Organized Judicial Crime in Fort Myers Federal Court, Case 2:2010-cv-00089

8/9/2019 Organized Judicial Crime in Fort Myers Federal Court, Case 2:2010-cv-00089

1/56


2/56

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

DR. JORG BUSSE, JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT,Plaintiffs,

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

JOHN EDWIN STEELE; SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL; ROGER ALEJO;KENNETH M. WILKINSON; JACK N. PETERSON; GERALD BARD TJOFLAT;RICHARD JESSUP; CIRCUIT JUDGE BIRCH; CIRCUIT JUDGE DUBINA;RICHARD ALLAN LAZZARA; CHARLIE CRIST; LEE COUNTY VALUEADJUSTMENT BOARD; LORI L. RUTLAND; EXECUTIVE TITLE CO.;JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.,

AFFIDAVIT

NOTICE OF APPEAL, RACKETEERING,

AND ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIMES__________________________________________________________________________/

NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM FRAUDULENT order(s), DOC. ## 434, 435, 424, AND

RACKETEERING,EXTORTION,RETALIATION, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, AND

ANY AND ALL NULL & VOID orders BY DEF. J. E. STEELE & S. P. CHAPPELL,

AND FALSIFIED writ of execution, DOC. ## 425, 424, 434, 435, 433, 430; AFFIDAVIT

CASE NO. 2:2007-cv-00228

EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENJOIN FRAUD ON COURT, DOC. ## 435, 434, 424, 425

EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENJOIN sale of real propertyWHICH GOVERNMENT HAD FRAUDULENTLY claimed TO own

UNDER COLOR OF FORGED land parcel 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0, ANDFACIALLY FORGED O.R. 569/875 & FAKE legislative act/resolution/regulation

DIRECT INDEPENDENT ATTACK ON ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIMES:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Ex Rel. et al. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.

DEF. JOHN E. STEELE OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE & PERVERTED FLORIDA LAW

1. A judgment, order, or decree does NOT become a lien on real property unless the address of

the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree is contained in the


3/56

2

judgment, order, or decree or an affidavit with such address is simultaneously recorded with

the judgment, order, or decree, 55.10, Florida Statutes.

PUBLICLY RECORDED NOTICES OF ORGANIZED JUDICIAL CRIMES

2. Multiple publicly recorded NOTICES, and NOTICES OF APPEAL such as, e.g., Doc. ##

427, 428, had given this Court repeated notice and conclusive proof of, e.g., publicly

recorded organized Government and judicial crimes, racketeering, extortion,

retaliation, obstruction of justice, bribery, and corruption.

PATTERN, POLICY, AND CUSTOM OF ORGANIZED CRIME & CORRUPTION

3. However, this Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit only intensified their

publicly recorded retaliation, obstruction of justice, oppression, racketeering, and

extortion. See, e.g., Doc. ## 435, 434, 425, 426. Said Courts are operating just like crime

organizations. Public records and conclusive record evidence mean absolutely nothing.

Silencing, shutting up, threatening, intimidating, punishing, and sanctioning

whistleblowers such as here, e.g., the Plaintiff Appellant Dr. Jorg Busse are the policy,

custom, and pattern of said corrupt Courts.

DEF. JOHN E. STEELE EXTENDED EXTORTION & RACKETEERING SCHEME

4. Here, there had been NO judgment in the falsified amount of $5,000.00 and/or

$5,048.60. Here, there had been NO July 29, 2009 judgment, order, or decree. Here,

there had only been a final mandate and money judgment for copies under Rule 39,

Fed.R.App.P., in the amount of $24.30, Doc. # 365. Here, Dr. Jorg Busse had paid the

$24.30 for the copies to Defendant Appellee K. M. Wilkinson. Therefore here, Defendant

Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson had NO lien, and the motion for entry of order directing

public sale of real property, Doc. # 432, was a prima facieracketeering, extortion, and

fraudscheme of record, civil RICO provisions.


4/56

3

DEF. STEELE CONCEALED PERJURY & GOVERNMENT EXTORTION SCHEME

5. Here, Defendant Steele fraudulently concealed that the fraudulent Affidavit by Def. Jack

N. Peterson had falsified a fake July 29, 2009 judgment in Docket 08-13170-BB.

6. Here, CASE No. 2008-13170-BB had been CLOSED on 06/11/2009. See said Case Docket.

7. Here, Defendant Steele fraudulently concealed that NOTHING could have possibly

become a lien on real property and/or on Plaintiff(s) riparian Parcel, S-T-R-A-P # 12-44-

20-01-00015.015A, PB 3 PG 25 (1912) pursuant to 55.10, Florida Statutes.

PUBLICLY RECORDED LACK OF ANY lien and writ of execution

8. Here, Defendant Appellee Forger and Racketeer K. M. Wilkinson

a. NEVERhad any lien;

b. NEVER was theholder of said forged judgment.

9. Here, Defendant Steele fraudulently concealed that the facially fraudulent writ of

execution, Doc. # 425:

a. Was a prima facie extortion and racketeering scheme;

b. Perverted $24.30 into the falsified amount of 5,048.60;

c. Had NOT been witnessedby any U.S. Judge.

10. Plaintiff Dr. Jorg Busse had asserted and conclusively proven in his Third Amended

Complaint, Doc. ## 282, 288:

24. Without title evidence in the public Grantor/Grantee Index, Defendant [KennethM. Wilkinson; Property Appraiser] conspired to concoct un-platted lot A (PropertyI.D. 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0), block 1 (Property I.D. 07-44-21-01-00001.0000), andpark. Id., p. 24. See attached Exhibits, USA, Ex Rel. et al. v. USA et al.

CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT & CORRUPT FLORIDA LAW & OFFICIAL RECORDS

11. Defendant Crooked Judge Steele conspired with other Judges, Defendants, and Officials to

pervert official records, documents, and Florida law. Here, e.g., s. 55.10, Fla. Stat. stated:

55.10 Judgments, orders, and decrees; lien of all, generally; extension ofliens; transfer of liens to other security.--


5/56

4

(1) A judgment, order, or decree becomes a lien on real property in any countywhen a certified copy of it is recorded in the official records or judgment lienrecord of the county, whichever is maintained at the time of recordation, providedthat the judgment, order, or decree contains the address of the person who has alien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree or a separate affidavit isrecorded simultaneously with the judgment, order, or decree stating the addressof the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree. A

judgment, order, or decree does not become a lien on real property unless theaddress of the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decreeis contained in the judgment, order, or decree or an affidavit with such address issimultaneously recorded with the judgment, order, or decree.

FRAUDULENT PRETENSES AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & FILINGS

12. Defendant Corrupt U.S. Judge John Edwin Steele fraudulently pretended, Doc. # 434:

This matter comes before the Court on review of defendants Motion for Entry ofOrder Directing Public Sale of Real Property (Doc. # 432) filed on May 21, 2010.Noresponse has been filedand the time to respond has expired. Upon review, the Court

desires a response from plaintiff.

Here over and over again, Plaintiff Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott had

filed, e.g., multiple responses, court actions, appeals to directly attack, defend

against, and expose Defendant Crooked U.S. Judge John E. Steeles publicly recorded:

a. Racketeering;b. Extortion;c. Obstruction of justice;

d. Deliberate deprivations;e. Acceptance ofbribes;f. Fraud upon the State and Federal Courts;g. Destruction and alteration ofCourt records;h. Corruption.

See attached Exhibit of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ex Rel. et al. v. UNITED

STATES et al., as filed in U.S. District Court.

DEF. STEELES RECKLESS DECEPTION AND FRAUD ON THE COURT

13. Def. Steele recklessly deceived the Court, because he disallowed the Plaintiffs to respond

and then fraudulently pretended that the Plaintiffs had purportedly notresponded. However

as a matter of record, the Plaintiffs had published conclusive evidence of theirfiled

responses worldwide. Here, more than one Million readers had read the responses,


6/56

5

which Def. Crook Steele had destroyed, altered, and rejected, and caused others to

destroy, alter, and reject. See, e.g., Google and YouTube.

DEF. STEELE OBSTRUCTED PLAINTIFFS COURT ACCESS FRAUD ON COURT

14. As part of a criminal organization, Def. Steele fabricated and conspired to fabricate a

publicly recorded card house of judicial shit:

In this regard, some of the allegations in the Third Amended Complaint arecontradicted by the resolution which is attached to it. The copy of the Resolutionattached 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 assertotherwise. See Doc. # 338, p. 12.

Here, no authenticgenuine resolution was attached to the Third Amended Complaint,

Doc. ## 288, 282. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 44, there was a lack of any publicly recorded

resolution. No genuine resolution had ever legally existed; none had ever been legally

recorded.

Here by not allowing the Plaintiffs to assert otherwise, Def. Steele recklessly deprived the

Plaintiffs of any opportunity of justice. Here, Def. Criminal Steele perpetrated fraud on the

Court, covered up, and concealedGovernment crimes.

Just like other crime organizations, Steele relied on silencing his opponents, retaliation,

intimidation, and injury.

15. In the Third Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff(s) had asserted and conclusively proven,

e.g., the:

a. Prima facieillegality of the fictitious resolution, O.R. 569/875;b. Prima facie nullity of the fake resolution;c. Prima facie criminality of the falsified resolution.

16. Only a court judgment could have possibly transferred title to Government and/orLeeCounty. Here on its face, the facially forged resolution wasa. Not any court judgment; b. Not anymuniment of title;c. Not anygenuine instrument:d. Not any conveyance;e. Not authentic.


7/56

6

RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, DECEPTION, AND FRAUD ON THE COURT

17. Therefore, any resolution forged orgenuine would have been, and could have only

been, entirely irrelevant, immaterial to any involuntary title transfer, because only a court

judgmentcould have possibly divestedthe Plaintiffs of their private riparian street easement

and street land on the Gulf, PB 3 PG 25 (1912), against their will.

