Organized-judicial Crime In Lee County, Florida

ORGANIZED JUDICIAL CORRUPTION
View more...
   EMBED

Share

Preview only show first 6 pages with water mark for full document please download

Transcript

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION DR. JORG BUSSE, JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, Plaintiffs, versus Case # 2:10-CV-0089-FtM-JES-SPC JOHN EDWIN STEELE; SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL; ROGER ALEJO; KENNETH M. WILKINSON; JACK N. PETERSON; GERALD BARD TJOFLAT; RICHARD JESSUP; CIRCUIT JUDGE BIRCH; CIRCUIT JUDGE DUBINA; RICHARD ALLAN LAZZARA; CHARLIE CRIST; LEE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD; LORI L. RUTLAND; EXECUTIVE TITLE CO.; JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., 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 property” WHICH GOVERNMENT HAD FRAUDULENTLY “claimed” TO “own” UNDER COLOR OF FORGED “land parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”, AND FACIALLY 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 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 facie racketeering, extortion, and fraud scheme of record, civil RICO provisions. 2 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 # 12-4420-01-00015.015A, 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. NEVER had any lien; b. NEVER was the holder 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 witnessed by 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 [Kenneth M. Wilkinson; Property Appraiser] conspired to concoct un-platted lot A (Property I.D. 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0), block 1 (Property I.D. 07-44-21-01-00001.0000), and park.” 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 of liens; transfer of liens to other security.-- 3 (1) A judgment, order, or decree becomes a lien on real property in any county when a certified copy of it is recorded in the official records or judgment lien record of the county, whichever is maintained at the time of recordation, provided that the judgment, order, or decree contains the address of the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree or a separate affidavit is recorded simultaneously with the judgment, order, or decree stating the address of 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 the address of the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree is contained in the judgment, order, or decree or an affidavit with such address is simultaneously 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 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.” 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. Steele’s publicly recorded: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Racketeering; Extortion; Obstruction of justice; Deliberate deprivations; Acceptance of bribes; Fraud upon the State and Federal Courts; Destruction and alteration of Court records; 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. STEELE’S 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 not responded. However as a matter of record, the Plaintiffs had published conclusive evidence of their filed “responses” worldwide. Here, more than one Million readers had read the “responses”, 4 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 are contradicted by the resolution which is attached to it. The copy of the Resolution attached to the Third Amended Complaint establishes that it was signed, executed, and duly recorded in the public records, and plaintiff will not be allowed to assert otherwise.” See Doc. # 338, p. 12. Here, no authentic genuine “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 concealed Government 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 facie illegality 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/or Lee County. Here on its face, the facially forged “resolution” was a. Not any court judgment; b. Not any muniment of title; c. Not any genuine instrument: d. Not any conveyance; e. Not authentic. 5 RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, DECEPTION, AND FRAUD ON THE COURT 17. Therefore, any “resolution” – forged or genuine – would have been, and could have only been, entirely irrelevant, immaterial to any involuntary title transfer, because only a court judgment could have possibly divested the 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 NO AUTHORITY TO SILENCE THE PLAINTIFFS 18. Here in exchange for bribes, 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 STEELE’S FACIALLY IDIOTIC & ILLEGAL “order”, DOC. # 434 21. No intelligent, rational, fit, and reasonable judge and/or person in Def. Crooked Judge Steele’s shoes could have possibly allowed the fake “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, and the facially fraudulent “public sale” motion, Doc. # 432. 22. Any enforcement of a non-existent “judgment” against Dr. Busse by “public sale” of said adjoining riparian street 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/or Lee County. 6 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 not possibly have owned as 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 fraudulently pretended 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 support whatsoever. Def. Steele knew that “those [fake] lots” had never been “owned by government”, which had been the 7 very issue for the Court’s review. Here, “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-20-0100001.0000” were prima facie fake “land parcels”, which Defendants Steele and Sheri Polster Chappell could not find on 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 retaliation scheme. “Third Amended Complaint states that defendants have taken over 200 acres pursuant to the Resolution, far in excess of his 2.5 acres. The only assertion of disparate treatment is for those lots owned by government, which plaintiff alleges did not have their rights taken. However, a private owner such as plaintiff can not be compared to a public owner such as a government unit. Therefore, no equal protection claim is stated, and such claims will be dismissed without prejudice.” 