Professional Documents
Culture Documents
District Court
District of New Hampshire (Concord)
Plaintiffs,
v. 1:10-cv-00321-JL
USA et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________________________________/
1. The Plaintiff Government corruption victims had objected to the “11/23/2010 endorsed
Plaintiff Government corruption victims to refrain from ongoing prosecution, due process
is dead.
FAILURE TO “ENJOIN” IS EXTENDING PROVEN CORRUPTION & COERCION
4. Here expressly, civil RICO had invoked jurisdiction over Defendant crooked Officials’
racketeering and criminal acts. Here, Defendant corrupt Officials are extending their
5. Here, prosecution was privileged and could not have possibly been subject to “criminal
investigation”. Said prosecution could not have possibly been any “credible threat”. Here,
corrupt Officials, who conspired to confiscate corruption evidence, have been a credible
“The motion is denied in all other respects. Plaintiffs have failed to comply with
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, and this court is not the proper venue for plaintiffs to challenge
the execution of a warrant relating to a pending federal criminal investigation or
proceeding, issued by a judicial officer in the Middle District of Florida.”
6. Here, said order did not explain to the pro se Plaintiff racketeering victims:
a. How and why Plaintiffs may “have failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65”;
b. Why “this court is not the proper venue for plaintiffs to challenge” well-proven and well-
alleged racketeering and Government corruption by means of “the execution of a
warrant relating to”, e.g., corruption, coercion, concealment and cover-up by
Defendant Officials.
judicial officer in the Middle District of Florida” was yet another criminal/unlawful act of,
e.g.:
2
a. Racketeering;
b. Coercion;
c. Concealment of corruption;
d. Cover-up.
Here after the Plaintiff victims had filed their racketeering Complaint, the Defendant
Officials conspired to confiscate Plaintiffs’ records and computers to coerce them to refrain
from prosecuting the Defendants for racketeering and corruption. How convenient!
activities”. Here pursuant to the public record, the “criminals” have been crooked Officials
See Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912 “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat of Survey).
9. Here, fake “lot A” and fake “block 1” continue to expose the record criminal acts by
crooked Florida and Federal Officials. See, e.g., Transcript of Nov. 7, 2007, Proceedings
before corrupt Magistrate Sheri Polster Chappell, Fort Myers, Florida, U.S.A.
10. Rule 65, Injunctions and Restraining Orders, states (see attachment):
3
admissible at trial becomes part of the trial record and need not be repeated at trial. But
the court must preserve any party's right to a jury trial.
11. Only Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time has been filed so far. The Plaintiffs
respectfully demand the filing of all their pleadings as mailed by Certified Mail. See
12. On 11/24/2010, the Plaintiff Government corruption victims read the below “ENDORSED
because an F.B.I. raid is not the “proper” process and/or procedure to “defend” against
13. Here after years of litigation, and after the Plaintiffs had filed their corruption and
Tampa F.B.I. incapacitated the Plaintiffs by unlawfully seizing the indisputable proof of
Government crimes and Plaintiffs’ equipment and files. Here, crooked Defendant Officials
conspired, e.g., to have Plaintiffs’ files, records, and evidence seized for unlawful purposes
of, e.g.,
14. Here, no reasonable and intelligent person could have possibly denied that said F.B.I. raid
was, e.g.
4
b. Rendered the Plaintiff racketeering victims incapable of orderly prosecution;
c. Resembled the tactics of dictatorial regimes.
15. Here, Defendants’ seizure violated Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights under, e.g., the 1st, 4th,
14th, 7th, and 5th U.S. Constitutional Amendments and the Florida Constitution. In
a. Own property;
b. Exclude Government from their Gulf-front Lot 15A;
c. Prosecute crooked Officials;
d. Redress Government grievances;
e. Defend against Government corruption and racketeering;
f. Defend against retaliation and extortion of more than $5,000 and Plaintiffs’ Lot 15A;
g. Defend against frivolous Government allegations and false pretenses of “frivolity”.
16. Here, Defendants deliberately and proximately interfered with Plaintiffs’ ability to
prosecute crooked American Officials for criminal and/or unlawful purposes of depriving
17. Here, Defendant Officials are keeping the Plaintiff whistleblowers away from their day in
Court. Here, said F.B.I. raid destroyed any opportunity of justice, and this Court should not
shut its eyes and close its ears to said Florida atrocities.
