Letter of Demand and Intent to Sue

Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Government Corruption Victim Dr. Jorg Busse, Public Corruption Victim 07/20/2010 CERTIFIED DELIVERY John Ley, Clerk of U.S. Circuit Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Eleve nth Circuit 56 Forsyth ST, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30303

RE:

th

Public Corruption in 11 Circuit; Falsification of “ $5,048.60”; Extortion Letter of Intent to Sue U.S. Clerk  Demand for Certification and Authentication of “$24.30 Judgment”

th

Dear 11 Circuit Clerk:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

U.S. CLERK’S FALSIFICATION OF “$5,048.60 ” The Clerk of the U.S. District District Court, Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Myers Division, and Defendant Clerk Drew Heathcoat falsified a “$5,048.60 judgment ” and/or non-existent mandate . The Defendant District Clerk knew that the record “Judgment” and “Bill of Costs” issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 were in the allowed amount of $24.30, Doc. # 365, 386. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 39. U.S. CLERK’S FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT Defendant Clerk Drew Heathcoat fraudulently concealed , e.g., the a. Lack of any “ Bill of Costs ” in the falsified amount of  “$5,048.60 ” [see FRAP 39, attached]; and  b. Lack of any judgment  awarding the falsified amount of “$5,048.60 ”. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. U.S. CLERK’S FALSIFICATION OF “WRIT OF EXECUTION ”, ”, “$5,048.60 ” Here, a falsified and non-existent “$5,048.60 judgment ” could not have  possibly become any lien on property under Florida law as fraudulently and illegally pretended by, e.g., Defendant Appellee Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser’s Office, Def. Jack N. Peterson, Lee County Attorney’s Office, and Defendant Clerk. See, e.g., Doc. # 432. The U.S. District Clerk  falsified a “writ of execution ” in the amount of “$5,048.60”. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 425, 432, 386. Defendant Judges in said District and Circuit Courts concealed said extortion-scheme and covered up for crooked Defendants and Officials. COVER UP AND CONCEALMENT OF GOVERNMENT CRIMES The falsification and illegal alterations of official records and documents were crimes. With corrupt intent to obtain unlawful benefits, the Lee County Defendants had fabricated and/or  forged a “writ of execution ”, Doc. # 425, and fake “land parcels ” “12-44-20-0100000.00A0 ” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000 ”.

1

PRIMA FACIE FRAUD AND EXTORTION 9. The Defendant U.S. Circuit and District District Judges knew and concealed the prima facie criminality and nullity of said fake “land parcels ” and “writ of execution ”, Doc. # 425. DEMAND FOR AUTHENTICATION AND CERTIFICATION UNDER THE RULES 10. The undersigned Plaintiffs hereby demand the certification and authentication of said “$24.30 Judgment ” by the Circuit Clerk [who is the custodian of Court records], Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 365, (386). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 44 and Freedom of Information Act. MISRERESENTATION 11. The Circuit Clerk concealed that by Appellee Wilkinson’s own publicly recorded admissions and Exhibits, Defendant Appellee Kenneth M. Wilkinson had never  filed  any “  Rule 38 motion ” as misrepresented by the Clerk. 12. On “08/14/2008, Plaintiff “Dr. Jorg Busse” had filed “Appellant’s motion to strike appellee  property appraiser’s motion as frivolous ” as evidenced by the Docket, Case No. 2008-13170BB.

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

CC:

Defendant Crooked Officials Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Jack N. Peterson Florida Bar  Federal Bureau of Investigation Florida Department of Law Enforcement Chief Judges

2

24

3

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

Rev.: 12/09

154

FRAP 39

23

Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 236

Filed 07/02/10 Page 3 of 3

 pending motion. Further, they are not motions which request affirmative affirmative relief by the Court. They are immaterial to this case, which has been dismissed. Moreover, some of the documents contain scandalous materials. These notices should, therefore, be stricken. See Rule 12 (f), Fed. R. Civ. P. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1.

Plai Plaint ntif iffs fs’’ Emer Emerge genc ncy y Moti Motion onss (Dk (Dkt. t. 215, 215, 217, 217, 218, 218, 219, 219, 231) 231) are are DENIED for lack  of jurisdiction.

2.

The The Cle Clerk rk is dir direc ecte ted d to to ter term minat inatee the these se moti motion ons. s.

3.

The Cler Clerk k is fur furth ther er direc directe ted d to to no no long longer er acce accept pt ANY ANY fili filing ngss fro from m Plai Plainti ntiffs ffs in this case because a judgment has been entered and Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal as to the Court’s Order (Dkt. 213), and this case is CLOSED .

4.

Final Finally ly,, the the Cler Clerk k is als also o dire direct cted ed to to strik strikee Publ Publish ished ed Pub Publi licc Noti Notice cess from from the the rec recor ord d (Dkt. 220, 221, 223, 225, 226, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, 235).

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

COPIES TO: ECORD AND U NREPRESENTED PARTIES COUNSEL OF R ECORD

-3-

Page 1 of 1

Unable to Locate Docket Number Docket Number: 201010963 Send Comment

Change Client Code

View Billing History

Search

Page Page 4 of 4

Transaction Receipt 07/14/2010 22:12:10 PACER  Login:

we0083

Client Code:

Description:

List cases for   party

Search Criteria:

Party=Jorg Busse, Dr.