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 assert the public record evidence of the non-existence and forgery of said fake “lots”. Therefore, the case is dismissed and fixed in exchange for bribes. 29. By criminal means of fake “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. Steele’s “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 remedies available in Florida and Federal Courts. See Doc. ## 288, 282, “Third Amended Complaint”. 8 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 transferred to Lee County, FL; b. Plaintiff(s)’ unimpeachable record title could not have possibly transferred under any existing law or modification thereof, Fed.R.Civ.P. 11; c. Lee County’s 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 have possibly claimed Plaintiff(s)’ street land under any law; e. The law did not recognize Lee County’s racketeering & extortion scheme “O.R. 569/875”. See Chapters 73, 74 (Eminent Domain); 95 (Adverse Possession); 712 (Florida’s selfenforcing Marketable Record Title Act), Fla. Stat.; Florida’s 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 if Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable record title to said riparian street land and private riparian street easement had never transferred from the Plaintiffs to Lee County and/or Government, could there possibly 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 for bribes, and under color of authority, 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 County’s facially criminal and illegal “claims” 9 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. STEELE’S 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. b. c. d. e. f. Racketeering; Extorting “under color of” a fake “July 29, 2009 judgment”; Extorting “under color of” a non-existent “$5,048.60 judgment”; Extorting & defrauding “under color of” fake “land parcels” which could not be found; Extorting & defrauding “under color of” prima facie scam “O.R. 569/875”; Perverting a final “$24.30” money judgment & mandate into a fake “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425. DEF. STEELE CONCEALED DEFENDANT’S 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. The only and final mandate was in the amount of “$24.30”, Doc. # 365; c. Def. Appellee Wilkinson had never filed any Rule 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 RULE 4.18: “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 fees preserved by appropriate pleading or pretrial stipulation shall be asserted by separate motion or petition filed not later than fourteen (14) days following the entry of judgment. The pendency of an appeal from the judgment shall not postpone the filing of 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 10 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. b. c. d. e. f. g. Fake “$5,048.60 judgment”; Fake “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”; Fake “land claim” “O.R. 569/875”; Fake “resolution”, fake “resolution 569/875”; Fake “regulation”, fake “land use regulation”; Fake “regulatory taking” in the recorded absence of any “regulation”; Fake “inverse condemnation” while Plaintiffs objected to and defended against any involuntary title transfer to 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 not possibly, involuntarily divest the Plaintiff(s) of their record title to riparian Parcel “12-4420-01-00015.015A” on the Gulf of Mexico. § 55.10 REQUIRED A JUDGMENT - NO LIEN ON PROPERTY 40. Under Florida law, a non-existent judgment 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 final mandate 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 the address of the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree is contained 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 lien on real property and/or on Plaintiffs’ property. 11 OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, BRIBERY, AND RACKETEERING 41. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeer John E. Steele silenced the Plaintiffs and kept them away from the Court: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. Disallowed the Plaintiffs to assert the truth and conclusive public record evidence; Removed Plaintiffs’ State action to Federal Court; Removed and destroyed Plaintiffs’ State Court records; Unlawfully sanctioned and punished the Plaintiffs; Arbitrarily & capriciously denied the Plaintiffs equal electronic court access; Illegally enjoined the Plaintiffs from filing their pleadings; Rejected Plaintiffs’ pleadings; Caused the Def. Clerk to alter and destroy Court records and crime evidence; Retaliated against the Plaintiffs; Caused the Def. U.S. Marshal to threaten, intimidate, and harass the Plaintiffs. CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE & PERPETRATE FRAUD ON THE COURTS 42. Defendant John Edwin Steele conspired with, e.g., Defendant Crooked U.S. Judge Charlene E. Honeywell and other Officials to shut up the Plaintiffs by criminal and illegal means of, e.g.: a. b. c. d. e. f. Enjoining Plaintiffs from filing their pleadings [“Pre-filing injunction”]; Destroying Plaintiffs’ pleadings Rejecting Plaintiffs’ pleadings; Falsifying a “regulation”; Fabricating “law”; 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 