DEF. CROOK STEELE HAD NOAUTHORITYTO SILENCE THE PLAINTIFFS

18. Here in exchange forbribes, Def. Criminal Steele perverted supreme law and disallowed

the Plaintiffs to assert the truth and public record evidence without which any justice was

absolutely impossible.

19. The Plaintiff(s) do not submit to said Criminal on the bench just like they would not submit

to a Roman Catholic priest demanding to fuck the Plaintiff(s) in the ass. Here, the Plaintiffs

defended against organized Government crimes & sodomy and sued Defendant Racketeer J.

E. Steele in Federal Court.

20. Here on the record, Def. Crook Steele adopted the policies and custom of crime

organizations such as, e.g., silencing opponents, retaliation, intimidation, racketeering,

extortion, and injury.

DEF. RACKETEER STEELES FACIALLY IDIOTIC & ILLEGAL order, DOC. # 434

21. No intelligent, rational, fit, and reasonable judge and/or person in Def. Crooked Judge

Steeles shoes could havepossiblyallowedthe fake writ of execution, Doc. # 425, and the

faciallyfraudulent public sale motion, Doc. # 432.

22. Any enforcement of a non-existent judgment against Dr. Busse by public sale of said

adjoining riparianstreet land and private implied street easement on the Gulf of Mexico

would have been absolutely impossible, if the record title had been in the name of

Government and/orLee County.


8/56

7

23. Publicly selling the very riparian street land and private Gulf-front street easement, PB

3 PG 25 (1912), which Lee County had fraudulently claimed to own [but never did and

could notpossibly have ownedas a matter of law] further exposed and conclusively proved

the prima facie idiotic and criminal mind of Def. Racketeer John Edwin Steele.

Emboldened by absolute power and public corruption, Def. Steele continued his record

Government shit flies-policy, Doc. # 434.

IDIDOCY & IMPOSSIBILITY OF public sale of real property

24. One of the legal issues had been Plaintiff(s) unimpeachable record ownership of the

platted riparian street land and implied private street easement adjoining Plaintiffs upland on

the Gulf of Mexico, S-T-R-A-P 12-44-20-01-00015.015A (Lot 15A, Cayo Costa) as legally

described and perfectly conveyed to Plaintiff Dr. Busse and J. Franklin Prescott in reference

to the 1912 Plat of Survey of the private undedicated Cayo Costa Subdivision in Lee

County Plat Book 3, Page 25. See Plaintiffs WARRANTY DEED, Lee County

INSTRUMENT # 2010000171344, which expressly stated the extent of Plaintiff(s)

conveyance; see PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th

Circuit Apr. 21, 2009).

FOR BRIBES, DEF. STEELE MADE A MOCKERY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

25. Here as a matter of law, Public Sale of Real Property, which Def. Steele had

fraudulentlypretended to have been claimed by Lee County was absolutely impossible.

Here, Def. Steele made a fool of himself, because that which had been claimed by

Government could not be simultaneously publicly sold.

BRAZEN FABRICATIONS AND FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC RECORD

26. Here in his fraudulent opinion and order, Doc. # 338, Steele brazenly fabricated and

falsified Government ownership without any evidentiary supportwhatsoever. Def. Steele

knew that those [fake] lots had never been owned by government, which had been the


9/56

8

very issue for the Courts review. Here, 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0 and 07-44-20-01-

00001.0000 were prima facie fake land parcels, which Defendants Steele and Sheri

Polster Chappell could notfindon the 1912 Cayo Costa Plat, PB 3 PG 25, because they had

been forged by Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson. See Transcript of November 2007

Hearing before Def. Crooked Judge Polster Chappell.

DEF. CRIMINAL STEELE IN CRIMINAL JUDICIAL ORGANIZATION

27. As a Criminal in this Crime Organization of record, Def. Steele extended the

racketeering and retaliationscheme.

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 ofdisparate treatment is forthose lots owned by government, which plaintiff allegesdid not have their rights taken. However, a private owner such as plaintiff can not becompared to a public owner such as a government unit. Therefore, no equalprotection claim is stated, and such claims will be dismissed without prejudice.See Doc. # 338, p. 13.

28. Here in essence, the scheme was:

Plaintiffs will not be allowed to assert those [fake] lots owned by Government,which nobody can find on the Cayo Costa Plat. Plaintiffs will not be allowed to assertthe public record evidence of the non-existence and forgery of said fake lots.

Therefore, the case is dismissed and fixed in exchange forbribes.

29. By criminal means offake land parcels, and a fake resolution, Defendant Governments

and Officials extorted, defrauded, deprived, and treated the Plaintiffs disparately, while

the Plaintiffs were never even allowed to assert the conclusive record evidence and truth.

Here, there was fraud on the Court, and any and all of Def. Steeles orders were null and

void ab initio.

30. Pleading, e.g., fraud, conspiracy to defraud, deprivations, conspiracy to deprive, forgery

of land parcels, and extortion were remediesavailable in Florida and Federal Courts. See

Doc. ## 288, 282, Third Amended Complaint.


10/56

9

31. Just like a bungling Government idiot, Defendant Steele concealed and conspired with

other Officials to conceal that, e.g.:

a. Plaintiff(s) perfect record title to their adjoining street land never transferredto LeeCounty, FL;

b. Plaintiff(s)unimpeachable record title could not have possibly transferredunder anyexisting law or modification thereof, Fed.R.Civ.P. 11;c. Lee Countys sham claims were facially fraudulent and frivolous claims for

criminal and illegal purposes of racketeering, retaliation, extortion of money($5,048.60) and land, and illegal sale of real property, Doc. # 434;

d. Lee County never claimed and could not havepossiblyclaimedPlaintiff(s) street landunder any law;

e. The law did not recognize Lee Countys racketeering & extortion scheme O.R.569/875.

See Chapters 73, 74 ( Eminent Domain); 95 ( Adverse Possession); 712 ( Floridas self-

enforcing Marketable Record Title Act), Fla. Stat.; Floridas express Const. Guarantees of

fundamental rights to own real property and exclude Government without, e.g.,

retaliation, extortion, racketeering, oppression, bribery, and public corruption.

32. Because Def. Steele is part of a criminal organization, Def. Steele retaliated and silenced

the Plaintiff(s) in said idiotic, arbitrary, capricious, and malicious manner of public record. In

particular, Steele shut up the Plaintiffs by calling them names such as, e.g., vexatious.

33. Only ifPlaintiffs unimpeachable record title to said riparian street land and private riparian

street easement had nevertransferred from the Plaintiffs toLee County and/orGovernment,

could therepossibly be any public sale of said private riparian street easement and land

on the Gulf of Mexico. See PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395,

396-97 (11th

Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). Here forbribes, and under color ofauthority,sanctions

and punishment, Def. Steele retaliated and called the Plaintiffs names such as, e.g.,

vexatious.

34. Because pursuant to their publicly recorded Warranty Deed, the Plaintiff(s) were the

exclusive record owners and title holders of said street land and private street easement on

the Gulf of Mexico, PB 3 PG 25 (1912), Lee Countys faciallycriminal and illegal claims


11/56

10

of a regulation, resolution, O.R. 569/875, fake land parcels, et al. had been a prima

facie extortion and racketeering scheme. See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ex Rel. et

al. v. UNITED STATES et al.

DEF. JOHN E. STEELES FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT AND COVER-UP

35. Under publicly recorded fraudulent pretenses of, e.g., frivolity, vexatiousness,

sanctionability, lack of jurisdiction, ripeness requirements, et al., Def. Steele covered

up and fraudulently concealed the recorded Government pattern and policy of, e.g.:

a. Racketeering;b. Extorting under color of a fake July 29, 2009 judgment;c. Extorting under color of a non-existent $5,048.60 judgment;

d. Extorting & defrauding under color of fake land parcels which could not befound;e. Extorting & defrauding under color of prima facie scam O.R. 569/875;f. Perverting a final $24.30 money judgment & mandate into a fake writ of

execution, Doc. # 425.

DEF. STEELE CONCEALED DEFENDANTS CRIMINAL AND ILLEGAL MOTION,

DOC. # 432

36. Def. Steele fraudulently concealed the prima facie criminality and illegality of Doc. #432: Here, no genuine $5,048.60 and/or $5,000.00 money mandate had ever existed,because, e.g.:a. The 11th Circuit had lost jurisdiction on 06/11/2009; b. Theonly and finalmandate was in the amount of $24.30, Doc. # 365;c. Def. Appellee Wilkinson had neverfiledanyRule 38 motion;d. The $24.30 money judgment pursuant to Rule 39, Fed.R.App.P., had become final on

June 15, 2009, Doc. # 365;e. No Bill of Costs for $5,000.00 and/or $5,048.60 had ever existed or could have

possibly existed. See FED.R.CIV.P. 54; 28 U.S.C. 1921-1928; FRAP 39: LOCAL RULE4.18:LOCAL RULE 4.18 APPLICATIONS FOR COSTS OR ATTORNEY'S FEES

(a) In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, all claims for costs or attorney's feespreserved by appropriate pleading or pretrial stipulation shall be asserted by separatemotion or petition filed not later than fourteen (14) days following the entry ofjudgment. The pendency of an appeal from the judgment shall not postpone the filingof a timely application pursuant to this rule.

J. E. STEELE & B. B. MARTIN FABRICATED writ of execution, DOC. # 425, 434, 435

37. In the recorded presence of a final $24.30 money judgment issued as mandate on

06/11/2009 for costs of Appellees copies, Doc. # 365, and in the record absence of any

$5,048.60 judgment, Def. Steele knew and fraudulently concealed that the fake writ of


12/56

11

execution, Doc. # 425, had been falsified and was null and void. On its very face, no U.S.

judge and no witness had appeared on the falsified writ, Doc. # 425.