18. Here, the gravity and harm of public corruption should mitigate any purported “failure to
racketeering and corruption not be brushed aside and/or under the carpet of “procedural
failure”.
THE U.S. SHOULD NOT ABUSE PLAINTIFFS’ PRO SE AND VICTIM STATUS
5
19. Just because Plaintiffs are pro se, crooked Government Officials should not be allowed to
abuse their power and victimize Plaintiff whistleblowers. Where there is no fair judge, there
20. Said “MAGISTRATE ORDER” appears to “compartmentalize” and belittle said illegal
“The motion is denied in all other respects. Plaintiffs have failed to comply with
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, and this court is not the proper venue for plaintiffs to
challenge the execution of a warrant relating to a pending federal criminal
investigation or proceeding, issued by a judicial officer in the Middle District of
Florida.”
21. Plaintiff Government corruption victims had complained about, e.g., Defendant
F.B.I. file 316A-TP-73337, and seizure of tools essential to litigation was for facially
22. Under fraudulent pretenses of, e.g., “frivolity”, Defendants conspired to extort Gulf-front
Lot 15A, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A, Lee County, FL, and more than $5,000.00
23. Here frivolously and illegally, Lee County “claimed” private Gulf front easements and lands
in the private Cayo Costa Subdivision on Cayo Costa Island, Lee County, FL, under color of
6
24. Here, Defendant Government Officials conspired to conceal on the public record that, e.g.:
a. No lawmaker could possibly involuntarily divest private land owners without a court
b. No legislator could possibly “transfer” Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable record title to Lot 15A
against their will by illegal means of a “legislative act” or “resolution O.R. 569/875”;
c. No Official had any authority to fabricate a fake “lot A” and “block 1”, which had never
appeared on the public “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat in Lee County PB 3 PG 25 (1912).
25. After the unlawful raid by the Tampa F.B.I., Plaintiffs filed the below Motion for Extension
of Time, because said raid incapacitated the Plaintiff whistleblowers [Case No. 8:10-mj-
1416 (AEP)]:
e.g.:
7
“This is the document officially published in Lee County [Cayo Costa Subdivision
Plat, Plat Book 3, Page 25] showing to you [Magistrate Polster Chappell] and any fact
finder that there never was a lot A and a block 1.”
are attached.
27. Here in retaliation and response to Plaintiff(s)’ crushing record evidence of Government
corruption and fraud, Judges John Edwin Steele and Sheri Polster Chappell conspired with
other Defendants to illegally punish and sanction the Plaintiff corruption victims.
28. For patently clear and publicly recorded proof of Government fraud and corruption see,
a. 2:2007cv00228;
b. 2:2008cv00899 [removed from State Court by Defendant U.S. Judges];
c. 2:2009cv00041;
d. 2:2010cv00089;
e. 2:2009cv00341;
f. 2:2008cv00364;
g. 2:2010cv00390;
h. 2:2009cv00791;
i. 2:2009cv00602.
Here since 2006, the Plaintiffs had rightfully prosecuted crooked Government Officials in
State and Federal, and respective Appellate Courts. Here particularly, Officials had
conspired to fake an alleged money judgment for illegal purposes of, e.g., extorting money
and land from the Plaintiffs. See, e.g., Case 2:2007cv00228; and Complaint in this Case.
29. Here in retaliation and without any probable cause, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Tampa, Florida, searched and seized, e.g., Plaintiffs’ records, computers, camera, and other
equipment essential for Plaintiffs’ successful litigation and proof of Governmental corruption
8
in Florida. Here, Officials conspired to cover up Government corruption and fraud and
31. Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser, conspired with other
Defendants and Officials to conceal the prima facie nullity and illegality of, e.g., fake “lot
Wilkinson concocted a “July 29, 2009” judgment for unlawful purposes of, e.g., extorting
33. Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff racketeering victims are entitled to
redress their Government grievances under, e.g., the 1st, 4th, and 14th U.S. Constitutional
Amendments:
c. With the use of their illegally seized computer equipment and evidence against the
Defendant Officials.
9
34. Here in the crooked Middle District of Florida any opportunity of justice has been
impossible, because Judges such as, e.g., John Edwin Steele and Sheri Polster Chappell
Florida for illegal and/or criminal purposes of coercing them to refrain from further
prosecution.
