests, the Nazi-type
Judges in the Eleventh Circuit needed “cause shown” why “disallowing” the pro
se Plaintiffs to “assert” Governmental fraud & corruption and concealing the
criminality of said Governmental forgeries was not criminal.
27. Just like Nazi Judges staged fake “proceedings” for Jews and Nazi opponents, and
were utterly unable to “show” any Nazi wrongdoing and/or “cause” for
prosecution for murder of innocent Nazi opponents in concentration camps, this
“order” is a criminal charade.
TIME FOR “NUREMBERG TRIALS” OF “JUDICIAL TERRORISTS”
28. Here, the time for “Nuremberg Trials” has come. Here under public policy, said
“judicial terrorists” in Atlanta are on trial for fraudulently concealing
Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”, fraud, and eminent domain extortion…
6
FOR THE CORRUPT ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
____________________________
No. 10-10963-I
____________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:07-00228-CV-FtM-JES-SPC
DR. JORG BUSSE,
KENNETH M. ROESCH, J.R., et al.,

Plaintiffs,
versus

KIENNETH M. WILKINSON, et al.,
___________________________________
Not Docketed in Violation of Law
Nazi-style Mock U.S. Proceedings Without any Due Process

___________________________________
NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM VEXATIOUS NAZI STYLE 04/06/10 “ORDER”
(April 14, 2009)

CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION OF MEANINGFUL “JUDICIAL REVIEW”
1. Just like Nazi Government Officials, the corrupt Judges in the Eleventh Circuit
obstructed justice and court access by fabricating a “resolution”:
“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.”
See corrupt March 5, 2009 Appellate “Opinion”, No. 08-13170, District Court
Docket No. 07-00228-CV-FTM-29-SPC, p. 2.
RECORD JUDICIAL CRIMES & FRAUD ON THE COURT(S)
2. Here, U.S. Judges perpetrated fraud on the Court(s), procured another unlawful
“order” through trickery & malice, and fabricated a “resolution”. Here, no
evidentiary support of a “resolution” had ever existed, and the Governmental
concoctions of condemnation by Governmental facial forgeries “O.R. 569/875”
were record crimes.
RECORD PSYCHOPATHOLOGICAL LIES OF “RESOLUTION” & “CLAIM”
3. Here, no “resolution” had ever legally existed, and Defendant “Board” never
“adopted” Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”. Here, no name of any
“Board” member appeared on Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”. Here, no
“resolution” had ever been legally recorded. Here, no original of any “resolution”
ever existed. Here, there was rampant judicial corruption and fraud on the Court.
Therefore, any and all Federal “opinions” and “orders” since 2006 were null and
void from the outset.
PERVERSIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS OF “CLAIM”
4. Florida and Federal Constitutions expressly prohibited confiscating and/or
“claiming” “land” by “adoption” of a “resolution” and/or any “law”. Here, the
Nazi-style Judges in the 11th Court lied and criminally perverted said
Constitutions’ checks and balances. Here, the law did not recognize criminal
confiscation and seizure by any “resolution”, “law”, and/or Governmental
forgeries “O.R. 569/875”.
5. Here, said outlaw Judges were out of control when they brazenly concocted a
“resolution” and/or “legislative act” and then punished the pro se Plaintiff(s)
merely for “redressing their Governmental grievances” and opposing the
psychopathological judicial lies and Governmental crimes on the record.
6. Just like Nazi Judges fabricated that Nazi Government could “claim” the property
of Jews and Nazi opponents, here criminal Judges idiotically concocted that
Defendant Governments could “claim” Plaintiff(s) “raid lands” Nazi style and by
criminal means of forged “O.R. 569/875”.
THE JUDICIAL CROOKS COULD NOT ANSWER PLAIN QUESTIONS:
7. When asked plain and short: Who adopted what, where, when, and how, the
criminal Judges in this corrupt Court imposed” “sanctions” just like Nazi Judges
2
did when asked why Jews and Nazi opponents were murdered in Nazi
concentration camps.
THE NAZI STYLE CRIMES OF “SICK” FEDERAL JUDGES
8. When the pro se Plaintiffs demanded to see the original of the forged “resolution”
and/or authenticated copies, the crooked Judges “deterred”, “sanctioned”, and
“punished” the Plaintiff(s) just like Nazi Judges “deterred” Nazi opponents in
death camps and pedophile priests “punished” raped children when they reported
the priests’ rape.
PREMEDITATED JUDICIAL FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD
9. Here, U.S. Judges fraudulently concealed that Governmental forgeries “O.R.
569/875” were “paste-ups”. Here, the illegible fake “recording” stamp(s) on said
Governmental forgeries were pasted by Governmental con men. Here for years,
U.S. Judges conspired with the Defendants to fraudulently conceal the criminality
of Nazi style forged “claims” of “raid lands”, Governmental forgeries “O.R.
569/875”.
FRAUDULENT JUDICIAL PRETENSES OF “REVIEW” & “FRIVOLITY”
10. Here in the absence of a docket, criminal Judges “faked” “judicial review” and
“frivolity”:
“these appeals have been reviewed and determined to be frivolous.”
See fraudulent “04/06/2010” 11th Circuit “order”.
Here, the Case Docket(s) disappeared just like Nazi court records disappeared at
the hands of Nazi judges. Here, sick Judges criminally concocted a “resolution”
and “frivolity”.
NAZI-STYLE “RESTRICTIONS” ON JUSTICE & FRAUD ON THE COURT
11. In their criminal “order”, post stamped “04/06/2010”, the objectively corrupt and
partial Judge(s) in this Court again “imposed” Nazi-style “restrictions”:
“As part of its Order, the Court imposed restrictions on Appellant’s ability…”
POLICY & CUSTOM OF NAZI-STYLE “RESTRICTIONS” & TERROR
12. Just like Nazi Government Officials maliciously “restricted” the “abilities” of
Jews and Nazi opponents, the crooked Judge(s) in this Court premeditated
obstruction of justice, “deterrence”, “punishment”, and “judicial concentration
camp” for the pro se Plaintiff(s), because the pro se Plaintiff(s) opposed, e.g.,
Governmental forgeries and scam “O.R. 569/875” and forged “Lee County”
“land” “parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”, and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & FRAUD ON THE COURTS, DOC. # 338
13. Here for years, the vexatious U.S. judicial policy and custom on the record was
obstruction of justice of the adjudication of the pro se Plaintiff(s)’ “claims”:
“The copy of the Resolution [Governmental Forgeries “O.R. 569/875”]
signed, executed, and duly recorded in the public records, and plaintiff
will not be allowed to assert otherwise.”
3
See vexatious and facially fraudulent “Opinion and Order”, Doc. # 338, p. 12,
Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-JES-SPC, by crooked District Judge John Edwin
Steele.
NAZI-STYLE ANARCHY INSTEAD OF ADJUDICATION
14. Even though the Defendants had ADMITTED that Lee County, Florida, and/or its