CONSPIRACY TO COVER UP AND CONCEAL GOVERNMENT CRIMES

38. Def. Steele conspired with other Government Officials and Defendants to cover up and

fraudulently conceal the prima facie criminality, illegality, and nullity of, e.g.:

a. Fake$5,048.60 judgment;b. Fake land parcels 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0 and 07-44-21-01-00001.0000;c. Fake land claim O.R. 569/875;d. Fake resolution, fake resolution 569/875;e. Fake regulation, fake land use regulation;f. Fake regulatory taking in the recorded absence of any regulation;g. Fake inverse condemnation while Plaintiffs objected to and defended against any

involuntarytitle transferto Lee County;h. Fake eminent domain claims in the record absence of any condemnation proceedings.

39. Here, Government and judicial racketeering, extortion, obstruction of justice & court

access, bribery, public corruption, fraud, and deliberate deprivations did not, and could

notpossibly, involuntarily divestthe Plaintiff(s) of their record title to riparian Parcel 12-44-

20-01-00015.015A on the Gulf of Mexico.

55.10 REQUIRED AJUDGMENT- NOLIEN ON PROPERTY

40. Under Florida law, a non-existentjudgment did not become, and could not have possibly

become a lien on real property. Here, section 55.10 could not have possibly applied to a

non-existent mandate. Here, the finalmandate of$24.30 for copies, Doc. # 365, had

been paid. See Affidavits on file. Furthermore here, Defendant Steele fraudulently

concealed that

A judgment, order, or decree does not become a lien on real property unless theaddress of the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree iscontained in the judgment, order, or decree See Ch. 55, Florida Statutes.

Here, judicial Defendants knew and fraudulently concealed that there could not have

possibly been any lienon real property and/or on Plaintiffs property.


13/56

12

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, BRIBERY, AND RACKETEERING

41. In exchange forbribes, Defendant Racketeer John E. Steele silencedthe Plaintiffs and kept

them away from the Court:

a. Disallowed the Plaintiffs to assert the truth and conclusive public record evidence;b. Removed Plaintiffs State action to Federal Court;c. Removed and destroyed Plaintiffs State Court records;d. Unlawfully sanctioned and punished the Plaintiffs;e. Arbitrarily & capriciouslydenied the Plaintiffs equal electronic court access;f. Illegally enjoined the Plaintiffs from filing their pleadings;g. Rejected Plaintiffs pleadings;h. Caused the Def. Clerk to alter and destroy Court records and crime evidence;i. Retaliated against the Plaintiffs;j. Caused the Def. U.S. Marshal to threaten, intimidate, and harass the Plaintiffs.

CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE & PERPETRATE FRAUD ON THE COURTS42. Defendant John Edwin Steele conspired with, e.g., Defendant Crooked U.S. Judge CharleneE. Honeywell and other Officials to shut up the Plaintiffs by criminal and illegal means of,e.g.:

a. Enjoining Plaintiffs from filing their pleadings [Pre-filing injunction];b. Destroying Plaintiffs pleadingsc. Rejecting Plaintiffs pleadings;d. Falsifying a regulation;e. Fabricating law;f. Concocting a fictitious involuntary title transfer to Lee County absent any court

judgment.FINAL 06/11/2009 MANDATE

43. The 11th Circuit decided Case 2008-13170-BB by opinion entered on 03/05/2009. On

06/11/2009, the Defendant Clerk of said Appellate Court filed the mandate, which consisted

of a copy of the opinion and ajudgment that had been drafted and signed by a Clerk of said

Court, and directions as to costs in the amount of$24.30. See Fed.R.App.P. 41.

44. The Clerk of the Court signed her name on a copy of the judgment, which was stamped

"ISSUED AS MANDATE 06/11/2009" and CLOSED SAID CASEon 06/11/2009.

CONSPIRACY TO COVER UP & CONCEAL ORGANIZED CRIME & EXTORTION

45. Here, Defendants Beverly B. Martin, Kenneth M. Wilkinson, John E. Steele, Sheri Polster

Chappell, Sherri L. Johnson, Jack N. Petersonconspired to cover up and conceal that


14/56

13

a. No $5,048.60 judgment, order, or decree had ever been entered. b. No$5,048.60 judgment had ever been issued as mandate.c. No $5,048.60 judgment had ever been received by the U.S. District Court.d. No $5,048.60 judgment had ever been recordedby the U.S. District CourtClerk.

J. E. STEELES, S. P. CHAPPELLS & B. MARTINS RACKETEERING OF RECORD

46. Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott are suing Defendant Racketeer John Edwin

Steele for, e.g., racketeering, extortion, retaliation, fraud, and reckless deprivations.

JOHN E. STEELES EXTORTION ON THE PUBLIC RECORD

47. Def. Racketeer John E. Steele perverted a publicly recorded $24.30 money judgment

(issued as mandate June 11, 2009) into a $5,048.60 and real property extortion scheme

and conspiracy. See Doc. ## 434, 435, 425, 422, 365, 386, 288, 282, 1, 25, 338.

RACKETEER JOHN E. STEELES RECORD RETALIATION

48. By criminal means offalsifying a fake $5,048.60 judgment, Def. Corrupt Judge Steele

retaliated against Plaintiffs Dr. Jorg Busse & J. Franklin Prescott, Doc. ## 434, 425, 435.

RACKETEER JOHN E. STEELES CONCEALMENT OF $24.30 JUDGMENT

49. Def. U.S. Racketeer John E. Steele fraudulently concealed the publicly recorded$24.30

money judgment issued as mandate June 11, 2009, Doc. ## 365; 434, 435, 422, 425, 338.

CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT AND RETALIATE

50. Racketeer John E. Steele conspired with other Government Officials and Defendants to

extort $5,048.60, Dr. Jorg Busses and Jennifer Franklin Prescotts riparian real property,

and Hundreds of Acres of land and implied private easements under, e.g., false and

fraudulentpretenses offake land parcels 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0 and 07-44-20-01-

00001.0000, and under color of prima facie forged and fraudulent O.R. 569/875.

STEELE CONCEALED RECORD ABSENCE OF FAKEPARCELSANDJUDGMENT


15/56

14

51. Defendant Crooked U.S. Judge John E. Steele could not locate said fake land parcels on

the 1912 Plat of Survey of the private undedicated residential Cayo Costa Subdivision in Lee

County Plat Book 3, Page 25.

CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL LACK OF ANYRECORD OF FAKE LAND PARCELS

52. Def. Extortionist John E. Steele conspired with other Officials and Defendants to

fraudulently conceal the lackof any $5,048.60judgment and said fake land parcels.

DOCUMENTATION OF FINAL $24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT (JUNE 15, 2009)

53. The publicly recorded$24.30money judgment issued as mandate June 11, 2009, Doc.

## 365 (pp. 1), documented:

a. In-House Reproduction of Appellees Brief;b. No. of Original Pages: 18;c. Total No. of Documents Reproduced: 11 (9);d. Total No. ofCopies: 198;e. Costs Requested: $29.70.f. CostsAllowed: $24.30.

54. Here, no sanctions, no fees, and no $5,048.60 had ever been documented.

DEF. RACKETEER STEELES FALSIFCATION OF writ of execution, DOC. # 425

55. In the record absence of any $5,048.60 judgment against Dr. Jorg Busse, no witness and

no United States Judge appeared on the face of the falsified writ of execution, Doc. #

425, Case 2:2007-cv-00228. See also scam Doc. ## 434, 435, 425, 422, 338.

DEF. RACKETEER JOHN EDWIN STEELES OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

56. For criminal and illegal purposes of concealing racketeering and extortion, Defendant

Crooked Judge John E. Steele had obstructed justice and Plaintiff(s) Court access, Doc. #

422. In Doc. # 434, 07/22/10, Def. Steele pretended:

No response has been filed and the time to respond has expired. Upon review, theCourt desires a response from plaintiff


16/56

15

RECORDED & PUBLISHED RACKETEERING & EXTORTION

$24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT ISSUED AS MANDATES JUNE 11, 2009

57. The publicly recorded $24.30 money judgment issued as mandate June 11, 2009. See

Doc. ## 365 (p. 1), 386-3 (p. 1).

$24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT UNDER FRAP 39, COSTS

58. The $24.30money judgment was awarded pursuant to Rule 39, Fed.R.App.P.

COPY OF $24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT, DOC. # 386-3

59. A copy of the final$24.30 money judgment issued as mandate was included in Defendant

Appellees facially fraudulent motion for issuance of a writ of execution, Doc. # 386. See

pages 10 and 24.

60. Of the $29.70 requested in Racketeer Wilkinsons Bill of Costs, Doc. # 386, the 11th

Circuit

allowed $24.30 forCosts under FRAP 39:

$24.30 WERE THE ALLOWED ACTUAL AND NECESSARY COSTS

61. Here, $24.30 were the allowed actual and necessary costs.

$24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT BECAME FINAL ON JUNE 15, 2009

62. Pursuant to Doc. ## 365 (p. 1), 386-3 (p. 1), the U.S. District Court received and filed the

$24.30money judgment on June 15, 2009:


17/56

16

RACKETEERING: EXTORTION OF MONEY:

FRIVOLOUS APPEAL MOTION WAS ADMITTEDLY NEVERFILED

63. Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson extorted money, Doc. # 386, by fraudulently pretending

aRule 38 motion, which Wilkinson knew he had neverfiled:

The Judgment4. On August 22, 2008, Wilkinson filed a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Eleventh

Circuit Rule 27-4

Said Rule 27-4 motion could not havepossibly been for a frivolous appeal.

THE 11th

CIRCUIT HAD CLOSED CASE ON 06/11/2009

64. The 11th Circuit had CLOSED THE CASE on 06/11/2009:

BRIBERY

65. Here, Defendant Appellee K. M. Wilkinson and his Attorney had no right to bribe the 11th

Circuit and illegally cause the 11th

Circuit to fraudulently alter the recorded final $24.30

mandate after the CASE HAD BEEN CLOSED and the 11th Circuit had LOST

JURISDICTION.