35. Pleadings to this Hon. Court were sent by, e.g., International Certified Mail:
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff victims of Government corruption and fraud respectfully request
2. An order taking judicial notice of Plaintiffs’ OBJECTION and the Tampa F.B.I. raid,
which incapacitated the Plaintiff Government corruption victims and disrupted this and
4. An order enjoining any further racketeering / corruption in said Middle District of Florida,
and in particular, said extortion of Lot 15A and more than $5,000 without any court order;
5. An order taking judicial notice of said fraud on the Courts and racketeering in Florida;
6. An order declaring prima facie fake “claim” “O.R. 569/875” facially unlawful;
10
8. An order declaring the conspiracy to extort and force the sale of said Lot 15A under false
9. An order restraining the Defendant Officials and Tampa FBI from any further obstruction of
ATTACHMENTS
2004 Fax cover, Lee County Dept. of Community Development (Minimum Use Provisions)
From:
Jennifer Franklin Prescott and
Dr. Jorg Busse
P.O. Box 1140
Naples, FL 34106-1140
United States of America
11
11/30/2010 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule…
The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral
notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if:
(B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give
notice and the reasons why it should not be required.
Every temporary restraining order issued without notice must state the date
and hour it was issued; describe the injury and state why it is irreparable;
state why the order was issued without notice; and be promptly filed in the
clerk's office and entered in the record. The order expires at the time after
entry — not to exceed 14 days — that the court sets, unless before that
time the court, for good cause, extends it for a like period or the adverse
party consents to a longer extension. The reasons for an extension must be
entered in the record.
If the order is issued without notice, the motion for a preliminary injunction
must be set for hearing at the earliest possible time, taking precedence over
all other matters except hearings on older matters of the same character. At
the hearing, the party who obtained the order must proceed with the
motion; if the party does not, the court must dissolve the order.
On 2 days' notice to the party who obtained the order without notice — or
on shorter notice set by the court — the adverse party may appear and
move to dissolve or modify the order. The court must then hear and decide
the motion as promptly as justice requires.
www.law.cornell.edu/…/Rule65.htm 1/2
11/30/2010 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule…
(c) Security.
The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order
only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper
to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been
wrongfully enjoined or restrained. The United States, its officers, and its
agencies are not required to give security.
The order binds only the following who receive actual notice of it by
personal service or otherwise:
(B) the parties' officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and
(C) other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone
described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (B).
(3) 28 U.S.C. § 2284, which relates to actions that must be heard and
decided by a three-judge district court.
Prev | Next
www.law.cornell.edu/…/Rule65.htm 2/2
11/29/2010 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:nhd
MAG
Plaintiff
USA, Ex Rel
Plaintiff
Jorg Busse represented by Jorg Busse
10 Benning St, #135
West Lebanon, NH 03784-3402
PRO SE
Plaintiff
Jennifer Franklin Prescott represented by Jennifer Franklin Prescott
10 Benning St, #135
West Lebanon, NH 03784-3402
561 400-3295
PRO SE
V.
Defendant
USA
Defendant
US Courts
Defendant
US Custom & Immigration Service
Defendant
Tony West
Defendant
ecf.nhd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl… 1/5
11/29/2010 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:nhd
Beverly B. Martin
Defendant
John Edwin Steele
Defendant
Ryan Barry
Defendant
Charlene Edwards Honeywell
Defendant
Sheri Polster Chappell
Defendant
Kenneth M. Wilkinson
Defendant
Richard A. Lazzara
Defendant
Jack N. Peterson
Defendant
Drew Heathcoat
Defendant
Bettye G. Samuel
Defendant
Stanley F. Birch, Jr.
Defendant
Gerald B. Tjoflat
Defendant
Susan H. Black
Defendant
Joel F. Dubina
Defendant
Sherri L. Johnson
Defendant
ecf.nhd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl… 2/5
11/29/2010 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:nhd
Eugene C. Turner
Defendant
Lee County, Florida, Board of
Commissioners
Defendant
Ed Carnes
Defendant
John E. Manning
Defendant
Hugh D. Hayes
Defendant
John Ley
Defendant
Richard Jessup
Defendant
Diane Nipper
Defendant
Lynn Gerald, Jr.