a judgment 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 CASE on 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. Peterson conspired to cover up and conceal that 12 a. b. c. d. No “$5,048.60 judgment”, “order”, or “decree” had ever been entered. No “$5,048.60 judgment” had ever been issued as mandate. No “$5,048.60 judgment” had ever been received by the U.S. District Court. No “$5,048.60 judgment” had ever been recorded by the U.S. District Court Clerk. J. E. STEELE’S, S. P. CHAPPELL’S & B. MARTIN’S 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. STEELE’S 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. STEELE’S RECORD RETALIATION 48. By criminal means of falsifying 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. STEELE’S 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 Busse’s and Jennifer Franklin Prescott’s riparian real property, and Hundreds of Acres of land and implied private easements under, e.g., false and fraudulent pretenses of fake “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-20-0100001.0000”, and “under color of” prima facie forged and fraudulent “O.R. 569/875”. STEELE CONCEALED RECORD ABSENCE OF FAKE PARCELS AND JUDGMENT 13 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 ANY RECORD OF FAKE “LAND PARCELS” 52. Def. Extortionist John E. Steele conspired with other Officials and Defendants to fraudulently conceal the lack of any “$5,048.60 judgment” and said fake “land parcels”. DOCUMENTATION OF FINAL $24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT (JUNE 15, 2009) 53. The publicly recorded $24.30 money judgment “issued as mandate June 11, 2009”, Doc. ## 365 (pp. 1), “documented”: a. b. c. d. e. f. In-House Reproduction of Appellee’s Brief; No. of Original Pages: “18”; Total No. of Documents Reproduced: “11 (9)”; Total No. of Copies: “198”; Costs Requested: “$29.70”. Costs Allowed: “$24.30”. 54. Here, no “sanctions”, no “fees”, and no “$5,048.60” had ever been “documented”. DEF. RACKETEER STEELE’S 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 STEELE’S 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, the Court desires a response from plaintiff…” 14 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 $24.30 money 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 Appellee’s 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 Wilkinson’s Bill of Costs, Doc. # 386, the 11th Circuit allowed $24.30 for Costs 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 $24.30 money judgment on June 15, 2009: 15 RACKETEERING: EXTORTION OF MONEY: “FRIVOLOUS APPEAL” MOTION WAS ADMITTEDLY NEVER FILED 63. Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson extorted money, Doc. # 386, by fraudulently pretending a Rule 38 motion, which Wilkinson knew he had never filed: “The Judgment 4. On August 22, 2008, Wilkinson filed a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 27-4 …” Said Rule 27-4 motion could not have possibly 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. DEFENDANT’S APPELLEE’S RACKETEETING AND EXTORTION WERE ILLEGAL 66. Def. Wilkinson’s record racketeering and extortion were illegal and unauthorized by law. 16 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 fees preserved by appropriate pleading or pretrial stipulation shall be asserted by separate motion or petition filed not later than fourteen (14) days following the entry of judgment. The pendency of an appeal from the judgment shall not postpone the filing of 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 unauthorized Bill of Costs was for $24.30. Bill of Costs must be verified as 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 and extortion scheme “O.R. 569/875”, and facially forged “land parcels” “00A0” and “00001”. See RICO Complaint in U.S. District Court. RACKETEERING & EXTORTION IN VIOLATION OF: FRAP 39 [FED.R.APP.P. 39] 69. A copy of Rule 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 of judgment — file with the circuit clerk, with proof of service, an itemized and verified 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 17 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 the mandate is issued. Here, the judgment entered March 5, 2009 was issued as mandate Jun 11 2009. 74. Since the clerk had 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 Court’s 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 JURISDICTION AFTER JUN 15, 2009 76. Jurisdiction followed the mandate. “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 $24.30 mandate on June 11, 2009, and the District Court’s receipt and filing on June 15, 2009 was an event of considerable institutional significance. A mandate could 18 NOT possibly “simply” "issue", because it should 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. WILKINSON’S 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 of concealing crimes and covering up. CRIMINAL AND ILLEGAL FALSIFICATIONS 81. Just like Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson had falsified fake “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 held that 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 racketeeringextortion-fraud schemes, Documents ## 432, 434, and 435, and adopted them by reference in this NOTICE OF APPEAL and EMERGENCY MOTIONS. 