DEFENDANTS APPELLEES RACKETEETING AND EXTORTION WERE ILLEGAL

66. Def. Wilkinsons record racketeering and extortion were illegal and unauthorized by

law.


18/56

17

RACKETEERING & EXTORTION IN VIOLATION OF:

FED.R.CIV.P. 54; LOCAL RULE 4.18; 28 U.S.C. 1921-1924; FRAP 39

67. The $24.30 money judgment pursuant to Rule 39, Fed.R.App.P., became final on June 15,

2009.

LOCAL RULE 4.18 APPLICATIONS FOR COSTS OR ATTORNEY'S FEES

(a) In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, all claims for costs or attorney's feespreserved by appropriate pleading or pretrial stipulation shall be asserted by separatemotion or petition filed not later than fourteen (14) days following the entry ofjudgment. The pendency of an appeal from the judgment shall not postpone the filingof a timely application pursuant to this rule.

DEF. WILKINSON VIOLATED REQUIREMENTS UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1920-1924

68. With wanton disregard for Plaintiff(s) rights and due process, Def. Wilkinson violated the

law and Rules:

The $24.30 money judgment was unauthorized by law. Itemization was for$24.30. No documentation for$24.30. The record unauthorizedBill of Costs was for$24.30. Bill of Costs must be verifiedas required by 28 U.S.C. 1924. No known affidavit. Plaintiff(s) objected to the unauthorized$24.30 money judgment. The unauthorized $24.30 money judgment was procured through, e.g., publicly

recorded racketeering and extortion by illegal and criminal means of fraud andextortion scheme O.R. 569/875, and facially forged land parcels 00A0 and00001. See RICO Complaint in U.S. District Court.

RACKETEERING & EXTORTION IN VIOLATION OF:

FRAP 39 [FED.R.APP.P. 39]

69. A copy ofRule 39, Fed.R.App.P., is attached.

(d) Bill of Costs: Objections; Insertion in Mandate.(1) A party who wants costs taxed must within 14 days after entry ofjudgment file with the circuit clerk, with proof of service, an itemized andverified bill of costs.

70. Here, the judgment, No. 2008-13170-BB had been entered: March 5, 2009, Doc. ##

365, 386. Defendant Appellee Wilkinson had filed with the circuit clerk a $24.30 Bill of


19/56

18

Costs. Date signed was 3-17-2009, which was issued on: Jun 11 2009, Doc. ## 365,

386, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.

71. No proof of service existed on the record.

72. The 14 days after entry of judgment on March 5, 2009 had expired on March 19,

2009.

APPEAL BECAME FINAL ON JUN 15, 2009

73. An appeal becomes final on the date themandate is issued. Here, the judgment enteredMarch 5, 2009 was issued as mandate Jun 11 2009.

74. Since the clerkhad responsibilities for entering a judgment, Fed.R.App.P. 36, and for

taxation of costs, Fed.R.App.P. 39(d), the duty to issue the mandate contemplated by Rule 41

was the responsibility of the clerk.

75. The Eleventh Circuit has held that the action becomes final on the date the district court

receives the appellate court's mandate. See U.S. v. Lasteed, 832 F.2d 1240-43 (11th

Cir.

1987). The District Court received and filed the Appellate Courts June 11, 2009 mandate on

JUN 15 2009 when the Appeal, No. 2008-13170-BB, became final. Thereafter, the 11th

Circuit had no jurisdiction as a matter of law. Here, there have been publicly recorded

racketeering and extortion by Government Agents.

NO 11th

CIRCUIT JURISDICTIONAFTER JUN 15, 2009

76. Jurisdiction followed themandate. The effect of the mandate is to bring the proceedings

in a case on appeal in our Court to a close and to remove it from the jurisdiction of this

Court, returning it to the forum whence it came. It was the date on which the $24.30

mandate was received and filed, Jun 15, 2009, which determined when the district court

reacquired jurisdiction for further proceedings.

77. Issuance of the $24.30mandate on June 11, 2009, and the District Courts receipt and filing

on June 15, 2009 was an event of considerable institutional significance. A mandate could


20/56

19

NOT possibly simply "issue", because itshould have been issued, or because the panel may

have intended it to issue, or because the statute commands it to issue. See F.R.App.P. 27, 41.

ADOPTION BY REFERENCE OF FEDERAL LAWSUIT, CIVIL RICO

78. The Plaintiffs hereby adopt by reference their attached Federal action in this published

Government Racketeering and Corruption Notice, USA, Ex Rel et al. v. USA et al.

WILKINSONS RACKETEERING, RETALIATION, AND COERCION

79. Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson retaliated on or around August 20, 2008, Doc. # 386-2:

In order to discourage the Appellant from engaging in the same practices

80. Wilkinson coerced Plaintiff Appellant to refrain from rightful prosecution for prima facie

criminal and illegal purposes ofconcealing crimes and covering up.

CRIMINAL AND ILLEGAL FALSIFICATIONS

81. Just like Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson had falsifiedfake land parcels, and a fake real

property transaction, O.R. 569/875, Defendant Forger Wilkinson falsified a fake

judgment; July 29, 2009 in Docket 08-13170-BB against Appellant JORG BUSSE in the

amount of $5,048.60. See, e.g., INSTR 4371834, O.R. 4517 PG 1914, Collier County

Circuit Court.

82. Here, Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson could not have possibly heldthat which had never

existed. Here, said $24.30 money judgment had been the final mandate, and the facially

null and void writ of execution, Doc. # 425, was a prima facie racketeering and

extortions scheme just like the fake regulation, fake legislative act and/or O.R.

569/875 that had never legally existed and never been legally recorded.

RACKETEERING-EXTORTION-FRAUD SCHEMES, DOC ## 432, 434, 435

83. Plaintiff Dr. Jorg Busse attached a copy and Exhibits of prima facie racketeering-

extortion-fraud schemes, Documents ## 432, 434, and 435, and adopted them by

reference in this NOTICE OF APPEAL and EMERGENCY MOTIONS.


21/56

20

FRAUDULENT ATTACHMENT OF FICTITIOUS DEBT TO CAYO COSTA LAND

84. The publicly recorded and facially fraudulent attachment of a fakejudgmentand/ordebt

to Plaintiff(s)s Lee County property was a criminal and illegal scheme.

DECEPTION, TRICKERY, AND FRAUDULENT MEMORANDUM

85. Jack N. Peterson and Def. Appellee K. M. Wilkinson conspired to perpetrate fraud on the

Courts and attach a sanctionable memorandum to theirunlawful motion, Doc. # 432.

TRANSFER PURSUANT TO FLORIDA LAW

86. Here, there had been NO lien. Here, Def. Wilkinson did NOT have any lien. Here, Def.

Wilkinson had NOT been any $5,048.60 judgment holder. Here, there had been NO

affidavitas required by section 55.10, Fla. Stat.

87. Here that which did NOT exist and/or was NULL and VOID could NOT havepossibly been

enforcedunder Florida law.

88. Ifthere had been any authenticjudgment, any valid order, and anygenuinelien, Plaintiff(s)

would have been entitled to transfer under Florida law, s. 55.10, Fla. Stat.:

(5) Any lien claimed under this section may be transferred, by any person having an

interest in the real property upon which the lien is imposed or the contract under whichthe lien is claimed, from such real property to other security by either depositing in theclerk's office a sum of money or filing in the clerk's office a bond executed as surety by asurety insurer licensed to do business in this state. Such deposit or bond shall be in anamount equal to the amount demanded in such claim of lien plus interest thereon at thelegal rate for 3 years plus $500 to apply on any court costs which may be taxed in anyproceeding to enforce said lien. Such deposit or bond shall be conditioned to pay anyjudgment, order, or decree which may be rendered for the satisfaction of the lien forwhich such claim of lien was recorded and costs plus $500 for court costs. Upon suchdeposit being made or such bond being filed, the clerk shall make and record a certificateshowing the transfer of the lien from the real property to the security and mail a copythereof by registered or certified mail to the lienor named in the claim of lien sotransferred, at the address stated therein. Upon the filing of the certificate of transfer,

the real property shall thereupon be released from the lien claimed, and such lien shall betransferred to said security. The clerk shall be entitled to a service charge of up to $15 formaking and serving the certificate. If the transaction involves the transfer of multipleliens, an additional service charge of up to $7.50 for each additional lien shall be charged.Any number of liens may be transferred to one such security.


22/56

21

NOservice OF ANY writ of execution UPON DR. JORG BUSSE

89. Here, Dr. Jorg Busse was neverservedand could not have possibly been served[with] any

writ of execution. No evidence of anyservice existed on the record. Doc. ## 425, 429, 430,

were facially fraudulent and for criminal and illegal purposes of, e.g., racketeering,

extortion, retaliation, obstruction of justice, and unconstitutional property seizure in

brazen violation of, e.g., the 4th, and 14th U.S. Constitutional Amendments, and Chapters

55, and 56, Florida Statutes.

MANDATORY SUSPENSION OFANY ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS

90. Under color of a prima facie falsified writ of execution, Doc. ## 425, 435, 434 and in the

publicly recorded absence of any debt, and after Dr. Jorg Busse had paid the final

mandate of $24.30 for copies(under FRAP 39) to Def. Wilkinson, the Def. U.S. Marshal

and Defendants Richard Jessup and Ryan Barry recklessly extended, e.g., the extortion,

racketeering, and organized crimes of public record in order to retaliate against Dr. Busse,

extort fees and said real property without any authority and for organized and conspiratorial

criminal purposes. Here, said Officials coerced the Plaintiff(s) to refrain from rightful

prosecution and obstructed justice. Here, any and all Marshal(s), Sheriff(s), and/or law

enforcement Officials were under the absolute obligation to NOT enforce and/orsuspend

anyproceedings on the illegalexecution of the facially fraudulent and forged writ, Doc.