Commissioners had never “signed” and/or “executed” Governmental forgeries
“O.R. 569/875” as conclusively evidenced by the true and correct copies of said
fake “claims” on record, the Federal Judges conspired to uphold lawlessness and
judicial corruption.
JUDICIAL FAILURE TO “SHOW CAUSE” – FRIVOLITY FRAUD SCHEME
15. Here, the conspiring U.S. Judges in this Court never “showed any cause” for the
“punishment” and “sanctions” of the pro se Plaintiff(s) under fraudulent pretenses
of “frivolity” just like Nazi Official never “showed any cause” why they murdered
Jews and Nazi opponents.
16. Just like Nazi Officials made the crime records of Nazi killings disappear, here the
criminal Judges in this Court made dockets and records of oppression disappear.
See Case Dockets. Here, crooked U.S. Judges covered up for other outlaw Judges
in said U.S. Judicial Gang just like Nazis covered up for Nazis, and Catholic
bishops for priests.
NO AUTHENTICATION OF JUDICIALLY FABRICATED “RESOLUTION”
17. Even though the vexatious Judges in this Nazi-style Appellate Court had been
“unable” to authenticate any “resolution”, “legislative act”, “land use regulation”,
and/or “law”, they criminally continued to fraudulently pretend a “resolution” and
torture, terrorize, punish, and oppress the pro se Plaintiffs just like Nazi Officials
terrorized and oppressed Jews and Nazi opponents.
18. Just like Nazi Officials used forged papers to confiscate property of Jews in
concentration camps, here U.S. Judges used prima facie forgeries “O.R. 569/875”
to criminally confiscate pro se Plaintiff(s)’ riparian property.
FACIALLY IDIOTIC JUDICIAL “ARGUMENTS” ON THE RECORD
19. Here, prima facie Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were not any
“resolution”, because no “lawmaker” had ever “signed” and/or “executed” said
scam. Just like Nazi Government Officials seized the property of Jews and Nazi
opponents by criminal means of forged Nazi “claims”, here U.S. Judges fabricated
a “resolution” and/or “legislative act”. Here, District and Circuit Judges agreed
and conspired to “cover up” for crooked Judge Steele and conceal the idiotic
criminal fabrication that Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were purportedly
“law”. The law did not recognize said Nazi-style “claim”.
SCIENCE & FORENSICS CONTROVERTED OUTLAW JUDGES:
FORENSICS vs. NAZI-STYLE “FRIVOLITY” “CLAIM”
20. Here on the record, the Defendants themselves had CONTROVERTED the outlaw
Judges’ fabrications of a “legislative act” and/or “resolution”. Furthermore,
4
forensic examinations had conclusively proven that Governmental forgeries “O.R.
569/875” were not any “legislative act” and/or “resolution”. Here, U.S. Judges
kept lying, concealing, and covering up for crooked Judge Steele, his oppressive
Nazi style, Doc. # 338, and judicial crimes.
VEXATIOUS JUDICIAL FARCE & MOCKERY OF “ORDER” (“04/06/2010”)
21. Here, said 04/06/2010 “order to show cause” was a facial farce and mockery. On
their faces, Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” patently clearly portrayed the
facts and evidence of Governmental fraud, extortion, and crimes. Here, the law
expressly prohibited Governmental scam “claim all of raid lands”.
22. Here, only Nazi-style Judges needed “cause shown”. Just like Nazi Judges did not
comprehend the criminality of murdering Nazi opponents in concentration camps,
here these Nazi-type Judges did not “get” the patently clear criminality of
Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”, but needed “cause shown”. Just like the
Pope needed “cause shown” for the prosecution of rapist priests, the Nazi-type
Judges in the Eleventh Circuit needed “cause shown” why “disallowing” the pro
se Plaintiffs to “assert” Governmental fraud & corruption and concealing the
criminality of said Governmental forgeries was not criminal.
23. Just like Nazi Judges staged fake “proceedings” for Jews and Nazi opponents, and
were utterly unable to “show” any Nazi wrongdoing and/or “cause” for
prosecution for murder of innocent Nazi opponents in concentration camps, this
“order” is a criminal charade.
TIME FOR “NUREMBERG TRIALS” OF “JUDICIAL TERRORISTS”
24. Here, the time for “Nuremberg Trials” has come. Here under public policy, said
“judicial terrorists” in Atlanta are on trial for fraudulently concealing
Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”, fraud, and eminent domain extortion…
5
CROOKED U.S. JUDGES CONTROVERTED BY SCIENCE
WORLDWIDE PUBLICATIONS OF U.S. JUDICIAL CORRUPTION
U.S. GOVERNMENTAL FORGERIES “O.R. 569/875”:
IDIOTIC GOVERNMENTAL FABRICATIONS OF “LAW”
http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud
531 Documents
11 Subscribers
43,962 Reads
183 Downloads
mail@handwritingexpert.org.uk,
pnina555@bezeqint.net,
kim@kimwasley.com,
forgeryhelp@sandrabasyefde.com,
nadepres@handwriting-examiner.com,
send2lorrie@yahoo.com,
teresa@teresadeberry.com,
forgeryhelp@sandrabasyefde.com,
sheila@sheilalowe.com,
• Fraudulent alterations of words and letters in more than one forgery
• Writing in more than one font type
• Writing in more than one font size
• Writing in more than one writing style
• Misspelled words
• Misaligned typing
• Uneven spacing in the writing
• Missing portions of writing and/or printing
• Fraudulent paste-ups
• Incorrect vertical, horizontal and/or margin spacing
• Unclear and illegible fake stamp
• Smudged and illegible time stamp
• No signatures by any “lawmaker”
• No name(s) of any “lawmaker”
• Illegible and unclear fake handwriting
• Smeared and smudged imaging
• Inconsistent “trash marks”
• Different ink densities ….