19 FRAUDULENT ATTACHMENT OF FICTITIOUS DEBT TO CAYO COSTA LAND 84. The publicly recorded and facially fraudulent attachment of a fake judgment and/or debt 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 their unlawful 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 affidavit as required by section 55.10, Fla. Stat. 87. Here that which did NOT exist and/or was NULL and VOID could NOT have possibly been enforced under Florida law. 88. If there had been any authentic judgment, any valid order, and any genuine lien, 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 which the lien is claimed, from such real property to other security by either depositing in the clerk's office a sum of money or filing in the clerk's office a bond executed as surety by a surety insurer licensed to do business in this state. Such deposit or bond shall be in an amount equal to the amount demanded in such claim of lien plus interest thereon at the legal rate for 3 years plus $500 to apply on any court costs which may be taxed in any proceeding to enforce said lien. Such deposit or bond shall be conditioned to pay any judgment, order, or decree which may be rendered for the satisfaction of the lien for which such claim of lien was recorded and costs plus $500 for court costs. Upon such deposit being made or such bond being filed, the clerk shall make and record a certificate showing the transfer of the lien from the real property to the security and mail a copy thereof by registered or certified mail to the lienor named in the claim of lien so transferred, 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 be transferred to said security. The clerk shall be entitled to a service charge of up to $15 for making and serving the certificate. If the transaction involves the transfer of multiple liens, 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.” 20 NO service OF ANY “writ of execution” UPON DR. JORG BUSSE 89. Here, Dr. Jorg Busse was never served and could not have possibly been served [with] any “writ of execution”. No evidence of any service 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 OF ANY 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/or suspend any proceedings on the illegal execution 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 void debt in the facially falsified amount of “$24.30”. Here. Dr. Busse had fully paid the $24.30 final 21 money judgment and 06/11/2009 mandate (“copies”). Here, the Defendants and Wilkinson knew that the 11th Circuit never had any jurisdiction and authority to alter and 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, Plaintiff Government corruption and racketeering victims demand 1. An Order declaring that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson did NOT “have any lien”; 2. An Order declaring 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, 14th, 1st, and 7th 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 Order sanctioning Defendant Attorney JACK N. PETERSON for recorded 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 Order declaring the final record mandate in the amount of $24.30 paid; 22 6. An Order vacating and setting aside the facially oppressive and unconstitutional “pre-filing injunction”, Doc. # 245, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, which on its face was for criminal and illegal purposes of racketeering, retaliation, intimidation, oppression, and “protection” of the organized Criminals and criminal Defendants in this Court and the 11th Circuit; 7. An Order restraining and preventing the record violations of section 1962 under the RICO civil provisions; 8. An Order declaring the lack of any recorded mandate and/or money judgment other 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 Order declaring 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 Order restraining any further racketeering 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 Order dissolving and/or reorganizing the corrupt Government enterprise under, e.g., civil RICO, and 18 U.S.C. 1964(a); 23 14. An Order removing 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, 7th, 4th, 5th, and 11th U.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 for equitable 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 “07-44-21-0100001.0000” 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 for compensatory damages; 24 25. An Order for triple punitive damages; 26. An Order for triple punitive damages under, e.g., Civil RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 1964(c); 27. An Order for expenses, 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” “12-44-20-0100000.00A0” 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” “1244-20-01-00000.00A0” 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 Order enjoining 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 # 135 West Lebanon, NH 03784-3402, U.S.A. c/o International Court of Justice Peace Palace The Hague, Netherlands 25 _____________________ [/s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott] Private Attorney General; Plaintiff Government racketeering & corruption victim 10 Benning Street # 135 West Lebanon, NH 03784-3402, U.S.A. c/o International Court of Justice Peace Palace The Hague, Netherlands 26 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 GREEN’S 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 Appraiser’s Motion for 27 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 of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, JUDICIAL RETALIATION, and EXTORTION under color of fake “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 of EXTORTION, FRAUD & FALSIFICATION of un-recorded judgment, Doc. # 386, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, by Def. Racketeer Jack N. Peterson; PERVERSION of recorded “$24.30 judgment” into fake “$5,048.60 debt” O. Lee County Tax Collector’s Office, Statement of Paid Property Taxes, Lot 15A, Cayo Costa (2 pages) P. DENIAL of “Appellee Wilkerson’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”, FALSIFICATION of “Rule 38 motion”, record evidence, Doc. # 386-5 FALSIFICATION of “Rule 38 judgment”, record evidence, Doc. # 386-5 FALSIFICATION of “Rule 38 bill of costs”, record evidence, Doc. # 386-5 FALSIFICATION of unsubstantiated “$5,000 in attorney’s 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 28 T. Fraudulent Lee 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. CC. Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge, Steven E. Ibison 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-cv00390 (5 pages) 29 HH. Section 838.022, Florida Statutes, OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT Chapter 838, 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…, Chapter 55 Judgments, Florida Statutes LL. Defendant Racketeer K. M. Wilkinson’s Answers to Plaintiff’s 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 of authority and office. QQ. RR. Steele 30 FBI Complaint against Def. Lee County Commissioner John Manning Concealment of fake writ, Doc. # 434, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, by Def. J. E. SS. FBI Complaint against Def. U.S. Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin, Including “JUL 19 2010” CASE FIXING FOR BRIBES and RACKETEERING TT. Record Evidence of Destruction of Plaintiffs’ Appeal Records, ## “10-10963, 10-10967” UU. VV. Steele WW. March 08, 2010 Letter by Def. John Ley, U.S. Circuit Clerk XX. YY. ZZ. DESTRUCTION AND ALTERATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, EVIDENCE FRAUDULENT 04/06/2010 Order by Def. Crooked Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin Supreme Court Justice David Souter Communications, including binding precedent of WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY AAA. OTHER; OTHER PUBLIC RECORDS GOVERNMENTAL FORGERIES, “O.R. 569/875”, FORENSIC EVIDENCE Facially Fraudulent Order, Doc. # 338, Case 2:2007-cv-00228, by Def. John E. 31 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 32 Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 9:28 07/29/10 *** INSTR 4371834 OR 4517 PG 1914 RECORDED 12/10/2009 FiledAM PAGES 1 Page *** DWIGKT E. BROCK, COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT REC S10.00 1 of 23 » INSTR n 2009000303382. Pages 1 Doc Type AFF. Recorded 11 • 18.2009 at 10.11 AM. Charlie Green, Lee County CterV of Circuit Court Rec. Fee $10 00 Deputy Clerk DMERC1ER #1 AFFIDAVIT 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. Wi 2480 Thompson1 Fort Myers, FL AFFIANT FURTHER 'irnty, Florida JORG BUSSE in the amount of 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) My Commission Expires: IJESUEAJ WCOMMSSIONtDD 589573 EXPIRES: 0*c«rtm», 2010 lenrtllnNotorMfcUUiMlM Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Document 425 Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 23 Filed 02/02/10 Page 1 of 1 •FH FO DC 11 Rav. 1/00 's 1 WRIT OF EXECUTION United States District Court TO THE MARSHAL OF: m^«mSfF&Jt1'^ MiuyLtuibiHiurontiwioA F 0 R T MYERS F l 0 R , 0 A • - UT. imimtmm United States District Court, Middle District of Florida YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, that of the goods and chattels, lands and tenements in your district belonging to: NAME Jorg Busse Building 2, Unit 4 1575 Curlew Avenue Naples. FL 34112-5038 you cause to be made and levied as well a certain debt of: DOLLAR AMOUNT DOLLAR AMOUNT AND Five Thousand Forty-Eight Sixty Cents , before the in the United States District Court for the Middle District of P'0"*3 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. PLACE 2115 Second Street, 6th Floor DISTRICT M j d d | e Djstrjct o f p^^g CITY Fort Myers DATE Witness the Honorable United States Judge DATE CLERK 01 StISryl L. Loesch This writ was received and executed. U.S. MARSHAL (BY) DEPUTY MARSHAL 2-/2 iS Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 3 of 23 .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 s t i d lands as public lands together with all accretions thereto. NO*. THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED B THE B A D Of COWTY Y OR COWUMIONERS OF LEE COUNTY. FLORIDA does by this Resolution claim a l l of raid lands and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of the public for public purposes. DONE AND ADOPTED this /? day of Js . ci. ».U-*-U. 1969. V • 3 All Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 4 of 23 m LEE COUNTY iswn. j - r j - r j - r -^ ^, ^ a. ^ 533-2236 V y SOUTHWEST Vacant District One FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS July 21, 2010 A. Bnan Bigclow District Two Rayjudah District Three Facsimile (239)485-2118 S fcH ^ " Z coZ'^r David M. Owen County Attorney Diana M. Parker Examiner Jorg R. Busse P.O. Box 11124 Naples, Florida 34101 -11124 Re: TELEPHONE/COMMUNICATIONS Sir: I understand from my administrative assistant, Wendy Wise, that you telephoned yesterday and spoke with her in my absence. I have asked you before to confine 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 harass our staff, I again ask you to limit your communication to writing delivered by regular U.S. Mail. I have directed staff to henceforth, if I am not available, to note the time of your call and simply hang up. Sincerely, county Hearing JackfN. Peterson Assistant 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.com A N EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE A C T I O N EMPLOYER tf County Attorney 2115 Second Street, 6th Floor Fort Hyers, FL 33901 -o- -no._ t* AMenes, All SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITINO SERVICE (Include Bi Tkkphoae fhmbets. tad Estmutcd Times Available Bar Service): KU rfo; Subject property i s located as shown on maps contained in t h ^ f s B s i t a of thejS Lee County Property Appraiser, Parcel No. 12-44-20-01-00015.