## 425, which had never been served upon Dr. Busse.

AFFIDAVIT; DEMAND FOR MANDATORY SUSPENSION OF PROCEEDINGS ON

FRAUDULENT AND ILLEGAL execution, CH. 56, 55, U.S. CONST. AMENDMENTS

91. Here Dr. Jorg Busse had demanded, has been demanding, and again demands the

absolutely mandatory suspension of any proceedings to enforce and/or execute a prima

facie fictitious, un-documented, un-substantiated, un-recorded and null and voiddebt in

the facially falsified amount of $24.30. Here. Dr. Busse had fully paid the $24.30final


23/56

22

money judgment and 06/11/2009mandate (copies). Here, the Defendants and Wilkinson

knew that the 11th Circuit never had any jurisdiction and authority to alterand amend the

$24.30 mandate/judgment and to sanction and punish the Plaintiff corruption victim Dr.

Jorg Busse, who rightfully prosecuted Crooked Government Officials.

AFFIDAVIT: ORGANIZED CRIME, RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, CORRUPTION

92. In this organized crime scheme, Defendant Beverly Martin had suspended, and conspired

with, e.g., judicial Def. Steele, Chappell, Lazzara, Pizzo, Honeywell, and other Defendants

and Officials to suspend, the Rules and extended anarchy and lawlessness to obtain

unlawful benefits. Here, Def. Crooked Judge Martin recklessly violated Section 838.022,

Official Misconduct, Fla. Stat.

WHEREFORE, PlaintiffGovernment corruption and racketeering victims demand

1. An Orderdeclaring that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson did NOT have any lien;

2. An Orderdeclaring that Defendant Wilkinson did NOT hold any $5,048.60 judgment as

falsely pretended and falsified by said Defendant Wilkinson and Defendant Crooked

Attorney JACK N. PETERSON [see falsified, fraudulent and deceptive affidavits

asserting a fake July 29, 2009 judgment in the Collier and Lee County Public Records;

3. An EMERGENCY Order suspending and enjoining as absolutely mandatory any

proceedings on any illegal and criminal execution in violation of, e.g., Chapters 55 and 56,

Fla. Stat., and the 4th, 14

th, 1st, and 7

th U.S. Const. Amendments, 18 U.S.C. 1961 1968;

42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 18 U.S.C. 241, 242; s. 838.022, Fla. Stat.;

4. An Ordersanctioning Defendant Attorney JACK N. PETERSON forrecorded perjury and

conspiring with Def. Wilkinson and other Government Officials to extort, racketeer,

retaliate, and deliberately deprive Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott;

5. An Orderdeclaring the final record mandate in the amount of$24.30paid;


24/56

23

6. An Ordervacating and setting aside the facially oppressive and unconstitutional pre-filing

injunction, Doc. # 245, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, which on its face was forcriminal and

illegal purposes ofracketeering, retaliation, intimidation, oppression, and protection of

the organizedCriminals and criminal Defendants in this Court and the 11

th

Circuit;

7. An Orderrestraining and preventing the record violations of section 1962 under the RICO

civil provisions;

8. An Orderdeclaring the lackof any recorded mandate and/ormoney judgmentother than the

$24.30, which was issued as mandate on June 11, 2009 and recorded on June 15, 2009

pursuant to the certified Docket, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, U.S. District Court, M.D.

Florida, Fort Myers Division;

9. An Orderdeclaring that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th

Circuit had lost jurisdiction

on 06/11/2009, as had also been evidenced by its own Case Docket, 08-13170-BB];

10. An Order sanctioning and punishing Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson for the publicly

recorded falsifications of, e.g., said fake judgment, land parcels, fake resolution,

extortion, and racketeering, all of which obstructed justice;

11. An Order declaring INSTRUMENT 4371834, O.R. 4517 PG 1914, Collier County Public

Records, and the equally fraudulent filing in Lee County part of a racketeering, extortion,

and fraud scheme

12. An Orderrestraining any furtherracketeering by Defendant Government Officials and in

particular the illegal forced selling of Plaintiffs said riparian Cayo Costa property, Lot 15A,

in the absence of any recorded$5,048.60 judgment;

13. An Orderdissolving and/or reorganizing the corrupt Government enterprise under, e.g., civil

RICO, and 18 U.S.C. 1964(a);


25/56

24

14. An Orderremoving the publicly recorded corrupting influence and make due provision for

said express fundamental rights of innocent persons under the Florida and Federal

Constitutions and, e.g., the 14th

, 1st, 7

th, 4

th, 5

th, and 11

thU.S. Constitutional Amendments;

15. An EMERGENCY Order recusing Defendant Crooked, Objectively Partial, and Unfit

Government Racketeer John E. Steele;

16. An Order making the Government enterprise of record subject of injunctive relief, because it

is designed to aid the illegal enterprise of, e.g., obstructing justice, retaliating and

punishing, and extorting money, Government fees, and property;

17. An Order enjoining said U.S. Courts from retaliating against the Plaintiffs because they

blew the whistle on Government crimes & corruption, rather than punishing the Defendant

Racketeers of record and providing remedies and relief to the Plaintiff racketeering and

corruption victims;

18. An EMERGENCY Order recusing Defendant Crooked and Objectively Partial and Unfit

Judge C. E. Honeywell;

19. An EMERGENCY Order recusing Defendant Corrupt and Objectively Partial and Unfit

Judge S. Polster Chappell;

20. An Order forequitable relief;

21. An Order declaring Plaintiffs record title to Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, free & clear and

unencumbered;

22. An Order declaring fake land parcels 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0 and 07-44-21-01-

00001.0000 falsified and prima facie forgeries as conclusively evidenced by the 1912

Cayo Costa Plat in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25;

23. An Order for EMERGENCY relief from the publicly recorded public corruption, extortion,

coercion, fraud, and concealment in said Courts;

24. An Order forcompensatory damages;


26/56

25

25. An Order fortriple punitive damages;

26. An Order fortriple punitive damages under, e.g., Civil RICO, 18 U.S.C. 1964, 1964(c);

27. An Order forexpenses, costs, legal expenses, and fees;

28. An Order enjoining any and all Governments and the Defendants and Officials from any

trespass onto the private undedicated Cayo Costa Subdivision as legally described in

reference to said 1912 Plat in PB 3 PG 25;

29. An Order declaring the prima facie forgeries of non-existent land parcels 12-44-20-01-

00000.00A0 and 07-44-21-01-00001.0000 fraudulent and criminal acts of record;

30. An Order permanently enjoining any and all entries and publications of any resolution

569/875, O.R. 569/875, legislative act 569/875, and non-existent land parcels 12-

44-20-01-00000.00A0 and 07-44-21-01-00001.0000 from any and all Government

records and publications;

31. An Order permanently enjoining any and all Governments and Defendants from fraudulently

claiming asserting publishing Government ownership of the street lands along the

Gulf of Mexico as legally described and conveyed in reference to the Plat of the prima facie

private Cayo Costa Subdivision;

32. An Orderenjoining and restraining any extortion of property and money and foreclosure

fraud by Defendants Eugene C. Turner, Richard D. DeBoest, II, Chene M. Thompson, and

Hugh D. Hayes.

___________________________/s/Jorg Busse, M.D., M.M., M.B.A.Private Attorney General; Plaintiff public corruption & racketeering victim

10 Benning ST # 135West Lebanon, NH 03784-3402, U.S.A.c/o International Court of JusticePeace PalaceThe Hague, Netherlands


27/56

26

_____________________[/s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott]Private Attorney General; Plaintiff Government racketeering & corruption victim

10 Benning Street # 135West Lebanon, NH 03784-3402, U.S.A.

c/o International Court of JusticePeace PalaceThe Hague, Netherlands


28/56

27

EXHIBITS

SUPPORTING PUBLIC RECORD EVIDENCE

EXTORTION, FRAUD, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, RETALIATION, BRIBERY

A. FACIALLY FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVIT [DEF. JACK N. PETERSON, K. M.

WILKINSON] INSTR 4371834, O.R. 4517 PG 1914, Collier County Public Records

B. PRIMA FACIE NULL & VOID writ of execution, Case No. 2:07-cv-00228

C. PRIMA FACIE NULL & VOID O.R. 569/875 AND LAND EXTORTION SCHEME

D. 07/21/2010 letter by Def. Racketeer JACK N. PETERSON

E. Def. CHARLIE GREENS recording instructions

F. RACKETEERING AND EXTORTION record evidence, Doc. # 429, Case 2:07-cv-228

G. Docket as CERTIFIED by Def. Diane Nipper on 07/16/2010, Case No. 2:07-cv-00228

Conclusively evidencing record absence of fictitious and fabricated appeal 09-13196

H. FALSIFICATION of appeal no. 09-13196 by Def. Beverly B. Martin pursuant to

CERTIFIED docket at B., which evidenced the lack of any such appeal and the

frivolity-racketeering-and-extortion-scheme of record; JUL 19 2010 CASE FIXING &

DISMISSAL AS FRIVOLOUS

I. DOC. # 434, 07/22/2010, by Def. JOHN E. STEELE, CASE NO. 2:2007-CV-00228

J. Third Amended Complaint, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 288, 282 (11 pages),

PRIMA FACIE NULL AND VOID legislative act and/or law, Fake O.R. 569/875,

FACIALLY FALSIFIED regulation and/or resolution attached as Page 9 of 11;

ETHICS COMPLAINT against Def. Crooked Lee County Official JACK N. PETERSON

Attached as Page 10 of 11

K. PRIMA FACIE FRAUDULENT and FRIVOLOUS motion by Defendant Racketeer and

land parcel Forger K. M. Wilkinson; Appellee Property Appraisers Motion for


29/56

28

Sanctions for Filing of a frivolous Motion, Rule 27-4, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. #