Defendant
Kenneth L. Ryskamp
Defendant
Charlie Crist
Defendant
Charles Barry Stevens
Defendant
Johnson Engineering, Inc.
Defendant
Mark Allan Pizzo
Defendant
Anne Conway
ecf.nhd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl… 3/5
11/29/2010 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:nhd
Defendant
Charlie Green
Defendant
Reagan Kathleen Russell
Defendant
Richard D. Deboest, II
Defendant
Chene M. Thompson
Defendant
Lee County, Florida, Commission
ecf.nhd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl… 4/5
11/29/2010 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:nhd
Lynn Gerald, Jr, Charlie Green, Hugh D. Hayes, Richard Jessup, Johnson Engineering,
Inc., Richard A. Lazzara, Diane Nipper, Mark Allan Pizzo, Kenneth L. Ryskamp, Chene
M. Thompson, Tony West. (Attachments: # 1 ECF-Notice of ECF Designation (#91))
(jeb) (Entered: 08/03/2010)
08/04/2010 4 Summons(es) Issued by Mail as to John Ley, Reagan Kathleen Russell, US Courts, US
Custom & Immigration Service. (Attachments: # 1 ECF-Notice of ECF Designation
(#91))(jeb) (Entered: 08/04/2010)
11/18/2010 5 MOTION to Extend Time to to Serve the Defendants after said FBI raid; compel FBI to
return plaintiffs' seized computers, equipment, camera, records, and summons; order
restraining Defendant Officials and Tampa FBI from any further intimidation and
obstruction of justice filed by Jorg Busse. (dae) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
11/19/2010 ENDORSED ORDER granting in part and denying in part 5 Motion to Extend
Time. Text of Order: The motion is granted in part, to the extent that plaintiffs
shall have until December 29, 2010, to effect service on defendants. The motion is
denied in all other respects. Plaintiffs have failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P.
65, and this court is not the proper venue for plaintiffs to challenge the execution
of a warrant relating to a pending federal criminal investigation or proceeding,
issued by a judicial officer in the Middle District of Florida. So Ordered by
Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty. (dae) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
ecf.nhd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl… 5/5
11/8/2010 Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin…
Site Address
ACCESS UNDETERMINED
CAPTIVA FL 33924
Legal Description
CAYO COSTA
PB 3 PG 25
LOT 15A
SOH Difference 0
Taxing Authorities
Sales / Transactions
Elevation Information
Appraisal Details
TRIM (proposed tax) Notices are available for the following tax years
[ 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ]
Next Lower Parcel Number Next Higher Parcel Number New Query Search Results Home
leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?… 1/1
11/8/2010 Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin…
Site Address
ACCESS UNDETERMINED
CAPTIVA FL 33924
Legal Description
CAYO COSTA
PB 3 PG 25
LOT 15A
SOH Difference 0
Taxing Authorities
Sales / Transactions
Elevation Information
Appraisal Details
TRIM (proposed tax) Notices are available for the following tax years
[ 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ]
Next Lower Parcel Number Next Higher Parcel Number New Query Search Results Home
leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?… 1/1
11/30/2010 Presseschau: Kritik an den USA und W…
Presseschau zu WikiLeaks
Dazu heißt es in der "Süddeutschen Zeitung": "Nach der V eröffentlichung der gestohlenen Depeschen,
Analy sen, Handlungsanweisungen und Kommentare drängt sich nun die Frage auf, wie lange die USA noch die
Früchte ihres diplomatischen Dienstes genießen können. Die v on der Internet-Organisation Wikileaks
v erbreitete Beute eines Datendiebes zerstört nämlich das Bindegewebe, das die unter Staaten betriebene
Kommunikation ausmacht: die V ertraulichkeit. Ohne V ertraulichkeit keine Information, kein Geben und
Nehmen, kein Zugang. Ohne Information aber auch keine Kenntnis, keine Urteilskraft, keine richtigen
Entscheidungen. Wikileaks hat sich als Massenv ernichtungswaffe für das letzte Quäntchen V ertrauen
erwiesen."