Cost:

0.24

Billable Pages: 3

Send Comment

Change Client Code

View Billing History

Search

22

25

27

7/19/2010

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Tam…

This is Google's cache of http://tampa.fbi.gov/ of http://tampa.fbi.gov/ . ItIt is a snapshot s napshot of the the page as i t appeared on Jul 15, 2010 01:03:36 GMT. GMT. The curren currentt page pa ge could have changed in the meantime. Learn more These These search s earch terms are highlighted: highlighted: florida fbi

Tampa Home

Text-only versio version n

Top Story

Get Tampa Alerts Contact Tampa

Contact Us

5525 West Gray Street Tampa, FL 33609 Phone: (813) 253-1000 fbi.gov E-mail: tampa.division@ic. fbi.gov

Territory/Jurisdiction About Us • Our People & Capabilities • W hat We Investigate Investigate • Our Partnerships • Tampa History

Tampa Leadership

Press Room Wanted by the FBI Tampa

Mortgage Fraud

In Your Comm Community unity

Charges Filed in ‘Operation Stolen Dreams’ 

FBI Jobs Main FBI Website

Twenty-one additional additional people were c harged in the Middle District of Florida of Florida in a massive collective effort to confront mortgage fraud. Details More News

Search FBI Website

Take advantage of the many services we offer to the public and to law enforcement.

• • • • • • • •

Criminal Background Checks Requests for FBI for FBI Records FBI Training Academy Name Checks Victim Assistance Laboratory Services Fingerprint Card Orders More Services

Special Agent in Charge Steven E. Ibison

Assistant Spe cial Agents Agents in Charge • Christopher W. Davis (Orlando) • Kevin Kevin Ray Eaton • David F. Reign Administrative Officer: John Gustafson

Get advice and tips for  protecting your family, your community, and your workplace.

• • • • • • • •

New E-Scams and Warnings Reporting Internet Crime Sex Offender Registry Crime Statistics Submitting Case Tips Common Fraud Schemes A Parent's Guide to Internet Safety More Tips and Suggestions

Help us find wanted fugitives and missing persons. Rewards are being offered in some cases.

• • • • • • • •

Wanted by the FBI - Tampa Most Wanted Terrorists Seeking Terrorism Info Top Ten Fugitives Featured Fugitives Crime Alerts Kidnappings, Kidnapp ings, Mis sing Persons Unknown Bank Robbers

Accessibility | eRulemaking | Freedom of Information Act | Legal Notices | Legal Policies Policies and Disclaimers | Links Privacy Policy | USA.gov | White House tice.. FBI.gov BI.gov is an official site of the U.S. Federal Government, U.S. Department of Jus tice

…googleusercontent.com/search?q=ca…

1/1

Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Government Corruption Victim Dr. Jorg Busse, Public Corruption Victim 07/20/2010 CERTIFIED DELIVERY Defendant Drew Heathcoat Defendant Supervising Clerk  Defendant Crooked Charlene Edwards Honeywell Corrupted U.S. District Court, U.S. Courthouse 2110 First Street Fort Myers, FL 33901 F: 239-461-2179

RE:

Extortion, Public Corruption, and Anarchy in U.S. District Court, M.D. of Florida Falsification and Destruction of Official Records Criminal Investigation of Public Corruption in District Court and Clerk’s Office Falsification of $5,048.60  judgment and writ of execution Concealment and Cover-Up Forgery of “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”

Dear Sirs: 1. On, e.g., 07/16/2010 and 07/20/2010, Defendant Drew Heathcoat and the U.S. U.S. District Clerk  obstructed justice and concealed the non-existence of  a. Any recorded  judgment  in the falsified amount of  $5,048.60; b. Any genuine writ of execution ; c. Any electronic filing privileges for Plaintiffs Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott. 2. In particular, Defendant Drew Heathcoat unlawfully refused refused the perform perform ministerial ministerial acts such as, e.g., determining: a. “Did the U.S. District Clerk issue any authentic writ of execution in Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228; Yes or No?” b. Did the U.S. District Clerk falsify any writ of execution in Case No. 2:2007-cv00228; Yes or No?” c. “And if so, what was the amount?” d. “Did the Clerk alter or illegally modify the judgment in the amount of $24.30 issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 in Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 365; Yes or No?” e. “Has there been any recorded judgment in the amount of  $5,048.60 in Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228; Yes or No?” f. “Is the U.S. District Clerk obstructing the filing of Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal from order, Doc. # 213, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791; Yes or No?” g. “Why is the U.S. District Clerk obstructing the filing of Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal from order, Doc. # 236, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791?”

h. “Is the District Court obstructing a written statement by the Clerk, who is the Custodian of Court records, that after diligent search no recorded judgment in the amount of $5,048.60 could be found; Yes or No?” i. “Does the District Clerk have any record of any “electronic filing privileges” in the name of Dr. Jorg Busse and/or Jennifer Franklin Prescott; Yes or No?”