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
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.
Accordingly, it is now
-15-
ORDERED:
1. Defendant Property Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (Doc. #303) is GRANTED to the
extent set forth in paragraph 5 below.
2. Defendant Property Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss and
Close File (Doc. #285) is DENIED as moot.
3. State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection
and Division of Recreation and Parks, State of Florida, and Board
of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund’s Joint Motion
to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a
Cause of Action (Doc. #291) is GRANTED to the extent set forth in
paragraph 5 below.
4. Defendants Lee County, Florida, Board of Lee County
Commissioners, Lee County Attorney, Jack N. Peterson’s Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. #304) is GRANTED to the extent set forth in paragraph
5 below.
5. The Third Amended Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice as to all defendants and all claims. The Clerk shall
enter judgment accordingly, terminate all pending motions as moot,
and close the case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 5th day of
May, 2008.
Copies: Parties of record
-16-
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED

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

KENNETH M. WILKINSON, et al.,
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court

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

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

Based on these standards, we find that Busse has failed to state a valid
procedural due process claim. Florida provides him an adequate post-deprivation
remedy, inverse condemnation, and he makes no argument that this procedure is
inadequate. Even if it was inadequate, though, Busse still would not have a valid
procedural due process claim. The Resolution constituted a legislative act since it
was a general provision that affected a large number of persons and area, 200 acres
in all, rather than being specifically targeted at Busse or his immediate neighbors.
See 75 Acres, LLC v. Miami-Dade County, Fla., 338 F.3d 1288, 1294 (11th Cir.
2003). Since alleged problems with the adoption of such acts cannot serve as the
basis for a procedural due process claim, Busse could not cite them as the basis for
his claim. See id. (noting that “if government action is viewed as legislative in
nature, property owners generally are not entitled to procedural due process”).
Accordingly, we find that the district court did not err in dismissing Busse’s
procedural due process claims.
C. Equal Protection Claims
Busse also argues that his equal protection rights were violated because the
Board, in adopting the Resolution, treated differently privately-owned property and
state-owned property.3 The Fourteenth Amendment forbids states from “deny[ing]
3
In his brief on appeal, Busse argues that he experienced different treatment than other
landowners in Lee County. However, we need not address this argument since he did not
mention this in his third amended complaint and we find that none of the exceptions that would
allow us to consider an issue not raised before the district court would apply here. See Narey v.
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const.
amend. XIV, § 1. “[T]o properly plead an equal protection claim, a plaintiff need
only allege that through state action, similarly situated persons have been treated
disparately.” Thigpen v. Bibb County, 223 F.3d 1231, 1237 (11th Cir. 2000)
abrogated on other grounds by National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S.
101, 122 S. Ct. 2061 (2002).
Under Florida law, counties can exercise eminent domain over any land that
is not owned by the state or federal government. See Fla. Stat. § 127.01(1)(a)
(2006). Since a state landowner would not be subject to the eminent domain power
but Busse, as a private landowner, would be, Busse could not be similarly situated
to a state landowner. Busse therefore cannot rely on his disparate eminent domain
treatment vis-a-vis state landowners as the basis for an equal protection claim.
Since Busse made no other allegations of disparity in his third amended complaint,
we find that he has failed to plead a valid equal protection claim and that the
district court correctly dismissed this claim.
D. Substantive Due Process Claim
Busse also appears to allege that the Resolution denied him his substantive
due process property rights. Substantive due process protects only those rights that
are “fundamental,” a description that applies only to those rights created by the
Dean, 32 F.3d 1521, 1526-27 (11th Cir. 1994) (discussing the exceptions to this general rule).
United States Constitution. See Greenbriar Village, L.L.C. v. Mountain Brook,
City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Property rights would
not be fundamental rights since they are based on state law. See id. Busse thus
could not bring a viable substantive due process claim based on the alleged denial
of a state-defined property right. See id. Accordingly, we find that the district
court properly dismissed his substantive due process claims.4
E. Supplemental Jurisdiction
Busse also contends that the court abused its discretion in not hearing his
pendent state law claims. “The decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
pendent state claims rests within the discretion of the district court.” Raney v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Since the
district court “had dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it
therefore had the discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Busse’s
state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Furthermore, we expressly encourage
district courts to take such action when all federal claims have been dismissed pre-
trial. See Raney, 370 F.3d at 1089. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse
4
The district court, in addressing Busse’s substantive due process claim, mentions that
assertions of irrational and arbitrary government action could not serve as the basis for such a
claim. Even under a liberal reading of Busse’s complaint, though, we do not think he made such
allegations. In the third amended complaint, he discusses takings violations and procedural
problems with the enactment of the Resolution but never questions the rationale for its passage.
Accordingly, we need not address whether he has a valid substantive due process claim based on
arbitrary and capricious government action.
its discretion when it chose not to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Busse’s
state law claims.
III. CONCLUSION
Busse contends that the district court incorrectly dismissed his federal claims
regarding alleged takings and deprivations of property rights. Since Busse’s
takings claim was not ripe because he had not pursued available state remedies and
he failed to adequately plead his other federal claims, the district court correctly
dismissed all of these claims. As a result, despite Busse’s objections to the
contrary, the district court also did not commit an abuse of discretion in not
exercising jurisdiction over his state law claims. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the
district court’s dismissal of Busse’s third amended complaint.
AFFIRMED.
David Souter
U.S. Supreme Court Justice
RE: Lee County [FL] O.R.569/875 – An eminent domain scam of giant proportions
Case-fixing in the U.S. Court of Appeals
We are writing to you in the matter of the corruption and case-fixing in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
Common intelligence dictates that residents use designated streets to get to their lots.
Unintelligently, the 11th Circuit cannot tell the difference between a designated street and
“unidentified areas”. See Plat Book 3, p. 25 at www.leeclerk.org.
In West Peninsular Title Co.1, corrupt Chief Circuit Judge Edmondson co-wrote:
“And, plaintiffs’ “arbitrary and capricious” due process claim is ripe. Plaintiffs
accused the County of applying an arbitrary and capricious action ..
Plaintiffs’ claim was ripe as soon as the County applied the ordinance … See Eide v.
Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 724 n.13(11th Cir. 1990).”
“But the County insists that adjoining landowners own the strip parcels, citing
Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959), as an alternative to 16.33
Acres.”
For Appellees’ bribes, Edmondson now changed his mind and conspired to pervert a platted
designated street into an “unidentified area” in order to fix Appellants’ Cases. Here for bribes,
ripeness vanished, and justice is for sale in the 11th Circuit.
The Appellant(s) also own property in N.H. and wish you the best for your retirement.
/s/ Jennifer Franklin Prescott /s/Dr. Jorg Busse
1
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/41/41.F3d.1490.93-4449.93-4104.html
Volume 41, The Federal Reporter, 3d Ed. [Nov., 1994 – Jan., 1995]
41 F.3d 1490 Page 1 of 4
« up
This is Google's cache of http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/41/41.F3d.1490.93-

