NOTICE OF APPEAL re 21

8/9/2019 NOTICE OF APPEAL re 21

1/12

CERTIFIED DELIVERY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDAFORT MYERS DIVISION

DR. JORG BUSSE, JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT,

Plaintiffs,

versus Case # 2:10-CV-0089-FtM-JES-SPC

JOHN EDWIN STEELE; SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL; ROGER ALEJO;

KENNETH M. WILKINSON; JACK N. PETERSON; GERALD BARD TJOFLAT;RICHARD JESSUP; CIRCUIT JUDGE BIRCH; CIRCUIT JUDGE DUBINA;

RICHARD ALLAN LAZZARA; CHARLIE CRIST; LEE COUNTY VALUE

ADJUSTMENT BOARD; LORI L. RUTLAND; EXECUTIVE TITLE CO.; JOHNSONENGINEERING, INC.,

Defendants.

NOTICE OF APPEAL & PUBLIC CORRUPTION

_______________________________________________________________________/

NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM ORDER, DOC. # 21, 06/11/10

1. Hereby, the Plaintiffs appeal from order, Doc. 21, Filed 06/11/10, and object to record

public CORRUPTION, BRIBERY, and EXTORTION under color of facially fake law

and/or resolution O.R. 569/875, which of course have been EMERGENCIES:

2. Defendant crooked Judge Charlene E. Honeywell disqualified herself and fraudulently

concealed prima facie Government CORRUPTION & EXTORTION scheme O.R.

569/875 under color of authority. See, e.g., Doc. ## 282; 288; 93-1; 2:07-cv-228-JES-SPC.

___________________________________

/S/JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT

Governmental Corruption & Fraud Victim, Plaintiff,pro se

P.O. BOX 845, Palm Beach, FL 33480; T: 561-400-3295____________________________________

/S/JORG BUSSE, M.D., M.M., M.B.A., C.P.M.

Judicial Corruption & Crime Victim; Plaintiff,pro se, [email protected]

State Cert. Res. Appraiser, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Mortgage Broker, Appraisal Instructor;


2/12

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 93-1 Filed 08/07/07 Page 1 of 14


3/12



4/12



5/12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FT. MYERS DIVISION

JORG BUSSE; JENNIFER FRANKLIN

PRESCOTT,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 2:10-CV-89-CEH-TGW

JOHN EDWIN STEELE; SHERI POLSTERCHAPPELL; ROGER ALEJO; KENNETH M.WILKINSON; JACK N. PETERSON;GERALD BARD TJOFLAT; RICHARDJESSUP; JUDGE BIRCH; JUDGE DUBINA;RICHARD A. LAZZARA; CHARLIE CRIST;

LEE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENTBOARD; LORI RUTLAND; EXECUTIVETITLE CO.; JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.,

Defendants.

MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW

NOW COMES the United States of America, by and through its

undersigned attorneys, and hereby moves to dismiss Plaintiffs

Complaint as frivolous and barred by absolute immunity. A

memorandum in support is included herein.

BACKGROUND

This Court, unfortunately, is all too familiar with

Plaintiffs grievances and litigious history. A brief synopsis

is set forth herein, but a more thorough history of Plaintiffs

filings can be found in the Governments Motion to Dismiss in

Busse VII, No. 2:09-CV-791 [DE-69], and this Courts Order

entered on June 23, 2010 [DE-213].

Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 29 Filed 06/30/10 Page 1 of 8


6/12

Starting in 2007, Plaintiff Jorg Busse and others began a

campaign against Lee County, Florida, and other persons and

entities, alleging that their property in the Cayo Costa

subdivision had been illegally taken. Plaintiffs filed a

complaint with this Court alleging Constitutional deprivations.

Busse I, No. 2:07-CV-228, affd 317 Fed. Appx. 395 (11th Cir.

Mar. 5, 2009). Plaintiffs first case was not facially improper,

but after a full and fair opportunity to litigate their case,

Plaintiffs complaint was dismissed as unripe because Plaintiffs

had not availed themselves of state remedies. Plaintiffs then

persisted to file lawsuit after lawsuit now totaling nine

separate complaints attempting to re-litigate the same

constitutional claims and adding allegations of an ever-growing

conspiracy theory of fraud and corruption against anyone involved

in his previous lawsuits who opposed him.

All of Plaintiffs lawsuits except for this case and one

after-filed Complaint (No. 2:10-CV-390) have been dismissed,

often summarily, as wanting jurisdiction or meritless. Each of

Plaintiffs numerous appeals from this Courts decisions have

resulted in affirmation or dismissal. The Complaint in this case

is based on the same core facts and allegations that this Court

has rejected in each of the past cases, including Busse V, No.

2:09-CV-341, which also named each of the federal defendants

named herein, asserted the same unsupported allegations of

2



7/12

conspiracy and corruption, and which was summarily dismissed with

prejudice by Judge Lazzara as patently frivolous, vexatious, and

harassing with little or no chance of success [Busse V, DE-17].

ARGUMENT

A. Plaintiffs complaint is patently frivolous and barred byres judicata.

Insofar as this case involves the same parties and

indistinguishable claims as Plaintiffs prior lawsuits that have

been dismissed with prejudice, including, inter alia, Busse V,

No. 2:09-CV-341, the Court should likewise dismiss the instant

complaint on grounds of res judicata and frivolity. See Davila

v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 326 F.3d 1183, 1187 (11th Cir. 2003)

(res judicata absolutely bars re-litigation of claims after a

final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction

where there is an identity of parties and the actions are based

on the same factual predicate). The frivolity of this lawsuit is

further evidenced by the sheer volume of filings that this Court

and the named defendants have been compelled to expend valuable

time and resources responding to; the Plaintiffs utter contempt

of this Courts authority, principles of res judicata, and the

rule of law; the scurrilous and delusory accusations lodged

against judicial officers and other irreproachable public

servants; and Plaintiffs inability to state a coherent claim

despite their painfully obvious familiarity with our Constitution

and judicial system.