3. The Plaintiffs were entitled to be free of said public corruption and criminal & unlawful acts by Defendant Clerk Drew Heathcoat and the U.S. District Clerk. 4. Given the publicly recorded extortion , coercion , and falsification and destruction of  official records and documents by the U.S. District Clerk in Plaintiffs’ Cases such as, e.g., ## 2:2007-cv-00228; 2:2009-cv-00791; 2:2010-cv-00089, the Plaintiffs seek  criminal investigation and stay of any further proceedings in the prima facie corrupt U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida. 5. Because of the record coercion , threats of, e.g., arrest  and civil contempt , retaliatory   punishment and sanctions , and extortion of money in the falsified amount of “5,048.60”, the Plaintiffs will no longer respond to any further unlawful communications and crimes of  this Court. 6. The Plaintiffs have left this jurisdiction and are prosecuting in a so far undisclosed venue. Govern yourself accordingly! /s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott c/o International Court of Justice Peace Palace The Hague, Netherlands /s/Jorg Busse, M.D., M.M., M.B.A. c/o International Court of Justice Peace Palace The Hague, Netherlands

2

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

DEFENDANT CHARLENE E. HONEYWELL RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS 1. The Plaintiff public corruption victims victims are suing Defendant corrupt U.S. District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell (“Honeywell”), a female Afro-American Judge, in her private individual capacity and official capacity. Defendant Honeywell’s unlawful and criminal acts on record were outside any immunity and official capacity. FELONIES OUTSIDE ANY “official ” CAPACITY 2. Defendant Corrupt Honeywell had knowledge of the actual commission of  felonies and concealed them. Here even though Def. Honeywell had knowledge of, e.g., judicial CoDefendant Chappell’s, Steele’s, Pizzo’s, and Lazzara’s obstruction of justice and fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels ”, a falsified “writ of execution ”, ”, Corrupt Honeywell did not make the same known to some falsified “$5,048.60 judgment ”,  judge or person in authority, but covered up for said Offenders in exchange for bribes , 18 U.S.C. §§ 3 , 4. ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT 3. Defendant Crook Honeywell knew that Defendant principal Offenders Steele, Chappell, Pizzo, and Lazzara had committed record offenses and assisted said Offenders, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3 , 4. See, e.g., Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 50, assistance with facially fraudulent “writ of execution ”; see Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. ## 213, 236, assistance with record forgeries. DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS UNDER COLOR OF FAKE “writ ” AND “resolution” 4. Defendant Government Whore deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs, e.g., under color of a fake “writ of execution ” and “resolution 569/875 ”, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242. RECORD RETALIATION UNDER COLOR OF WRIT OF EXECUTION & SANCTIONS  5. With the intent to retaliate, Corrupt Honeywell knowingly took actions harmful to the Plaintiff public corruption victims, which included interference with Plaintiffs’ livelihood and record land ownership, because the Plaintiff landowners had provided truthful information relating to the commission of Federal offenses to law enforcement, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1513.

6. Knowingly, Honeywell extorted Plaintiffs’ property and/or threatened to do so, with corrupt intent to retaliate against the Plaintiffs because the Plaintiffs had blown the whistle on public corruption; in particular, because the Plaintiffs had produced records and testimony conclusively evidencing Government corruption and fraud, and information about the commission of Federal offenses by Government Officials. Here, Plaintiff Government crime and corruption victims had the right to be reasonably protected from the Government Offenders and Judges of record, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. RECORD POLICY, CUSTOM, AND CULTURE OF CORRUPTION 7. Customarily, and over and over again, Honeywell coerced the Plaintiffs to refrain from  prosecuting and producing crime evidence. Idiotic lies and threats of “ sanctions” have played a central role in Honeywell’s record crimes and concealment . Just like Jews and Government opponents in Nazi Germany, the Plaintiff Government crime victims are running from the anarchy , extortion , and coercion in Honeywell’s court of  perversions where un-recorded and non-existent  judgments can be perverted into a “lien on property ”. BLACKMAIL, EXTORTION, UNLAWFUL COMMUNICATIONS & THREATS 8. In retaliation and exchange for  bribes , Defendant Crooked Judge Honeywell made threatening demands without any  justification under color of law, authority, and falsified official records. In particular, Defendant Corrupt Judge threatened, e.g., “monetary  sanctions ”, “civil contempt ”, ”, and/or  arrest , merely because the Plaintiff public corruption victims had exposed and blown the whistle on, e.g., Honeywell’s crimes, extortion, coercion , and fraud on the Court. EXACTION OF MONEY BY THREAT OF, E.G., ARREST AND CIVIL CONTEMPT 9. Honeywell exacted , threatened to exact, and/or  conspired with other Officials and Defendants to exact money from Plaintiffs by threat of “monetary sanctions ”, “civil  contempt ”, ”, and/or  arrest  under color of, e.g., office and falsified official records. In   particular, Def. Honeywell conspired to extort $5,048.60” in the absence of any recorded authentic judgment and justification. Honeywell caused other Government Officials to falsify, alter, and destroy official records for  criminal and illegal purposes of  concealing Honeywell’s extortion , coercion , obstruction of justice and other  crimes of record. Honeywell made unlawful communications and threatened Plaintiff public corruption whistleblowers. See, e.g., Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 50, p. 3: “Shortly thereafter, the writ  was issued (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 425).” Defendant Government Whore Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that no “writ ” had ever been issued  and/or could have  possibly been issued , because, e.g., no recorded “$5,048.60 judgment ” had ever  existed . For criminal & illegal purposes of, e.g., extorting and obstructing justice , said Defendant falsely and idiotically pretended lack  of  “authority” over  record extortion under color of a falsified official record by U.S. Defendants, Case No. 2:2010-00089, Doc. # 50, 07/14/10, p. 3: “Because Case No. 2:07-CV-228 was assigned to Judge John Steele, this Court does not have the authority to grant relief from the writ of execution .” 10. Just like a bungling Government idiot , Def. Honeywell contradicted herself in the next  paragraph, in which she cited “Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)”, Doc. # 50, pp. 3-4: “A party may move for relief  from a final judgment or order . Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).” “As such, the matter is closed , except for the issue of  sanctions  sanctions .” “Plaintiffs have given the Court more than enough grounds to impose sanctions for  their misconduct .” .”