4449.93-4104.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Mar 24, 2009
15:42:24 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
These search terms are highlighted: united states v 16.33 acres Text-only version
41 F.3d 1490
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO., Absolute, Inc., Marion H.
Cooper,
for Estate of Alfred R. Cooper, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
PALM BEACH COUNTY, Carol A. Roberts, Chair of Board of
County Commissioners of Palm Beach County,
Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 93-4104, 93-4449.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Jan. 10, 1995.
Patti A. Velasquez, Asst. County Atty., West Palm Beach, FL, Robert S. Hackleman, Ft.
Lauderdale, FL, for appellants in No. 93-4104.
Sharon M. Pitts, Patti A. Velasquez, Asst. County Atty., West Palm Beach, FL, Robert S.
Hackleman, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for appellants in No. 93-4449.
Jeffrey A. Aman, Smith, Williams & Bowles, P.A., Tampa, FL, Joan E. O'Dell, Gregory L.
Williams, Smith, Williams & Bowles, P.A., Washington, DC, for appellees in both cases.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before HATCHETT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, MELTON* , Senior District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
1 After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants
raise several arguments, hoping mainly to void concessions made in district court in
the joint pretrial stipulation. The district court is affirmed.
2 The controversy concerns the ownership of strip parcels (roads and ditches)
offered by Palm Beach Farms for dedication to Palm Beach County in 1912. A 1976
instrument entitled "Notice of Withdrawal of Platted Roads, Streets, and Other
Unexercised Rights" revoked the offer of dedication. In 1986, pursuant to local
Ordinance No. 86-18 (the "Ordinance"), defendant Palm Beach County (the
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009
41 F.3d 1490 Page 2 of 4
"County"), began a practice of selling easement and right of way interests in