386-2, pp 1-3, Doc. # 386-3, p. 15

L. BINDING PRECEDENT and RECORD EVIDENCE ofOBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE,

JUDICIAL RETALIATION, and EXTORTION under color offake judgment & writ,

WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490(11th

Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th

Cir.1959)

M. Lee County, FL, INSTRUMENT # 2010000171344, WARRANTY DEED Lot 15A, Cayo

Costa, Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912) (2 pages)

N. RECORD RACKETEERING EVIDENCE: Motion for Issuance of writ of execution ,

RECORDED EVIDENCE ofEXTORTION, FRAUD & FALSIFICATION of un-recorded

judgment, Doc. # 386, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, by Def. Racketeer Jack N. Peterson;

PERVERSION ofrecorded$24.30 judgment into fake $5,048.60 debt

O. Lee County Tax Collectors Office, Statement of Paid Property Taxes, Lot 15A, Cayo Costa

(2 pages)

P. DENIAL of Appellee Wilkersons Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment,

FALSIFICATION ofRule 38 motion, record evidence, Doc. # 386-5

FALSIFICATION ofRule 38 judgment, record evidence, Doc. # 386-5

FALSIFICATION ofRule 38 bill of costs, record evidence, Doc. # 386-5

FALSIFICATION of unsubstantiated $5,000 in attorneys fees, Doc. # 386-5

By Defendant Racketeers Dubina, Chief Judge, Tjoflat, and Birch, Circuit Judges

Facially forged and pasted certification, Doc. # 386-5, p. 2, right lower corner

Q. MEMORANDUM OF NO DEDICATION OF THE CAYO COSTA ROADS TO PUBLIC,

From The Office of Lee County, Florida, Attorney, Dec. 29, 2000, Joan C. Henry, Esq.

R. 1912 Plat of undedicated private Cayo Costa Subdivision in Lee County Plat Book 3, P. 25

S. Recorded Survey of riparian Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, PB 3 PG 25 (1912) on the Gulf of Mexico


30/56

29

T. FraudulentLee County Inventory Control File, FALSIFIED parcel 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0

O.R. 1651 / 2488, O.R. 2967 / 1084 1090, BLUE SHEET 980206, 03/24/1998(6 pages)

U. Falsified Parcel 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0 by Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson (2 p)

V. Falsified resolution, legislative act, and/or law by Def. Racketeer John Edwin Steele,

Doc. ## 288, 282, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228

W. Judgment Issued as Mandate June 11 2009, in the amount of$24.30, FRAP 39 (1 p)

RACKETEERING/EXTORTION EVIDENCE: March 5, 2009 opinion, 11th Circuit

X. Bill of Costs Issued as Mandate June 11 2009, in the amount of$24.30, FRAP 39 (1 p)

Y. Fraudulent Conclusion and Case Fixing by Defendant U.S. Circuit Judges, Doc. # 365,

Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228; Doc. # 386.

Z. STATE Court Docket, Plaintiffs Case No. 2006-CA-003185, BUSSE v. STATE OF

FLORIDA, Defendant Judge GERALD, LYNN, Jr., Filed 07/31/2006,

REMOVED to U.S. District Court by Def. Judges John E. Steele and S. Polster Chappell

AA. EXTORTION & PUBLIC CORRUPTION NOTICE to Def. Drew Heathcoat, U.S.

Clerk (2 pages)

BB. Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge, Steven E. Ibison

CC. DESTRUCTION of official records as evidenced by search of 2007-00228, 11th

Circuit

DD. DESTRUCTION of Docket No. 201010963, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit

EE.CASE FIXING, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, AND RETALIATION by Def. Judges

Black, Carnes, and Martin, dated JUL 19 2010 (2 pages)

FF. NOTICE OF CORRUPTION AND LETTER DEMANDING AUTHENTICATION,

Def. JOHN LEY, U.S. Circuit Clerk, 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit (2 pages)

GG. Motion to Stay Prima Facie Illegal Execution as a Matter of Law, Case No. 2:10-cv-

00390 (5 pages)


31/56

30

HH. Section 838.022, Florida Statutes, OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT

Chapter838, Fla. Stat., BRIBERY, MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE

II. Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 29, pp. 4, 7, Def. U.S. Attorney, Tony West, Matthew

L. Fesak, affirming U.S. jurisdiction under civil RICO

JJ. FACIALLY FALSIFIED writ of execution, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 425

KK. Section 55.10, Florida Statutes,Judgments,

Chapter55Judgments, Florida Statutes

LL. Defendant Racketeer K. M. Wilkinsons Answers to Plaintiffs First Set of

Interrogatories under oath, 10/22/2007; in particular, asserting under oath the RECORD

ABSENCE of public Cayo Costa easements, Answer # 24

MM. Florida 19th Statewide Grand Jury on Public Corruption (09/30/2009 Petition),

Florida Statewide Prosecution Office, Office of the Attorney General of Florida.

NN. FALSIFIED Plat of Cayo Costa Subdivision as falsified and filed by Defendant

Racketeer K. M. Wilkinson as Exhibit A, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228

OO. Publicly recorded Case Fixing and Obstruction of Justice by Defendant Judges Gerald

B. Tjoflat, Susan Birch, and Joel F. Dubina, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit,

Doc. # 365, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228

PP. Fraudulent Order, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 422, pp. 17-18, by Defendant

Racketeer John E. Steele, evidencing extortion, obstruction of justice, obstruction of court

access, and retaliation under fraudulent pretenses of, e.g., writ of execution, lack of

jurisdiction, ripeness requirements, frivolity, sanctions, and under color ofauthority

and office.

QQ. FBI Complaint against Def. Lee County Commissioner John Manning

RR. Concealment of fake writ, Doc. # 434, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, by Def. J. E.

Steele


32/56

31

SS. FBI Complaint against Def. U.S. Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin,

Including JUL 19 2010 CASE FIXING FORBRIBES and RACKETEERING

TT. Record Evidence ofDestruction of Plaintiffs Appeal Records, ## 10-10963, 10-10967

UU. GOVERNMENTAL FORGERIES, O.R. 569/875, FORENSIC EVIDENCE

VV. Facially Fraudulent Order, Doc. # 338, Case 2:2007-cv-00228, by Def. John E.

Steele

WW. March 08, 2010 Letter by Def. John Ley, U.S. Circuit Clerk

XX. DESTRUCTION AND ALTERATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, EVIDENCE

YY. FRAUDULENT 04/06/2010 Order by Def. Crooked Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin

ZZ. Supreme Court Justice David Souter Communications, including binding precedent of

WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY

AAA. OTHER; OTHER PUBLIC RECORDS


33/56

32

CC: Federal Bureau of Investigation

U.S. Department of Justice

Eric Holder, Attorney General

Barack Hussein Obama, The White House

Florida Department of Law Enforcement

The Florida Bar

Real Property Probate and Trust Lawyer Section, The Florida Bar


34/56

*** INSTR 4371834 OR 4517 PG 1914 RECORDED 12/10/2009 9:28 AM PAGES 1 ***DWIGKT E. BROCK, COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURTREC S10.00

AFFIDAVIT

INSTR n2009000303382. Pages 1Doc Type AFF. Recorded 11 18.2009 at 10.11 AM.Charlie Green, Lee County CterV of Circuit CourtRec. Fee $10 00

Deputy Clerk DMERC1ER#1

STATE OF FLORIDA )

)COUNTY OF LEE )

BEFORE ME the undersigned authority, personally appeared JACK N. PETERSON, who being

first duly sworn, says:

1. KENNETH M. WILKINSON, as Property Appraiser of Lee County, Florida, is the

holder of a judgment issued by the United StatesjCourt of Appeals in and for the Eleventh Circuit

on July 29, 2009 in Docket

$5,048.60.

2. The judgment hj

Kenneth M. Wi2480 Thompson1

Fort Myers, FL

AFFIANT FURTHER

JORG BUSSE in the amount of

'irnty, Florida

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this

N. PETERSON, who is personally known to me.

of November, 2009 by JACK

' 0 - .

^nature ot Notafy ruDUc;

(Printed Name) IJESUEAJWCOMMSSIONtDD 589573EXPIRES: 0*crtm,2010lenrtllnNotorMfcUUiMlM

My Commission Expires:

Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 23


35/56

DC 11Rav. 1/00

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 425 Filed 02/02/10 Page 1 of 1

FH FO

WRIT OF EXECUTION

'sm^mSfF&Jt1'^United States District Court

UT. imimtmmTO THE MARSHAL OF: MiuyLtuibiHiurontiwioA

United States District Court, Middle District of Florida F0 RT MYERS Fl-0R,0A

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, that of the goods and chattels, lands and tenements in your district belonging to:

NAMEJorg BusseBuilding 2, Unit 41575 Curlew AvenueNaples. FL 34112-5038

you cause to be made and levied as well a certain debt of:

DOLLAR AMOUNT

Five Thousand Forty-Eight AND

DOLLAR AMOUNT

Sixty Cents

in the United States District Court for the Middle District of P'0"*3 , before the

Judge of the said Court by the consideration of the same Judge lately recovered against the said,

Jorg Busse

and also the costs that may accrue under this writ.

And that you have above listed moneys that the place and date listed below; and that you bring this writ with you.

PLACE2115 Second Street, 6th Floor

DISTRICT M j d d | e D j s t r j c t o f p ^ ^ g

CITYFort Myers

DATE

Witness the Honorable

United States Judge

DATE CLERK 01StISryl L. Loesch

This writ was received and executed.