2

MISCONDUCT AND EXTENSION OF RECORD CRIMES AND FALSIFIED “WRIT” 11. Def. Honeywell recklessly extended the record Government crimes and falsified “writ ”, ”, Doc. # 425: “To the extent that Plaintiffs request injunctive relief , the Motions will be denied .” .” See Doc. # 50, p. 4. 12. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed that  sanctions were not any “issue” but Honeywell’s record crimes and unlawful acts such as, e.g., extortion , concealment , and fraud were. In said organized cover-up , Defendant Honeywell concealed that there had never been any “$5,048.60 judgment ” of record and that no “ judgment ” of record had ever  even referenced any “ frivolous appeal ”. ”. 13. Honeywell promoted the record culture and policy of  corruption , anarchy , lawlessness and perversion of law and facts. With corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits, Honeywell “incomprehensibly” and “disjointedly” copied and pasted together illegal “orders” and  judicial trash without ever addressing  the complained about legal issues and claims for relief. RECKLESS DEPRIVATIONS AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & COURT ACCESS 14. For  criminal and illegal purposes of  obstructing justice, extorting , coercing , and concealing , Defendant Criminal Honeywell obstructed , and caused other Officials and Defendants to obstruct, the filing of, e.g., Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal from “order”, Doc. # 213, Notice of Appeal from “order”, Doc. # 236, Case No. 2-2009-cv-00791: “The Clerk is directed to terminate these motions. 3. The Clerk is further directed to no longer accept ANY filings from Plaintiffs in this case because a judgment has been entered and Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal as to the Court’s Order (Dkt. 213), and this case is CLOSED . 4. Finally, the Clerk is also directed to strike Published Public Notices from the record (Dkt. 220, 221, 223, 225, 226, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, 235).” ILLEGAL DESTRUCTION AND MUTILATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS 15. With corrupt intent to extort, blackmail, coerce, defraud, deprive, and obtain illegal  benefits, Defendant Corrupt Honeywell destroyed , mutilated, caused others to destroy and mutilate, and conspired with, e.g., other Officials to destroy and mutilate official records, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. # 236, 07/02/2010, p. 3: “Plaintiffs have also filed several documents entitled “Published Public Notice” (Dkt. 220, 221, 223, 225, 226, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, and 235). These documents do not relate to any pending motion. Further, they are not motions which request affirmative relief by the Court. They are immaterial to this case, which has been dismissed. Moreover, some of the documents contain scandalous materials. These notices should, therefore, be stricken.” See Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. # 236, pp. 2-3. MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE, CONCEALMENT, AND COVER UP 16. In exchange for  bribes , Defendant Government Whore Honeywell obstructed, delayed, and  prevented the communication of judicial and Government corruption information relating to the commission of  felonies by, e.g., U.S. Agents J. E. Steele, S. Polster Chappell, M. A. Pizzo, R. A. Lazzara, and Def. record Forger of “land parcels ” K. M. Wilkinson, and Crooked Attorney Jack N. Peterson, § 838.022 (1)(c), Fla. Stat. DELIBERATE DERPRIVATIONS AND PERVERSIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS 17. U.S. Defendant Honeywell recklessly perverted express Florida and Federal Constitutional guarantees of, e.g., the rights to due process , equal protection of the law, to own property, exclude Governments from private property, redress Government grievances, prosecute by