property originally acquired through dedication. In return for a "privilege fee," the
County issued an abandonment resolution, which, when recorded, transferred
ownership of the parcel to the payor of the fee. This dispute began when the County
attempted to collect fees in exchange for abandonment resolutions for parcels that,
according to plaintiffs, had never been accepted by the County.
3 Plaintiffs, claiming that they were successors in interest to Palm Beach Farms
(and thus owners of the strip parcels), challenged the County's practice as an
unconstitutional taking--under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments--of their
property.1 The County conceded that it never expressly accepted the dedication;
but, at trial, the County attempted to show that it had impliedly accepted the
dedication by using the strip parcels. The jury found for plaintiffs, deciding that the
County had not accepted the 1912 offer of dedication within a reasonable time. The
district court entered judgment for plaintiffs: plaintiffs were judged the fee simple
owners of the pertinent strip parcels; defendants were enjoined from applying the
Ordinance to plaintiffs' property; and plaintiffs were awarded attorney's fees.
Defendants appeal.
4 The County now contests plaintiffs' standing, arguing that plaintiffs could not
possibly own the strip parcels (and thus have no interest at stake). But given
plaintiffs' allegations and the County's stipulations in the district court, the record
supports both standing and jurisdiction. A "case or controversy" exists in this case
because the parties genuinely disputed ownership of the strip parcels in the district
court. The County stipulated to plaintiffs' chain of title, agreeing that plaintiffs were
successors in interest to Palm Beach Farms. The controversy was thus limited to a
decision about whether the offer of dedication was accepted.2 Plaintiffs have
standing to challenge the application of the Ordinance to what they assert is their
property.
5 But the County insists that adjoining landowners own the strip parcels, citing
Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959), as an alternative to 16.33
Acres. This decision is not about standing: what the County is really arguing is that
plaintiffs failed to join indispensable parties. Amicus Boywic Farms agrees, arguing
that it was harmed by the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Because the
district court could only determine who, as between plaintiffs and the County, had
the better claim to the strip parcels, amicus is not bound by the district court's
order. It was no abuse of discretion for the district court to refuse to dismiss this
case for failure to join indispensable parties. The County, as movant, had the
burden "to show the nature of the unprotected interests of the absent parties," 5A
Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 1359; yet, the County's
citation to the record reveals only that it established the existence of adjoining
landowners (not the nature of allegedly unprotected interests).
6 And, plaintiffs' "arbitrary and capricious" due process claim is ripe.3 Plaintiffs
accused the County of applying an arbitrary and capricious action (asserting
ownership to the strip parcels and recording abandonment resolutions which
transferred title) to their property. Plaintiffs' claim was ripe as soon as the County
applied the ordinance and the petition process (including a $400 nonrefundable
application fee) to the undedicated strip parcels. See Eide v. Sarasota County, 908
F.2d 716, 724 n. 13 (11th Cir.1990).
7 The County argues that no subject matter jurisdiction exists because plaintiffs'
claims are so frivolous. But the course of litigation and stance of the County in
41 F.3d 1490 Page 3 of 4
district court undercuts its claim of frivolousness. We also note that the pretrial
stipulation plainly reads that "[n]either party contests subject matter ...
jurisdiction."4 If the County actually thought plaintiffs' claims were frivolous, it
should not have so willingly conceded facts giving rise to jurisdiction in the
stipulation. Because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs'
federal claims, the court did not err by including plaintiffs' state claims for
declaratory relief--pendent jurisdiction was proper.
8 The County also argues that the district court erred by interpreting the stipulation
as a "winner-take-all" proposition. That is, the County says it reserved a right to
make several arguments, after the jury's fact finding, by referring to "undisposed of
motions" in the stipulation. We disagree. The parties agreed that the jury's
conclusion would "be outcome determinative of all of the federal and state claims."
The County does not argue that it was unfairly duped into signing the stipulation.
And, we owe great deference to the trial judge's interpretation and enforcement of
pretrial stipulations. See Morrison v. Genuine Parts Co., 828 F.2d 708 (11th
Cir.1987); Hill v. Nelson, 676 F.2d 1371, 1373 n. 8 (11th Cir.1982). In the light of the
stipulations, the district court did not err when it refused to entertain the County's
post-verdict motions.
9 Defendants raise other arguments, none of which present grounds for reversal.
The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
Honorable Howell W. Melton, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of
Florida, sitting by designation
Application of the Ordinance, according to plaintiffs, put a "cloud" on plaintiffs' title