3



8/12

B. Plaintiffs yet again fail to articulate a plausible claimupon which relief can be granted.

As this Court noted in the sound and cogent analysis of the

Busse litigation contained in its June 23, 2010, Order [Busse

VII, DE-213, at pp. 20-21], Plaintiffs allegations, to the

extent any sense can be made of them, are essentially criminal in

nature. In that same Order, the Court has already analyzed and

explained why Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief under the

various constitutional provisions upon which they rely. The only

other vehicle for charging essentially criminal conduct in a

civil forum is a suit under the civil provisions of the Racketeer

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (civil RICO), 18

U.S.C. 1964(c).1

Complaints asserting civil RICO claims must comply not only

with the plausibility criteria articulated in Twombly and Iqbal

but also with Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)s heightened pleading

standard. American Dental Assn v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283,

--- (11th Cir. 2010). As the Court previously noted, Plaintiffs

repetitious and voluminous pleadings are convoluted and

incomprehensible, contain[] incoherent and rambling claims of

alleged wrongdoing, and consist of conclusory statements

The case of Davis v. Kvalheim, 261 Fed. Appx. 231 (11th1

Cir. 2008), a matter to which the Busse cases have frequentlybeen analogized [see, e.g., Busse V, DE-17], was a civil RICOcase filed against every judge and other governmental official(totaling 129 defendants) that plaintiff imagine[d to] have donehim wrong. Id. at 235.

4



9/12

wholly lacking a factual basis [Busse VII, DE-213, at pp. 12,

15, 18]. The Complaint in this case consists of more of the same

incoherent drivel, and fails to buttress any of the sensational

and outlandish accusations already presented to and decided by

the Court with the kind of additional factual support needed to

plead a plausible claim for relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Consequently, this case should be

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

C. Even assuming the truth of the allegations, Plaintiffscivil claims are barred by the doctrine of absoluteimmunity.2

Few doctrines [are] more solidly established at common law

than the immunity of judges from liability for damages from acts

committed within their judicial jurisdiction. Pierson v. Ray,

386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967). Judicial immunity applies even

when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly,

id. at 554, and prevails even over allegations of bribery and

conspiracy such as Plaintiffs assert here, see Sparks v. Duval

County Ranch Co., 604 F.2d 976, 978 (5th Cir. 1979). Judicial

immunity provides judges with a blanket immunity from civil

liability, to include civil liability under RICO, for any

Insofar as this is an official capacity suit properly2

brought against the United States and not the individual federalofficers, the United States may assert any defense based uponjudicial immunity that would otherwise be available to theindividual officer. See 28 U.S.C. 2674.

5



10/12

judicial act over which they may exercise jurisdiction. Wilson

v. Bush, 196 Fed. Appx. 796, 799 (11th Cir. 2006); see also Glick

v. Gutbrod, 782 F.2d 754 (7th Cir. 1986).

Likewise, [o]fficials charged with the duty of executing a

facially valid court order enjoy absolute quasi-judicial immunity

from liability for damages in a suit challenging conduct

prescribed by that order. King v. Thornburg, 762 F.Supp. 336,

341 (S.D. Ga. 1991). Because absolute quasi-judicial immunity

derives from judicial immunity, it applies whenever a Deputy U.S.

Marshal executes a judicial order for which the issuing judge

would be immune from liability. Id.

In the instant Complaint, Plaintiffs continue their

insidious attack on the judicial orders that were issued on the

merits of his initial case, the sanctions that were imposed by

the Eleventh Circuit for pursuing a frivolous appeal, and the

writ of execution that was issued to enforce the judgment. [See

Compl., DE-1,passimreferences to the fraudulent orders and

writ of execution]. The entry of orders, sanctions, and writs

of execution are quintessential judicial functions over which the

named judicial defendants would have absolute judicial immunity

from civil suit. Therefore, the claims arising out of the

judicial acts of Judges Dubina, Tjoflat, Birch, Steele, Lazarra,

and Chappell should be dismissed. Deputy Marshal Richard

Jessups primary involvement in this case appears to be related

6



11/12

to the performance of his duty to serve Busse with the writ of

execution. [Busse I, DE-429.] Accordingly, Deputy Jessup would

be entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, and the claim arising out

of his acts should likewise be dismissed.

WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that the

Court dismiss Plaintiffs complaint.

Date: June 30, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

TONY WESTASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: /s/ Matthew L. FesakMATTHEW L. FESAK

Special Attorney andAssistant United States AttorneyCivil Division310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 800Raleigh, NC 27601-1461Telephone: (919) 856-4530Facsimile: (919) 856-4821E-Mail: [email protected]. Bar No. 35276

7

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


12/12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that I have this 30th day of June, 2010,

served a copy of the foregoing upon the below-listed party

electronically or by placing a copy in the U.S. Mail, addressed

as follows:

Jorge Bussec/o Legal and Consular Department100 N. Biscayne Blvd.Suite 2200Miami, FL 33132

Jennifer Franklin PrescottP.O. Box 845

Palm Beach, FL 33480

/s/ Matthew L. FesakAssistant United States Attorney

8


Documents

NOTICE OF APPEAL re 21