3

 jury trial, be free of Government corruption, extortion, coercion, oppression, falsification of  records, unlawful seizure of private property under fraudulent pretenses such as, e.g.: a. Idiotically and brazenly, Def. Whore Honeywell manufactured and conspired with other  Government Officials to pervert express Constitutional guarantees and concoct that  property rights are not fundamental rights;  b. Def. Honeywell concocted and conspired to concoct that Plaintiffs could not assert their   perfected “ state claims” against U.S. Agents in U.S. Courts; c. Def. Honeywell fabricated and conspired to fabricate that Defendant Forger of “land   parcels” Wilkinson had filed a non-existent “  Rule 38 motion”. Here, Defendant Honeywell falsified and caused others to falsify dockets, docket entries, and official records. See § 838.022 (1)(a), Fla. Stat.; d. Def. Predator Honeywell concealed, covered up, and/or altered official official records and documents, § 838.022 (1)(b), Fla. Stat.; e. With corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits for Lee County Officials and to harm the Plaintiff record landowners & corruption victims, Def. Honeywell maliciously fabricated and conspired to fabricate a “regulation ” by nameless, un-named, and non-existent “legislators”. See § 838.022 (1), Fla. Stat. OBSTRUCTION OF COURT ACCESS & FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL, DOC. 213 18. On or around 07/16/2010 , Defendant Whore Honeywell prevented and conspired with other  Officials such as, e.g., Defendant Clerks Drew Heathcoat and Diane Nipper the filing of  Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal from Order, Doc. # 213 …, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, and the communication of information relating to the commission of felonies in the U.S. District Court, Fort Myers, Florida. 19. Recklessly, Honeywell’s illegal and felonious acts deprived the Plaintiffs of their rights as stated in Doc. # 214, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791. “ RULE 38/WRIT OF EXECUTION ”-FRAUD-SCHEME, ”-FRAUD-SCHEME, CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT 20. Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39, costs may be taxed against the appellant, if a judgment is affirmed. Defendant Whore Honeywell knew and concealed that the “costs allowed ” and/or  taxed were “$24.30 ”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 365, p. 15; 386-3, p. 15. Def. Honeywell concealed that no costs were ever allowed  under purported “ Rule 38 ”. “FRIVOLOUS APPEAL”-FRAUD & EXTORTION-SCHEME 21. “FRAP 38, Frivolous Appeal - Damages and Costs” provides that “if a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award  just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.” 22. Defendant Government Whore Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 38-1, Time for Filing Motions, Motions for damages and costs pursuant to FRAP 38 must be filed no later than the filing of appellee’s brief. Here, Defendant Wilkinson had tendered and/or filed his prima facie fraudulent brief on or around 08/08/2008 . See Appellate Case No. 2008-13170-BB, certified Docket sheet. Admittedly, Defendant Wilkinson never   filed any “ Rule 38 motion” before 08/08/2008. 23. Admittedly, Defendant Wilkinson had never  filed   filed any Rule 38 motion. Rule 38 only provided  filed  any such motion and for damages and costs. Here, Defendant Wilkinson had never  filed    perpetrated fraud on the Court. See certified Docket. Defendant Government Whore Honeywell concealed said “ Rule 38 motion”-fraud-scheme and conspiracy to extort. CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL ILLEGALITY & CRIMINALITY OF FAKE “WRIT ”

4

24. On or around 07/14/10 , Defendant corrupt U.S. Judge Honeywell conspired with, e.g., U.S. Defendants Chappell and Steele to fraudulently conceal the prima facie nullity and illegality of a facially forged “writ of execution ” and “  July judgment ”, Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 48, p. 1: “On February 1, 2010, Magistrate Judge Chappell issued an order granting Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson's Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 424). Shortly thereafter, the writ was issued (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 425).” 25. Defendant crooked Honeywell fraudulently concealed c oncealed and conspired to conceal that Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any “ Rule 38 motion”, Fed.R.App.P. 26. Defendant corrupt U.S. Judge Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal  judgment , Case No. that Defendant Co-conspirator Chappell had fabricated a mandate and/or  judgment  2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 424: “On July 28, 2009, the Eleventh Circuit issued a Judgment awarding Wilkinson $5,000.00 in attorney’s fees and double costs in the amount of $48.60, as sanctions for Busse’s pursuit of a frivolous appeal.” 27. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that admittedly Defendant Wilkinson had never  alleged  a “  frivolous appeal  ” and that no mandate or  “ judgment  awarding Wilkinson $5,000.00 in attorneys fees…” had ever  existed , Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. 28. In the certified record absence of any “  Rule 38 motion” by Def. Wilkinson, a fraudulent “ judgment ” in the amount of “$24.30” “issued as mandate on June 11 2009 ”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. 29. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that the mandated “amount of $24.30 ” had been paid and was not “outstanding ”: ”: “The Judgment  to date remains outstanding .” 30. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently fraudulen tly concealed and conspired with other U.S. Agents to conceal that a. No such mandated “ judgment ” existed, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228;   b. No mandated  judgment   “judgment ” was ever “recorded in the Public Records of Lee County ”; c. The fraudulently alleged “certification” was facially forged; d. “Instrument No. 2009000309384” could not have  possibly become any “lien” on any  property pursuant to Ch. 55, 56; and 55.10 Florida Statutes; and e. No “writ of execution ” legally existed . 31. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired with U.S. Defendants Chappell, Steele, and other U.S. Agents to conceal that nothing in that or any other Case could have  possibly “ served as a lien against ” any property under Florida and Federal law: “A certified copy of the Judgment was recorded in the Public Records of Lee County, Florida at Instrument No. 2009000309384 and serves as a lien against the property .” 32. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that  filed any “ Rule 38 motion”; a. Defendant Wilkinson had never  filed   b. Kenneth M. Wilkinson had never been awarded  any mandated  “ judgment ”; ”; c. Def. Wilkinson was not “entitled to tax ….”; d. The prima facie fraudulent “Writ ” was due to be denied as unlawful and unauthorized.