"An den neuen Enthüllungen ist wenig sensationell", findet die "Mitteldeutsche Zeitung": "Zumal die
Aufgabe jedes diplomatischen Dienstes v or allem darin besteht, die Heimatregierung mit zutreffenden und
ungeschminkten Einsichten über die jeweiligen Gastländer zu v ersorgen. Dennoch sind alle Beteiligten
bloßgestellt. Und das wird allen Beteuerungen zum Trotz Einfluss haben auf die künftigen Beziehungen. Die
USA haben ihr Gesicht v erloren, weil sie das erste Gebot diplomatischer Arbeit gebrochen haben: Diskretion.
Dieses V ertrauen wieder herzustellen, wird schwer sein. Anders als die Berichte v on Wikileaks über
Kriegsv erbrechen oder Folter nützen diese Enthüllungen deshalb niemandem."
Die "Landeszeitung" aus Lüneburg sieht es ähnlich: "Die tiefen Einblicke in die Welt hinter der US-
diplomatischen Fassade sind für westliche Gemüter eher harmlos. Peinlich ist der Umgang mit Daten in den
tagesschau.de/…/wikileakspressescha… 1/3
11/30/2010 Presseschau: Kritik an den USA und W…
USA selbst. Wenn hunderttausende Mitarbeiter in US-Behörden Zugriff auf die Daten in internen Netzen
haben, muss man sich darüber wundern, dass es nicht schon v orher Lecks gegeben hat. Der v ermeintliche
Spaß über Wikileaks-Enthüllungen endet aber dort, wo A ussagen v eröffentlicht werden v on US-Diplomaten,
wonach einige arabische Herrscher nichts gegen eine Militärinterv ention der USA zur Zerstörung des
iranischen Atomprogrammes hätten. Denn so wird fahrlässig Lunte ans Pulv erfass Nahost gelegt."
Auch der "Weser-Kurier" kann den Enthüllungen nichts abgewinnen: "Die Motiv e v on Julian Assange und
seinen Mitstreitern sind längst nicht v on der Transparenz, für die sie angeblich kämpfen. Zumindest fällt auf,
dass sie ihre beeindruckenden Fähigkeiten nahezu ausschließlich dazu einsetzen, die US-Regierung zu
schwächen. Nun muss man mit einer Supermacht kein Mitleid haben, die durch eigene Unfähigkeit
v erwundbar geworden ist. Aber die Frage ist erlaubt, wem eine so v orgeführte und geschwächte US-Regierung
nützt - und ob uns das nicht am Ende sehr schadet."
"Wenig originell"
"Warum die Aufregung?", fragt die "Frankfurter Allgem eine Zeitung" mit Blick auf die deutsche Politik
und führt weiter aus: "Was Wikileaks aus amerikanischen A rchiv en ins Internet gepumpt hat, pfeifen, so es die
deutsche Politik angeht, in Berlin die Spatzen v om Dach. Die Beschreibungen deutscher Politiker in den
angeblichen Botschaftsberichten sind, was für ihre A uthentizität spricht, wenig originell. 'Mutti' risikoscheu,
Westerwelle kein Außenpolitiker: derartige Befunde hat man schon aus v ielen ranghohen Mündern und mit
mancher Ergänzung gehört. So schreibt nicht nur die amerikanische Diplomatie über deutsches
Führungspersonal - so denkt und spricht deutsches Führungspersonal übereinander."
"Es ist wunderbar, dass wir diese Akten lesen können", schwärmt die "Frankfurter Rundschau". "Sie zeigen
uns, wie menschlich-allzumenschlich es auch in der Diplomatie zugeht. Dieser FDP-Mann zum Beispiel, der in
den Koalitionsv erhandlungen sitzt und sein Protokoll gleich der US-Botschaft weitergibt - das hat doch etwas
Rührendes. Nur v on ihm möchte ich nicht hören, dass Wikileaks eine Räuberbande ist. Wenn Wikileaks so
weitermacht, wird die Internetplattform nicht nur den Regierenden das Regieren erschweren, sondern auch
uns das Regiertwerden. Wir Bürger werden immer weniger uns darauf hinausreden können, wir hätten nichts
gewusst. Wir werden genau wissen, und wir werden darum auch v iel stärker einbezogen werden in das, was
getan werden muss. Das Leben wird unbequemer werden. Wir werden uns öfter engagieren müssen. Es gilt
wieder: Mehr Demokratie wagen!"