^i^R(w«g.leepa^g). I heieby ceitify and return that I D have personally served. D have legal evidence of service.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) LJ Address (complett only ifdinerent than shown above; A person of suitable age and disaction then residing in the defendant's usual place of abode. Time am pm Date of Service 4-5-10 Stgnaiuie tftU.S. Marshal or Deputy Service Fee 9D Tbtal Mileage Charges (iochidjm gulcaYors) Jding Forwarding Fee Total Charges Advance Deposits Amount owed to U S . Marsh: 11,5 #50. H +67,90 REMARKS: moREDmoNs WSBEVSED 1. CLERK OF THE COURT n»M usRugs OIK mem £ Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 7 of 23 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida Page 1 of 57 APPEAL U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Internal Use Only Busse v. Lee County, Florida ct al Assigned to: Judge John E. Steele Referred to: Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell Case in other court: 08-13170B 09-12372-B 09-13517F 09-13519F 09-13522F 09-1428IF 09-14282F 09-14284F 09-14285F 09-162J1F 09-16212F 09-16213F 09-16214F 09-16335F 10-10963-1 10-10967-1 10-11884-1 Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation Plaintiff Jorg Busse Date Filed'04/10/2007 Date Terminated: 05/06/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question I CERTIFY THE FORB AND CORRECT COP SHERYLLL" UNltEQSTAtfe MIDDLEDlSTr represented by Jorg Busse P.O.Box 1126 Naples, Fl 34106-1126 239/595-7074 PROSE represented by Kelly Lina Rooth Rooth Law Group, PA Suite 322 4399 35th St N St Petersbsurg, FL 33714 727/824-6212 Fax: 727/822-8048 Email: krooth@roothlawgroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY Plaintiff Kenneth M. Roesch, Jr. TERMINATED: 09/21/2007 https://ecf.flmd.circl 1 .dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?737110522490912-L_770_0-1 7/16/2010 J Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 8 of 23 Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 9 of 23 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 Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 10 of 23 Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 11 of 23 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 434 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION JORG BUSSE Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-29SPC LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; BOARD OF LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER; STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Defendants. ORDER This matter comes before the Court on 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-FTM36SPC, 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 Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 12 of 23 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 434 F l d 07/22/10 Page 2 o 2 ie f 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 July, 2010. x 22nd day of L m J0| E. STEELE United States District Judge JIMa. Copies: Plaintiff Counsel of record 12. Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 13 of 23 Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 14 of 23 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 11 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 Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Filed 07/29/10 Page 15 of 23 Filed 01/11/08 Page 3 of 11 Document 288 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 12 U.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 to Plaintiff. 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 Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 16 of 23 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 4 of 11 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 Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Filed 07/29/10 Page 17 of 23 Filed 01/11/08 Page 5 of 11 Document 288 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 reasonably be inferred, because Defendant contradicted the recorded historic legal precedents since 1910. 26. Defendant asserted that the general public and professional realty communities rely on Defendant Appraiser's Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Filed 07/29/10 Page 18 of 23 Filed 01/11/08 Page 6 of 11 Document 288 data. Therefore, Defendant couldreasonablyexpect harm from his incompetent valuationreports.Comparable sales data controverted Defendant Appraiser's valuations. However, Defendant did not cease and desist his deceptive publications and slander of Plaintiffs perfect title. As aresult,Plaintiff received purchase offersforbelow market value. Defendant violated Federal Appraisal Standards and deprived the public of taxrevenuesfrom the accreted lands and easements in controversy. Therefore, Defendant Appraiser is liable and his malfeasance and abuse of position under State Government harmed Plaintiff, who is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and cost. 27. Federal jurisdiction arose e.g. from Appraiser's denial of equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment Defendant assertedriparianrightsforDefendant State's lots 38A and 41 A, but denied equalrightsto Plaintiff. Under color of 'OR 569/875', lot A, block 1, and 'OR 2967/1084-1090', a 'wild' so-called 'County Deed', Defendant conspired to fabricate valuationreportsand unjustly discriminated against Plaintiff and lot owners to benefit others and/or himself. Therefore, Defendant Appraiser damaged Plaintiff, who is entitled to compensation. COUNT 5: CONSPIRACY TO MATERIALLY MISREPRESENT