5

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF JURISDICTION & FRAUD ON THIS COURT 33. On or around 06/23/10 , Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed the jurisdiction of this Court over the unlawful acts of the Defendant U.S. Agents and recklessly deprived the Plaintiffs of any chance of justice and adjudication of their perfected claims, Doc. # 213: “B. Supplemental Jurisdiction The decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state claims rests within the discretion of the district court.”  Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (11th Cir. 2004). Once a district court dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). This Court, therefore, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state c laims.” 34. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that this Court had jurisdiction of  any and all claims involving the Defendant U.S. Government Officials and including “state claims”. Defendant Honeywell had no “discretion ” but was absolutely obligated to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ claims, because United States Agents had perpetrated unlawful and criminal acts of record. 35. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Co-Defendant U.S. Judges Steele and Chappell themselves had removed Plaintiffs’ State action, 2006-CA-003185 , BUSSE v. STATE OF FLORIDA, to Federal Court. See 2:2008-cv-00899. 36. “  Declining jurisdiction ” over unlawful and criminal U.S. Governmental acts proved Defendant Honeywell’s fraud on the Courts and required her disqualification. RECKLESS OBSTRUCTION OF COURT ACCESS DISPARATE DENIAL OF COURT ACCESS RIGHTS 37. Recklessly, Defendant Honeywell again obstructed Plaintiffs’ court access on 06/23/10 , Doc. # 213, p. 21: “With its discretionary authority, the Court declines to exercise supplemental  jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state claims.” OBSTRUCTION OF COURT ACCESS UNDER FALSE PRETENSES OF “misconduct ” 38. On 07/07/10 , Defendant Honeywell again fabricated “misconduct” and/or “loss” of  “electronic filing privileges ” in response to Plaintiffs’ “specific” demand for “equal court access and privileges for filing purposes.” See Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 38, p. 1; see Def. Honeywell’s previous fabrications, Case No. 2:09-CV-791, Doc. ## 133, 151. RECORD CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE & ADJUDICATION 39. Defendant Honeywell conspired with other Defendant U.S. Judges and Officials not to justly and   speedily adjudicate Plaintiffs’ conclusively proven “state claims” against Federal Defendants. DENIAL & FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS 40. On or around 06/23/2010 , Defendant Honeywell recklessly and disparately denied the Plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws under fraudulent pretenses, Doc. # 213, p. 19: “In this case, Plaintiffs claim that they were denied equal protection of the laws by Defendants in relation to Lot 15A. As a general matter, Florida counties may exercise eminent domain over property not owned by the state or federal government. Fla. Stat. § 127.01(1)(a); id . “Since a state landowner would not be subject to eminent domain power but [Plaintiffs], as . . . [alleged] private landowner[s], would be,” Plaintiffs cannot be similarly situated to a state landowner.  Busse, 317 Fed. Appx. at 973. Plaintiffs, “therefore cannot rely on [their] disparate eminent domain treatment

6

vis-a-vis state landowners as the basis for an equal protection claim.”  Id . Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief  can be granted and dismisses their Equal Protection claim.” 41. In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, Defendant Honeywell fixed and fraudulently concealed Plaintiffs’ perfected “equal protection claim ” and the record absence of any “eminent  domain” “exercise”. On 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed that none of the Government Defendants ever had any “eminent domain power ” and perpetrated fraud on the Court. CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL U.S. JURISDICTION & OBSTRUCT COURT ACCESS 42. Defendant Honeywell Ho neywell conspired with other Federal Defendants De fendants to conceal Federal  jurisdiction and obstruct Plaintiffs’ meaningful court access. 43. In particular, Defendant Defend ant Honeywell conspired c onspired to conceal conc eal that of course, the Plaintiffs st th th th th rightfully prosecuted 1 , 14 , 4 , 7 and 5 Amendment violations by Federal Defendants in Federal Court. 44. On or around 06/23/10 , Defendant U.S. Judge Honeywell fabricated “necessary state  procedures ”, Doc. # 213, p. 18: “They have not exhausted the necessary state procedures to address their dispute  prior to filing in federal court. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their  Seventh Amendment  claim.” 45. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that Plaintiffs’ prosecution of  Federal Defendants for  Seventh Amendment  Violations did of course not require “necessary   state procedures”. Brazenly and idiotically, Defendant Honeywell concocted “necessary   state procedures” on the record. Said reckless fabrications were outside Honeywell’s scope of immunity and official capacity. DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS OF COURT ACCESS UNDER FALSE PRETENSES 46. Without any meritorious “defense” or “claim”, and under facially idiotic pretenses of  “ frivolity” and “vexatiousness ”, Defendant Honeywell deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of  court access. CONCEALMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY AND CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL THAT PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE FUNDAMENTAL 47. Defendant Honeywell conspired to fraudulently conceal that property rights are most fundamental rights. On or around 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell conspired to brazenly and irrationally concoct, Doc. # 213, p. 20: “Property rights would not be fundamental rights since they are based on state law.”  Id. Here, Plaintiffs claim that they have been denied their alleged property rights in Lot 15A. These property rights are defined by state law. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Substantive Due Process Claim.” 48. No halfway intelligent  and non-corrupt  judge in Defendant Honeywell’s shoes could have  possibly denied that property rights and the right to own property are most fundamental rights. Honeywell’s above assertion was recklessly false and for unlawful and criminal   purposes of extorting property and fees and illegally bypassing due process and equal  protection of the law. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF PLAINTIFFS’ PLAINTIFFS’ PREVIOUS “STATE ACTION”