because title to the strip parcels was transferred to the payor of the privilege fee.
Plaintiffs' property was, in other words, not transferable so long as the County continued
to demand fees for the "abandonment" of property it never owned
"[S]tanding cannot be waived and may be asserted at any stage of litigation." Harris v.
Evans, 20 F.3d 1118, 1121 n. 4 (11th Cir.1994) (en banc). We disagree with the County's
argument that plaintiffs' ownership claim is so obviously frivolous that standing could
not possibly exist, regardless of stipulated facts pointing to standing. In support of this
claim, the County cites the allegedly "remarkably similar" case of United States v.
16.33 Acres of Land, 342 So.2d 476 (Fla.1977), as binding precedent denying plaintiffs'
ownership claim. But 16.33 Acres is distinguishable because in that case the government
expressly accepted the offer of dedication. Id. at 479
Because we conclude that plaintiffs' arbitrary and capricious due process claim was ripe,
we say nothing about whether plaintiffs' additional constitutional claims were ripe. We
do note, however, that plaintiffs were not granted relief pursuant to a specific claim.
Instead, the County stipulated that plaintiffs would be entitled to the remedies requested
if plaintiffs prevailed on any of the disputed fact issues
Parties may not stipulate jurisdiction. Bush v. United States, 703 F.2d 491, 494 (11th
Cir.1983). And we do not say that jurisdiction was proper because jurisdiction was
stipulated. Instead, we look to the record; we affirm the district court's conclusion that
41 F.3d 1490 Page 4 of 4
the stipulated facts give rise to jurisdiction. For example, the County argues
frivolousness by pointing to purported transfers--by plaintiffs' predecessors in interest--
that the County says are null and void. But the County stipulated to plaintiffs' chain of
title; and, the County agreed that it was undisputed that "plaintiffs are the successors in
interest to the Palm Beach Farms Company." The record was set in district court
CC∅ | TRANSFORMED BY PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG
(3) premiums paid for a supersedeas bond or other bond to preserve rights pending
appeal; and
(4) the fee for filing the notice of appeal.
(As amended Apr. 30, 1979, eff. Aug. 1, 1979; Mar. 10, 1986, eff. July 1, 1986; Apr. 24, 1998,
eff. Dec. 1, 1998; Mar. 26, 2009, eff. Dec. 1, 2009.)
****
11th Cir. R. 39-1 Costs. In taxing costs for printing or reproduction and binding pursuant to FRAP
39(c) the clerk shall tax such costs at rates not higher than those determined by the clerk from time
to time by reference to the rates generally charged for the most economical methods of printing or
reproduction and binding in the principal cities of the circuit, or at actual cost, whichever is less.
Unless advance approval for additional copies is secured from the clerk, costs will be taxed only
for the number of copies of a brief and record excerpts or appendix required by the rules to be filed
and served, plus two copies for each party signing the brief.
All costs shall be paid and mailed directly to the party to whom costs have been awarded. Costs
should not be mailed to the clerk of the court.
11th Cir. R. 39-2 Attorney’s Fees.
(a) Time for Filing. Except as otherwise provided herein or by statute or court order, an
application for attorney’s fees must be filed with the clerk within 14 days after the time to file a
petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc expires, or within 14 days after entry of an order disposing
of a timely petition for rehearing or denying a timely petition for rehearing en banc, whichever is
later. For purposes of this rule, the term “attorney’s fees” includes fees and expenses authorized by
statute, but excludes damages and costs sought pursuant to FRAP 38, costs taxed pursuant to FRAP
39, and sanctions sought pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 27-4.
(b) Required Documentation. An application for attorney’s fees must be supported by a

memorandum showing that the party seeking attorney’s fees is legally entitled to them. The
application must also include a summary of work performed, on a form available from the clerk,
supported by contemporaneous time records recording all work for which a fee is claimed. An
affidavit attesting to the truthfulness of the information contained in the application and
demonstrating the basis for the hourly rate requested must also accompany the application.
Exceptions may be made only to avoid an unconscionable result. If contemporaneous time records
are not available, the court may approve only the minimum amount of fees necessary, in the court’s
judgment, to adequately compensate the attorney.
Rev.: 12/09 155 FRAP 39

(c) Objection to Application. Any party from whom attorney’s fees are sought may file an
objection to the application. An objection must be filed with the clerk within 14 days after service
of the application. The party seeking attorney’s fees may file a reply to the objection within 10 days
after service of the objection.
(d) Motion to Transfer. Any party who is or may be eligible for attorney’s fees on appeal may,
within the time for filing an application provided by this rule, file a motion to transfer consideration
of attorney’s fees on appeal to the district court or administrative agency from which the appeal was
taken.
(e) Remand for Further Proceedings. When a reversal on appeal, in whole or in part, results in
a remand to the district court for trial or other further proceedings (e.g., reversal of order granting
summary judgment, or denying a new trial), a party who may be eligible for attorney’s fees on appeal
after prevailing on the merits upon remand may, in lieu of filing an application for attorney’s fees
in this court, request attorney’s fees for the appeal in a timely application filed with the district court
upon disposition of the matter on remand.
11th Cir. R. 39-3 Fee Awards to Prevailing Parties Under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
(a) An application to this court for an award of fees and expenses pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2412(d)(1)(B) must be filed within the time specified in the statute. The application must identify
the applicant, show the nature and extent of services rendered, that the applicant has prevailed, and
shall identify the position of the United States Government or an agency thereof which the applicant
alleges was not substantially justified.
(b) An application to the court pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2) shall be upon the factual record
made before the agency, which shall be filed with this court under the procedures established in
FRAP 11 and associated circuit rules. Unless the court establishes a schedule for filing formal briefs
upon motion of a party, such proceedings shall be upon the application papers, together with such
supporting papers, including memorandum briefs, as the appellant shall submit within 14 days of
filing of the record of agency proceedings and upon any response filed by the United States in
opposition thereto within the succeeding 14 days.
****
I.O.P. -
1. Time - Extensions. A bill of costs is timely if filed within 14 days of entry of judgment. Judgment
is entered on the opinion filing date. The filing of a petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing
en banc does not extend the time for filing a bill of costs. A motion to extend the time to file a bill
of costs may be considered by the clerk.
2. Costs for or Against the United States. When costs are sought for or against the United States,
the statutory or other authority relied upon for such an award must be set forth as an attachment
to the Bill of Costs.
Rev.: 12/09 156 FRAP 39