U.S. MARSHAL (BY) DEPUTY MARSHAL

2-/2 iS



36/56

.VUTO-l* 559^575

RESOUyTIOK PCRTAIRIiW T O PUBLIC U N M

IN,Sm gglfl WHPIviyig

NHOtCAS, there' appears in the Public Records of Lee

County, Florida, In Plat Book 3 at page 25 the Second Revised

Mat of Cayo Coeta Subdivision: and

WHEREAS, there tppeara upon snid plat certain designated

lot and block areas aitd other undesignated areas t and

WHEREAS, there appears upon said plat certain un-numbered

and unlettered areas lying East of tho Easterly tier of Moeka

in said subdivision and West of tho Westerly tier of blocks

in said subdivision: and

TEREAS, tho County claims st id lands as pub lic lands

together with all accretions thereto.

NO*. THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD Of COWTY

COWUMIONERS OF LEE COUNTY. FLORIDA does by this Reso lut ion

claim all of raid lands and accretions thereto for the use

and benefit of the public for public purposes.

DONE AND ADOPTED this /? day ofJs . ci. .U-*-U. 1969.

V

3 All



37/56

m LEE COUNTYiswn. j - r j - r j - r -^ ^, ^ a. ^ 533-2236

S O U T H W E S T F L O R I D A V y

Facsimile (239)485-2118BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

July 21, 2010

Vacant

District One

A. Bnan Bigclow

District Two

Rayjudah

District Three

S fcH Jorg R. BusseP.O. Box 11124

^ " Z Naples, Florida 34101 -11124

c o Z ' ^ r Re: TELEPHONE/COMMUNICATIONS

David M. Owen

County Attorney Sir:

Examiner

Diana M. Parker

county Hearing I understand from my administrative assistant, Wendy Wise, that youtelephoned yesterday and spoke with her in my absence. I have asked you before toconfine any communication to writing. You have chosen to simply ignore my request.Since this last call was nothing more than an opportunity for you to annoy and harassour staff, I again ask you to limit your communication to writing delivered by regularU.S. Mail.

I have directed staff to henceforth, if I am not available, to note the time of yourcall and simply hang up.

Sincerely,

JackfN. PetersonAssistant County Attorney

JNP/wlw

P.O. Box 398. Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398 (239) 533-21 I I

Internet address http.'V/www.lee-county.comA N EQUAL OPPO RTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE AC TI ON EMPLOYER


38/56

IN ORDER TO RECORD A DEED IN LEE COUNTY THE FOLLOWING MUST BE MET:

"Prepared by" statement (name and address of the "natural" person preparing the Deed)Grantor(s) (Sellers-Party Giving Title) names legibly printed in the body of the DeedGrantor(s) mailing addressGrantee(s) (Buyer-Party Receiving Title) names legibly printed in the body of the DeedGrantee(s) mailing addressSignatures of GrantorsNames printed under Grantors' signatures2 witnesses for each signature, the names printed under witnesses' signatures

Complete Notary acknowledgmento Names being acknowledgedo Date acknowledgment takeno Signature of Notary

J^y 0 Name printed under signatureo Commission expiration dateo Ink Seal

The consideration, sale price, or outstanding mortgage must be on the document or listed in a cover lefor recording

Three-inch square white space on the top right-hand comer of the first page of each document and a oinch by three-inch square white space on the top right-hand corner of each subsequent page of document.

These are RECORDING REQUIREMENTS for Deeds (F.S. 695.26). There may be other statutory requirementsmaking a conveyance valid, which are not within the scope of the recording office to dictate. For example, the CountyProperty Appraiser requiresthat thelegaldescriptionbe includedonthedeeddocument.

LEGAL ADVICE CANNOT BE PROVIDED: The Lee County Clerk's Office staff cannot help you complete legal foor provide legal advice of any type. If you have questions about completing forms or the proper method of transferrproperty, you should consult an attorney or legal advisor.

FLORIDA DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX: Each document transferring an interest in real property may be subjecFlorida's Documentary Stamp Tax (documentary stamps on deeds (rounded up to nearest hundred) $0.70 per $100.Please contact the Department of Revenue for guidance at (800) 352-3671. Documentary stamps are paid on the tconsideration paid, given, or to be paid, for the transfer; see DepartmentofRevenue reference sheetfordetails.



39/56

/ Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPCU.S...Department of Justice

HJnited States Marshals ServiceSee Instwctions for "Service of Process by the U.S. Marshal"

on the reverse of this form.

MJUNTIFF

Jorg BusseCOURT CASE NUMBER

07-00228-CV-Fm-29-SPCTYPE OF PROCESS

Writ of ISxecoti&SDEFENDANT

Lee County, Florida* e t c . , et a l .NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION. ETC.. TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF P R O P E R T Y T ^ E I S D R eOftTCEMft ,

Property to be Seiz ed: Lot 15A,Cayo Casta, Parcel No. 12-44-20-OT-015S$J&A. 4SERVE

^ ~ r

AT

ADDRESS (Street or RFD. Apartment No.. City, State tnd ZIP Code) u, ^

serve: Jorg Busse Building 2, Unit 4, 1575 Curlew Avenue, NapSaJ, f t 3'- r t i l

- *

5038

sH^Ng!ncE_wa^T^cpPYj221^^1^^Ii^l^^^^SL5l!^LFJaiI An.

ack N. Pete rson, EsquireAssistant County Attorney2115 Second St re et, 6th FloorFort Hyers, FL 33901

Number of process to be

served with this Form - 285

/"!tf

Number of parties to be

served in this case

-o-

Check for service

on U.S.A.

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITINO SERVICE (Include BiTkkphoae fhmbets. tad Estmutcd Times Available Bar Service):

-no._t *

rfo; AMenes, All

KU

Subject property i s locat ed as shown on maps contained in t h ^f sB s i t a of thejSLee County Property Appraiser, Parcel No. 12 -44- 20-01- 00015. ^i^R( wg. le epa ^g).

I heieby ceit ify and return that I D have personally served. D have legal evidence of serv ice .Mhave executed as shown in "Remaiks", the pracess described

on the mdividial, company, corporation, etc., at the address shown above or on the individual; company, corporation, etc., shownta the address inseited below

D I heieby ceitify and return that I am unable to locale the individual, company, corporation, c i c . named above (See remarks below)

Name and title of individual served (if nor shown above) A person of suitable age and dis-LJ ac ti on then residing in the defendant's

usual place of abode.

Address (complett only ifdinerent than shown above; Date of Service

4-5-10

Time am

pm

Stgnaiuie tf tU .S . Marshal or Deputy

Service Fee

9 D11,5

Tbtal Mileage Charges

(iochidjm gulcaYors)Jding

Forwarding Fee Total Charges Advance Deposits

#50. H

Amount owed to U S . Marsh:

+67,90REMARKS:

moREDmoNsWSBEVSED

1. CLERK OF THE COURT nM usRugs OIK mem



40/56

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida Page 1 of 57

U.S. District CourtMiddle District of Florida (Ft. Myers)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPCInternal Use Only

APPEAL

Busse v. Lee County, Florida ct alAssigned to: Judge John E. SteeleReferred to: Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster ChappellCase in other court: 08-13170B

09-12372-B09-13517F09-13519F09-13522F09-1428IF

09-14282F09-14284F

09-14285F09-162J1F09-16212F09-16213F09-16214F09-16335F

10-10963-110-10967-110-11884-1

Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation

Plaintiff

Jorg Busse

Date Filed'04/10/2007Date Terminated: 05/06/2008Jury Demand: PlaintiffNature ofSuit: 440 Civil Rights: OtherJurisdiction: Federal Question

I CERTIFY THE FORBAND CORRECT COP

SHERYLLL"UNltEQSTAtfe

MIDDLEDlSTr

Plaintiff

Kenneth M. Roesch, Jr.TERMINATED: 09/21/2007

represented by Jorg BusseP.O.Box 1126Naples, Fl 34106-1126239/595-7074PROSE

represented by Kelly Lina RoothRooth Law Group, PA

Suite 3224399 35th St NSt Petersbsurg, FL 33714727/824-6212Fax: 727/822-8048Email: [email protected]

LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.flmd.circl 1 .dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?737110522490912-L_770_0-1 7/16/2010

J

mailto:[email protected]://ecf.flmd.circl/https://ecf.flmd.circl/https://ecf.flmd.circl/mailto:[email protected]


41/56



42/56

filing fee, the new appeals were to be reviewed and a frivolity determination as to

each appeal made. Consistent with that Order, on April 6, 2010, Appellant was

ordered to show cause why these appeals should not be dismissed as frivolous.

Appellant filed documents with the Court on April 19, 2010, which we

construe as his responses to the Order to Show Cause. Our review of these

documents establishes that Appellant has failed to show that these appeals are not

frivolous.

Therefore, on the Court's own motion, these appeals are hereby

DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.

Given the frivolity of these appeals and the nature of Appellant's responses

to the Order to Show Cause, we hereby SUSPEND any rule which would allow

Appellant to seek reconsideration of this Order. The Clerk is directed to accept no

ftirther filings in this closed appeal. The Clerk may discard any future documents

received by Appellant.

1



43/56



44/56


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

JORG BUSSE

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-29SPC

LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; BOARD OF LEECOUNTY COMMISSIONERS; THE LEE COUNTYPROPERTY APPRAISER; STATE OF FLORIDABOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNALIMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, STATE OFFLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on review of defendant's

Motion for Entry of Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property

(Doc. #432) filed on May 21, 2010. No response has been filed and

the time to respond has expired.

Upon review, the Court desires a response from plaintiff.

Recognizing that a Pre-Filing Injunction (Case No. 2:09-cv-791-FTM-

36SPC, Doc. #245) was issued on July 20, 2010, prohibiting any

further filings without leave of Court, the Court will grant

plaintiff leave to file a single responsive document to defendant's

motion.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

H



45/56


Plaintiff may file one response to defendant's Motion for

Entry of Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property (Doc. #432)

within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this Order. If no response is

received, the Court will rule on the motion without the benefit of

a response and without further notice.

DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 22nd day of

July, 2010.

Copies:PlaintiffCounsel of record

xL

m E. STEELEJIMa.

J0|

United States District Judge

12.