7

49. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed Plaintiffs’ State action, Case No. 2006-CA003185 (Lee County Circuit Court), BUSSE v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Doc. # 213, p. 15: “Although they have been previously told by the Eleventh Circuit that they must  proceed in state court prior to bringing suit in federal court for several of their claims, Plaintiffs refuse to do so and continue to re-file their complaints with additional Defendants and claims all surrounding the same property dispute.” 50. Defendant Honeywell conspired with other Officials such as, e.g., Defendants Steele and Polster Chappell to conceal Plaintiffs’ 2006 State action of record, 2006-CA-003185 . Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Defendants Steele and Chappell had removed Plaintiffs’ record 2006 State action to Federal Court. See 2:2008-cv-00899 . 51. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed Plaintiffs’ fundamental entitlement to sue Defendant U.S. Agents in Federal Fed eral Court for any and all claims. 06/23/2010 06/23/2010 SLANDER OF RECORD REAL PROPERTY TITLE, DOC. # 213 52. On or around 06/23/2010 , Defendant Honeywell unintelligently slandered Plaintiffs’ record marketable title to to riparian Lot 15A, “Cayo Costa”, Doc. # 213, 2:2009-cv-00791: “In a resolution adopted in December 1969 by the Board of Commissioners of Lee County, Florida, Lot 15A, among other property, was claimed as public land (“Resolution 569/875") (Dkt 5, Ex. 3, p. 9). See Prescott, et al., v. State of Florida, et  al., 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2009); Busse, et al. v. Lee County, th  Florida, et al. , 317 Fed. Appx. 968, 970 (11 Cir. Mar 5, 2009).” 07/14/2010 07/14/2010 FABRICATION OF “WRIT OF EXECUTION ” 53. On or around 07/14/2010 , Defendant Honeywell irrationally fabricated a “writ of  execution ”, Doc. # 48, p. 1, 2:2010-cv-00089: “In the motion, Plaintiffs appear to seek a release of the writ of execution and attachment of a lien to property issued in  Busse v. Lee County, Florida, et al., Case   No. 2:07-CV-228-FtM-29SPC. That case was before Judge John Steele and Magistrate Judge Sheri Chappell.” 54. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed the record lack of any “writ of execution ” mandated “ July 2009 judgment ”, ”, and of any ‘ Rule   Rule 38 motion” by Def. “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228; see Case Docket as certified on 07/16/2010 by Def. Clerk D. Nipper. 55. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the record 03/05/2009 “ judgment   judgment ” and paid “amount of $24.30 ” “issued as mandate on 06/11/2009 ”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, had ruled out any possibility of a “writ of execution ”. 56. Because of her irrational contradictions on record, Defendant Honeywell’s “orders” were facially arbitrary, capricious, incomprehensible, and idiotic: 57. In particular, no rational , competent , and honest  judge in Defendant Honeywell’s shoes could have possibly reconciled a fake “writ of execution ” with a fake “claim”. 58. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that in the hypothetical event of any involuntary title transfer to Government, no “writ of execution ” could have possibly existed. 59. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that in the hypothetical event of a “writ of  execution ”, there could not have possibly been any involuntary title transfer  to Lee County, Florida. For bribes, Def. Whore Honeywell conspired to extort Plaintiffs’ property under  fraudulent pretenses of a non-existent “ Rule 38 motion”, fake “ judgment ”, ”, and fake “writ ”. ”.

8

TRESPASS ONTO PRIMA FACIE PRIVATE “CAYO COSTA” SUBDIVISION 60. Defendant Honeywell’s unlawful and criminal acts of o f record, reckless orders, o rders, Case ## 2:2009-cv-00791; and 2:2010-cv-00089, slander of title, fraudulent pretenses and/or  fabrications of a non-existent mandated  “ judgment ”, ”, “writ of execution ”, “lien” proximately caused unlawful and criminal trespass onto Plaintiffs’ private street and up lands on the Gulf  of Mexico in the private undedicated residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision. 61. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that the public had no Subdivision access , because as a matter of law, the public had no right to use any of the prima facie  private street and alley easements as legally conveyed in reference to the 1912 Plat of Survey in PB 3 PG 25. ILLEGAL FIRES AND ARSON 62. Defendant Honeywell’s reckless orders, Case ## 2:2009-cv-00791, and 2:2010-cv-00089, slander of title, fraudulent pretenses and/or fabrications of a non-existent mandated  “ judgment ”, ”, “writ of execution ”, “lien” have been inducing the public to start unlawful fires and perpetrate arson on private “Cayo Costa” Subdivision property, PB 3 PG 25 (1912). CONSPIRACY TO COVER UP FOR GOVERNMENT CROOKS 63. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal the record crimes and illegal acts of, e.g., U.S. Defendants John E. Steele, Sheri Polster Chappell, Richard A. Lazzara, Mark Allan Pizzo, and to cover up for said Government Crooks. RECORD THREATS AND FABRICATIONS OF “VIOLATION OF ORDER” 64. On or around 07/14/20 , Defendant Honeywell again threatened, intimidated, and coerced the Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecuting Defendant Honeywell, 2:10-cv-00089, Doc. # 49, p. 2: “…Plaintiff Busse has directly violated an order  of this Court.” 65. Defendant Government Whore Honeywell has been a named party Defendant, because she, e.g., accepted Defendants’ bribes, fixed Plaintiff’s Cases under false pretenses of a “regulation ”, fabricated a “writ of execution ”, perverted the Florida and Federal Constitutional guarantees of the most fundamental rights to own property and exclude Governments, redress Government grievances, be free of Government corruption, oppression, unlawful seizure of property, et al . The Plaintiff corruption victims sued Def. Honeywell in her  individual private capacity outside any immunity , because Def. Honeywell maliciously extended, e.g., record Government extortion, corruption, and crimes and unlawful acts. See, e.g., Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. # 213, 236; Case No. 2:2010cv-00089, Doc. ## 48, 49, 50. 66. Under color of office, Defendant Honeywell falsified and/or caused other persons to falsify official record and documents. See § 838.022, Fla. Stat. RECORD EXTORTION OF FEES AND PROPERTY 67. For unlawful and criminal purposes of extorting fees and an d Plaintiffs’ record property, Defendant Honeywell fabricated a “writ of execution ”. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF RECORD “06/11/2009 “06/11/2009 MANDATE” 68. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that a facially fraudulent 03/05/2009 “judgment” “issued as mandate on June 11, 2009” and was received by the U.S. District Court on 06/15/2009. See Doc. # 365; Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF CLOSURE OF CASE 08-17130-BB 08-17130-BB ON 06/11/2009 06/11/2009 69. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had closed Case No. 2008-13170-BB on 06/11/2009.