AND DEFRAUD 28. Federal conveyances of lots 4 and 5 in Section 12 and lot 1 in Section 13 to A. 0 Roesch and subsequent grantees were described inreferenceto Cayo Costa Plats of Survey. Lot A and block 1 could not be located on the Subdivision Plats and ground. Therefore, Defendant County was not the legal owner of lot A and block 1, and Defendant Officials'representationsof lot A and block 1 were unwarranted under law and feci 29. All disputed accretions were within boundaries described by original surveys, plats, and Subdivision and lot descriptions contained in Federal, State, and/or County public records. All grants, grantors, and grantees are published in the public Grantor/Grantee Index, and Lee County is neither the published record owner of the disputed accretions nor riparian upland owner. However, quit claim deed 'OR 1651/2488' alleged the grant of accretions to Lee County. Therefore, Lee County did not hold title to the disputed accretions onto Cayo Costa and Plaintiffs lot 15A, because there was no voluntary and no involuntary alienation such as eminent domain or adverse possession. In conclusion, Lee County's alleged controversial ownership claims of private Cayo Costa accretions were not supported by the unauthorized and improperly recorded resolution draft '569/875' and 6 Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Filed 07/29/10 Page 19 of 23 Filed 01/11/08 Page 7 of 11 Document 288 therefore unconstitutional under the S* Amendment Takings Clause. Following multiple notifications by the public, Defendant Officials conspired to continue to deceive, defraud, and deprive the public under color of State law. Therefore, Defendant Government Officials deprived the public of tax revenues from the disputed private accretions and easements. 30. Article 7, s. 10, Fla. Const. Prohibits the use of public fends for private purposes, by precluding the State and County from using its taxing power or credit to aid private individuals or interests, such as legal defense of unauthorized wrongs in violation of the constitution. 31. Platted meander lines and monuments evidenced ownership of the disputed accretions by the record upland owners in the Grantor/Grantee Index. Therefore, Defendant State Officials, Lee County, Commissioners, Attorney, and J. N. Peterson conspired to misrepresent that Plaintiff did not own to the MHW mark of the Gulf of Mexico. 32. Defendant Officials conspired to misrepresent the extent of the Army Corps of Engineers' authority over Plaintiffs lagoon under the Commerce Clause and 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act, 33 U.S.C. 403. COUNT 6: OPPRESSION AND SUNDER OF TITLE 33. Defendant Peterson failed to challenge the presumptive validity of the Federal Patent and invalidity of 'OR 569/875', lot A, and block 1. In fact, Peterson himself questioned theresolution'svalidity. Therefore, Peterson, who carried the State's badge oppressed and unduly burdened Plaintiff. Defendant Peterson violated the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees, Part 3, Ch. 112, F.S. Plaintiff complained with the Florida Commission on Ethics (Exhibit 'B'). Peterson was required to disclose the material facts and the truth, but harassed Plaintiff. The alleged public records and facts gave rise to Plaintiffs bases for suing Defendant State Actors. Therefore, publicrecordsand factual allegations entitled Plaintiff to obtain invalidation of'OR 569/875', '2967/1084-90', lot A, block 1, 'Blue Sheet 980206', and compensatory damages, and injunctive relief. 34. During pretrial procedures, Peterson and Lee County did not setforthany grounds on which Defendants' claims or defenses could possibly rest There has been noreasonableindication that discovery can reveal any relevant evidence to destroy the presumptive invalidity of 'OR 569/875, lot A, and block 1. Defendant State Actorsfelledto prove validity of 'OR 569/875', lot A, or block 1. Plaintiff is entitled to relief and/or a peremptory ruling, because 7 Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Filed 07/29/10 Page 20 of 23 Filed 0 1 / 1 1 / 0 8 Document 2 8 8 P a g e 8 of 11 unauthorized and unconstitutional 'OR 569/875' was never adopted and contained no compensation mechanism. 35. All Defendants received fair notice that 'OR 569/875', lot A, and block 1 were immaterial and insufficient claims and defenses. Presentations such as e.g. in doc. # 5 shall be deterred pursuant to F.R.C.P. 11 and 12. During the 11/07/2007 Court hearing, Plaintiff asserted the factual impossibility of Defendant's claims and defenses before the Honorable Magistrate Judge. Therefore, Plaintiffs entitlement to relief is most plausible. The heft of Plaintiffs factual allegations evidenced why Plaintiff is entitled to relief under Federal law and the Constitution. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffrespectfullydemands judgment granting thefollowingrelief 1. Anorder setting aside and striking 'OR 569/875" and'2967/1084-90'from publicrecords(Counts 1-6); 2. An order invalidating/nullifying lot A, block 1, Blue Sheet 980206, and declaring all land between the meander lines of the Gulf and Charlotte Harbor privately owned Subdivision lands pursuant to PB 3/PG 25 (Counts 1-3); 3. An award of compensatory damages for deprivations, leases, and uncompensated temporary takings of private accreted property and easements for State park purposes in an amount to be set at trial (Counts 1-6); 4. An award of punitive damages and cost to be set at trial (Counts 1 -6); 5. An order declaring the extent of the Army Corps of Engineers' authority over Plaintiffs lagoon (Counts 1 -2); 6. An order declaring Plaintiff the owner of all accretions onto his riparian lot 15A pursuant to 1862 Homestead Act and 1895 Certificate # 11887 (Counts 1 -6) and declaringtitlethereto in Plaintiff (Counts 1 -3); and 7. An order enjoining all Defendant Governmental Officials from claiming ownership of Plaintiffs accretions, lot A and block 1 and operating a park in the private Cayo Costa Subdivision and on lot ISA (Counts 1-3). Respectfully submitted, IslJora&ffimfcMM, M.BA, Plaintiff; Tel: 239-595-7074; e-mail: irbuOaol.com. MailWg Mdress: P.O.B. 1126, Naples, FL 34106-1126. EXHIBIT 'A': Unconstitutional and unauthorized 'OR 569/875'. EXHIBIT 'B': Ethics Complaint against Defendant Peterson. Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 21 of 23 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 9 of 11 «• [>^7M *" W 9 ^ «S RSfObVTIOKratTAlBIrtCTO MmUC UMDf IN CMQ COST* *Ummfm WRBimSi there' appears in the Public Records of Lee County, Florida, in Plat Book ) at page 25 the Second teviaed W*t Of Cayo COftU Subdivision: and WHEREAS, there appears upon snid plat certain designated lot and Mock areas and other undesignated aroMf and WHEREAS, there appears upon said plat certain un-nnmbere and mrtoWorod aron lying East of tho Easterly tier of Mocks in said tnbdiviftion and West of tho Westerly tier of blocks in said subdivision: and "PCftgAff, tho County clfllnt s i i d land* aa puhlic Iwtdt together with e&l accretions thereto. H W THEREFORE, bE IT RESOLVED W THE BOWP Of C U T O , OUT COMMISflONCftS OF LEE COUNDT, FLORIDA does by this Resolution claim a l l of raid lands and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of the public for public purposos. DONE A D ADOPTED this / f M day of A . <^ *U~<.\^. 1969. -200- 9 Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Filed 07/29/10 Page 22 of 23 Filed 01/11/08 Page 10 of 11 Document 288 EXHIBIT 'B': Ethics Complaint against Defendant Peterson A. Defendant County Attorney Jack N. Peterson contended that more research was necessary to determine if 'OR 569/875' was valid. However in a 2000 Memo by Joan C. Henry, Peterson's Office asserted before the Law. State of Florida court that there was no dedication of Cayo Costa to the public. As a result, the Lay court ruled against Defendant State. Said court determined that Defendant County had no powers, rights-of-way, or interests In the private easements 'as a matter of established real property law. Therefore, Peterson arbitrarily contradicted his own Office in order to obtain benefits for Defendant County, State or himself and undermined ongoing judicial proceedings in State and Federal Court. B. In summary, Peterson's claims and defenses were precluded, because the Lay court's judgment had binding effect and foreclosed Peterson's frivolous contentions. Therefore, Peterson harassed and oppressed Plaintiff and undermined the judicial process with foreclosed claims. C. In February 1999, Peterson's Office wrote to Cayo Costa riparian lot owner T. Pamell that 'Defendant Lee County attorney's Office researched the history of the Second Revised Plat of the Cayo Costa Subdivision and governing case law on accretion and reliction' in response to correspondence to Defendant Attorney. Said Plat conclusively evidenced that the record owners pubfished in the Grantor/Grantee Index, including Plaintiff, own private easements, beaches, and their abutting platted designated common use areas in the undedicated Subdivisionfeesimple. Therefore, Peterson concealed the 1999 and 2000 research by his own Office and oppressed Plaintiff, because he unjustly exercised power never conferred upon him. In conclusion, Peterson abused his public position to improperly transfer property for State park purposes thereby depriving and injuring Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages, and expenses. D. Peterson contended that Plaintiff's lot 15A did not touch the water. Plainb'frs Warranty Deed conveyed lot 15A in refierence to said Plat, all calling for the Gulf of Mexico. Said Plat of Survey described Plaintiff's lot ISA as a riparian lot abutting the natural monument of the Gulf. Public policy demands that all land shall have an owner, and all owners of the accretions in controversy were recorded in Defendants' Grantor/Grantee Index. The public Index evidenced that all accretions onto the Subdivision belonged to A. C. Roesch, who subdivided and conveyed them, and all accretions onto lot 15A belonged to Plaintiff. In addition, Peterson was notified that unauthorized unconstitutional draft 'OR 569/875' had multiple errors, violated Defendant's home rule powers law, and was unenforceable. With particularity, Peterson was ordered to cease false claims. However, Peterson defied the order and continued slandering Plaintiffs paramount title. In summary, Plaintiff Is entitled to cancellation of 'OR 569/875', 'OR 2967/1084-90', and 'Agenda Item Summary 980206'. E. Plaintiff ttleholder was entitled to the statutory presumption that the 1895 Federal Patent and mesne conveyances were valid. Therefore, the burden was on Defendant challenger to prove invalidity, and Defendant Officials' averments and claims of 'OR 569/875', lot A, and block 1 were in bad faith and impeded justice. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitledtoinvalidation and nullification of 'OR 569/875', lot A, and block 1, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive and declaratory relief. 10 Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Filed 07/29/10 Page 23 of 23 Filed 01/11/08 Page 11 of 11 Document 288 Below signaturereflectsaffirmation that the attorney reviewed the Third Amended Complaint: Attorney Date: 12/21/2007 11