46/56



47/56


VENUE

6. Pursuant to Title 28, Part 4, Ch. 87, S. 1391, Plaintiffs claims arise out of acts undertaken and injuries suffered in

the Middle District of Florida. Pursuant to the sealed Survey before this Court, Plaintiff owns and possesses the

approx. more than 2.5 Acres of lot 15A with an estimated fair market value of more than $2,000,000.

JURISDICTION UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS, 42 U.S.C. 1983,28 U.S.C. 1343, CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLES

3 & 4, AMENDMENTS 5 & 14, DUE PROCESS & EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES, AND BILL OF RIGHTS

7. Pursuant to Civil Rights Acts, 42 U.S.C. 1983,28 U.S.C. 1343,1331, this Court has original jurisdiction to redress

Defendant State Officials' deprivations of Plaintiffs equal rights secured by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore,

Plaintiff seeks invalidation and rescission of unconstitutional 'OR 569/875', 'OR 2967/1084-1090', 'Blue Sheet

980206', injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief, compensatory and possibly punitive damages.

JURISDICTION UNDER 1899 RIVERS AND HARBORS APPROPRIATION ACT, 33 U.S.C. 403, COMMERCE

CLAUSE AND CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLE 3

8. Pursuant to the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act, 33 U.S.C. 403, and Commerce Clause, this Court has

jurisdiction over the Army Corps of Engineers' authority over Plaintiffs naturally created lagoon property. Under

the Commerce Clause, this Court has jurisdiction over dominant federal interests in navigation and the navigability

of Plaintiffs lagoon in interstate and foreign commerce. The Federal Government has power to control navigable

waters, and navigable servitude extends to navigable waters. Therefore, the Constitution conferred jurisdiction to

this Court over the regulation of commerce on the lagoon of Plaintiffs lot 15A pursuant to Article 3, s. 2.

JURISDICTION UNDER THE 1862 HOMESTEAD ACT

9. 14lh Amendment provisions cover all instrumentarities by which Defendant State and Officials act. Defendant

County, positioned under State Government, deprived Plaintiff of protected 14th Amendment rights against

deprivations by the State under color of 'OR 569/875', 'lot A', and 'block 1'. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction

over effect and extent of the 1895 Federal Land Patent grant from the United States to A. C. Roesch and to

Plaintiff and the navigable waters along platted shorelines pursuant to the 1862 Homestead Act.

JURISDICTION UNDER FEDERAL COMMON LAW DOCTRINE OF ACCRETION AND EROSION

10. Federal common law, settled for centuries, vests title to accretions onto Federally patented oceanfront property in

2



48/56

Case 2:07 -cv- 0022 8-JE S-SP C Docu ment 288 Filed 01/1 1/08 Page 3 of 11

Plaintiff upland owner of lot 15A. Pursuant to determinate U.S. Supreme Court rulings, Federal law governs title to

accretions on Plaintiffsripariangulf front lot.

JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO FEDERAL APPRAISAL STANDARDS, UNIFORM STANDARDS OF

PROFESSIONAL APPRAISAL PRACTICE, AND 12U.S.C.

3331-3351

11. This Court has jurisdiction over deprivations of Plaintiffs civil rights caused by Defendant Property Appraiser's

violations of Federal Appraisal Standards in Federallyrelatedproperty transactions under color of State law.

JURISDICTION UNDER THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT, 28 U.S.C. 2201

12. Under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, this Court has jurisdiction to declare Plaintiffsrights,legal relations,

and boundaries in light of equity principles.

In support of his factual allegations, Plaintiff adopts byreferencein this Complaint all evidentiary materials before the

Court and alleges:

COUNT 1:42 U.S.C. 1983 DEPRIVATIONS UNDER UNCONSTITUTIONAL 'OR 569/875'

13. Under color of alleged resolution draft 'OR 569/875' (Exhibit 'A'), Defendant State, park staff, County,

Commissioners, Attorneys, and Appraiser subjected Plaintiff citizen to deprivations of his riparianrights,private

easements, disputed accreted property, and privileges secured by the U.S. Constitution. Defendant County and

Commissioners had no home rule powers or jurisdiction over the undedicated Cayo Costa Subdivision and

accordingly, never signed or executed 'OR 569/875'. Therefore, 'OR 569/875' was unenforceable, and said

Defendants violated constitutional Articles 3 & 4(s. 2) and Amendments 5 & 14(s. 1,5) and are liable toPlaintiff.

14. Therefore, under color of unauthorized 'OR 569/875' and 'OR 2967/1084-90', said Defendants confiscated

Plaintiffs valuable private accreted property, i.e. more than approx. 2.5 Acres, without compensation in violation of

the 5th Amendment Takings Clause and 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

15. Pursuant to Ch. 177, F.S., alleged lot A and block 1 cannot be legally described or surveyed, because they were

not on the referenced Subdivision Plat. Therefore, Defendant Officials temporarily took a total of more than

approx. 200 Acres of private accretions onto Cayo Costa under color of 'OR 569/875', 'OR 2967/1084-90', and

'Blue Sheet 980206', without just compensationforwhich Defendant State and County must make restitution.

3



49/56


16. Defendant State Actors claimed riparian rights for lots 38A and 41A (Property I.D. 12-44-20-01-00042.038A),

which they denied to Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendant Officials discriminated against and harmed Plaintiff. Plaintiff is

entitledtothe equal rights of Defendant State owner and invalidation of unconstitutional 'OR 569/875' and lot A.

COUNT 2: UNAUTHORIZED UNCONSTITUTIONAL TEMPORARY TAKINGS UNDER COLOR OF 'OR 569/875'

17. In December 1969, Defendant County and Commissioners allegedly drafted a so-called 'resolution' to claim all

accretions within the undedicated private Cayo Costa Subdivision. Said preliminary draft, 'OR 569/875' was never

signed, executed, or acknowledged and did not meet resolution and recording requirements. Therefore, draft 'OR

569/875' was not entitled to be recorded and must be stricken from the public record.

18. Defendant County Appraiser and Attorney admitted that the Cayo Costa Subdivision was never dedicated to the

public and as a result was outside the scope of Defendant County's home rule powers. Therefore, Defendant

State and County had no powerstogovern and adopt resolutions or ordinances. In conclusion, draft '569/875' was

unenforceable and ineffectual, and Defendant County exercised powers not conferred by law with the intent to

capriciously grab the disputed private accreted land and easements.

19. Therefore, Defendant State, County, and Commissioners took Plaintiffs accretions onto riparian gulf front lot ISA

and the Subdivision without authority, justification, due process of law, public notice, hearing, vote count, and

compensation under color of '569/875', which violated Articles 3 & 4 and Amendments 5 & 14. In conclusion,

Defendants' unauthorized unconstitutional takings injured Plaintiff and destroyed his property value.

COUNT 3: TRESPASS

20. Since 1969, Defendant State, County, Commissioners, Attorneys, and Appraiser asserted, disseminated, and

published that Lee County was the owner of all private Cayo Costa accretions. Therefore pursuant to 810.08 and

810.09, F.S., Defendant Officials induced and caused the public to intrude onto private Cayo Costa beaches,

streets, platted designated common use areas, and Plaintiffs property, which injured Plaintiff.

21 . Under color of official right and '569/875', Defendant Governmental Officials invited the public to visit the private

accreted Subdivision, which Defendant State's Division of Recreation and Parks manages and operates as State

park. In summary, Defendant offenders defied Plaintiffs orders to leave and committed misdemeanors of the 1 "

4



50/56

Case 2:07 -cv- 0022 8-JE S-SP C Docu ment 288 Filed 01/1 1/08 Page 5 of 11

degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 and induced public trespass onto the undedicated Subdivision.

22. Pursuant to Florida Cabinet Meeting Transcripts, Defendant State of Florida, Board of Trustees, D.E.P., and

Division of Recreation and Parks, pursued their legislative objective to destroy private Cayo Costa easements and

property and ingress/egress for State park purposes. Therefore, Defendant Officials' objective must be stricken as

unconstitutional. Defendant State Agents must be enjoined from exercising power within the Subdivision east of

the Mean High Water mark [MHW] of the Gulf of Mexico, and west of the MHW of Charlotte Harbor.

COUNT 4: CONSPIRACY TO FABRICATE UNPLATTED LOT A, BLOCK 1 & PARK; FRAUD; MALFEASANCE

23. Defendant Property Appraiser claimed and published that draft '569/875' entitled Lee County to claim ownership of

un-platted lot A, and block 1. Under oath, Defendant Appraiser admitted that Cayo Costa was unencumbered by

public easements and not dedicated. Therefore, Defendant admitted that Lee County was not empowered to adopt

said resolution. On its face, 'OR 569/875' did not meetrecordingandresolutionrequirements, and lot A,and block

1 did not exist. Therefore, Defendant Appraiser had a professional duty and burden to verify the validity of sham

'569/875' under the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.

24. Without title evidence in the public Grantor/Grantee Index, Defendant conspired to concoct un-platted lot A

(Property I.D. 12-44-20-01-O000O.00A0), block 1 (Property I.D. 07-44-21-01-00001.0000), and park. With

malicious purpose, Defendant assisted the plan to deceive with materially altered plat, maps, and records to obtain

benefits for State and County. Said acts and omissions were in willful disregard of property. Defendant denied

agricultural classification of Plaintiffs accreted lot, all of which had had been formed by accretions since approx.

1910. Therefore, Defendant destroyed most of Plaintiffs property value, deprived him of private easements

without compensation, and denied equal protection of the laws in a land grab scheme pursuant to Ch. 768.

25. A reasonable appraiser, surveyor or title agent cannot locate lot A or block 1 on the Plat and must presume

invalidity of 'OR 569/875', lot A, and block 1 as a matter of established real property law, standards, and tenets.

Therefore, Defendant's agreement to assist the unconstitutional confiscation of the disputed accretions could

reaso