3. Reproduction of Statutes, Rules, and Regulations. Costs will be taxed for the reproduction of
statutes, rules, and regulations in conformity with FRAP 28(f). Costs will not be taxed for the
reproduction of papers not required or allowed to be filed pursuant to FRAP 28 and 30 and the
corresponding circuit rules, even though the brief, appendix, or record excerpts within which said
papers are included was accepted for filing by the clerk.
Rev.: 12/09 157 FRAP 39

Letter of Demand and Intent To Sue

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Letter of Demand and Intent To Sue

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Government Corruption Victim

Dr. Jorg Busse, Public Corruption Victim

RE: Public Corruption in 11th Circuit;

Dear 11th Circuit Clerk:

U.S. CLERK’S FALSIFICATION OF “$5,048.60”

/s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott

/s/Jorg Busse, M.D., M.M., M.B.A.

CC: Defendant Crooked Officials Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Jack N. Peterson

(2) if a judgment is affirmed, costs are taxed against the appellant;

(3) if a judgment is reversed, costs are taxed against the appellee;

(d) Bill of Costs: Objections; Insertion in Mandate.

(1) the preparation and transmission of the record;

(2) the reporter’s transcript, if needed to determine the appeal;

Rev.: 12/09 154 FRAP 39

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

2. The Clerk is directed to terminate these motions.

DONE AND ORDERED at Ft. Myers, Florida, on July 2, 2010.

Unable to Locate Docket Number

United States Court of Appeals

for the Eleventh Circuit

Cases for Jorg Busse, Dr.

09-14305 Jennifer Franklin Prescott v. Richard A. Lazzara Appellant

United States Court of Appeals

for the Eleventh Circuit

Cases for Jorg Busse, Dr.

09-13522 Jorg Busse v. Lee County, Florida Appellant

United States Court of Appeals

for the Eleventh Circuit

Cases for Jorg Busse, Dr.

PACER Service Center

Send Comment Change Client Code View Billing History Search

United States Court of Appeals

for the Eleventh Circuit

Cases for Jorg Busse

PACER Service Center

Send Comment Change Client Code View Billing History Search

This is Google's cache of http://tampa.fbi.gov/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on

These search terms are highlighted: florida fbi Text-only version

Tampa Home Top Story Get Tampa Alerts

/s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott

/s/Jorg Busse, M.D., M.M., M.B.A.

DEFENDANT CHARLENE E. HONEYWELL

/s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott

FOR THE CORRUPT ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

D.C. Docket No. 2:07-00228-CV-FtM-JES-SPC

DR. JORG BUSSE,

KENNETH M. ROESCH, J.R., et al.,

LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA,

Not Docketed in Violation of Law

Nazi-style Mock U.S. Proceedings Without any Due Process

APPELLANT(S)’ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM VEXATIOUS NAZI STYLE 04/06/10 “ORDER”

(April 14, 2009)

FOR THE CORRUPT ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

D.C. Docket No. 2:07-00228-CV-FtM-JES-SPC

DR. JORG BUSSE,

KENNETH M. ROESCH, J.R., et al.,

LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA,

Not Docketed in Violation of Law

Nazi-style Mock U.S. Proceedings Without any Due Process

NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM VEXATIOUS NAZI STYLE 04/06/10 “ORDER”

(April 14, 2009)

WORLDWIDE PUBLICATIONS OF U.S. JUDICIAL CORRUPTION