9

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF “$24.30” MANDATE 70. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had “allowed the amount of $24.30” “issued as mandate on June 11, 2009” 71. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the “amount of $24.30” was not outstanding. 72. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that no “writ of execution ” could have  possibly existed on the record. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF NON-EXISTENCE OF “ RULE 38 MOTION ” 73. Defendant Honeywell knew kne w and concealed co ncealed that Defendant Defend ant crooked Official Kenneth M. Wilkinson had never filed any Rule 38 motion. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF RECORD COERCION 74. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson expressly coerced the Plaintiff corruption victims to refrain from prosecution on the record. See Wilkinson’s “Rule 27-4 motion”. COERCION 75. On the record, Defendant Honeywell coerced the Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecution under  color of authority and office . 76. Without any authority or   justification, Defendant Honeywell threatened, intimidated, harassed, and “punished” the Plaintiffs on the record, including the obstruction of court access. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF NON-EXISTENT “ LAND PARCELS ” 77. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Defendant Forger K. M. Wilkinson had unlawfully and criminally forged “land parcels ” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0 ” and “07-44-2101-00001.0000 ”. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that said forged “ parcels” did not appear on the 1912 “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat of Survey in Lee County Plat Book 3 Page 25. 78. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that said non-existent and forged “land parcels ” had never been legally described ,  platted , and/or  conveyed  in reference to said Plat of  Survey, PB 3 PG 25 (1912) and had never existed . BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION 79. In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, Defendant Honeywell concealed said evident record forgeries and covered up for Defendant K. M. Wilkinson. 80. Defendant Honeywell accepted Defendants’ bribes and enforced the culture and policy of  corruption in her office even though Honeywell knew that the prima facie fake “writ of  ”, and “land parcels ” had never existed and could not have execution ”, “lien”, “ judgment ”,  possibly existed. DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS & FRAUD ON THE COURT 81. With wanton disregard for Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights to, e.g. a. Be free of Government Government corruption, extortion, coercion, and threats;  b. Be free of unlawful seizure; c. Redress Government grievances without without coercion, extortion, and threats; threats; d. Have meaningful and free court access; e. Have due process and equal protection of the law; f. Own property; g. Exclude Defendant Governments from Plaintiffs’ record property. Defendant Honeywell perpetrated fraud on the Court and deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of their  express fundamental rights under the Federal and Florida Constitutions.

10

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

11

12

13

14

15

16

18

19

20

21

26

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE CORRUPT ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ____________________________   No. 10-10963-I  ____________________________  D.C. Docket No. 2:07-00228-CV-FtM-JES-SPC

DR. JORG BUSSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, KENNETH M. ROESCH, J.R., et al ., ., Plaintiffs, versus LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, BOARD OF LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, KIENNETH M. WILKINSON, et al., Defendants-Appellees.  ___________________________________  Not Docketed in Violation of Law Nazi-style Mock U.S. Proceedings Without any Due any  Due Process  ___________________________________  APPELLANT(S)’ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ORDER” NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM VEXATIOUS NAZI STYLE 04/06/10 “ORDER” (April 14, 2009)

PETITION FOR AND JURISDICTION ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI 1. Hereby, Plaintiff(s)-Appellant(s) petition petition for a Writ of Certiorari and supervisory supervisory review of the fraud on the Court by U.S. Judges since 2007 on the record(s). r ecord(s). 2. “A petition petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court. See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e); 2101(e) ; Rule 11, Certiorari to a United States Court of Appeals before Judgment. NAZI STYLE JUDICIAL CRIMES ON THE RECORD 3. Here, the Nazi-style crimes by U.S. District and Circuit Judges and their  fraudulent concealment of Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were shown and conclusively proven to be “ of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination” in the U.S. Supreme Court. In particular, the (extra)judicial crimes in these Case(s) & Appeal(s) destabilized real property ownership in America and any confidence in the American judicial system, where on the record, Federal Judges corruptly fabricated that Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were   purportedly “law” and/or “ authorized ” Government to criminally seize and confiscate private property without any due process and equal protection of the law. Here just like Nazi Officials, U.S. Judges extended record facial forgeries “O.R. 569/875” and facially forged “land” “parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, which never  legally existed , Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912). COMPELLING REASONS SUCH AS MASSIVE JUDICIAL CORRUPTION th 4. Here, said U.S. Court of Appeals, 11 Circuit, entered facially idiotic decisions in conflict with its own decisions, other U.S. Appellate Court, and Supreme Court decisions on the same important matters. Here, judicially fabricated condemnation, eminent domain, and/or  involuntary alienation by forged “resolution”, “legislative act ”, ”, “legislative” “claim” and/or Governmental forgeries such as, e.g., “O.R. 569/875” were criminal acts prohibited by law and violative of Constitutional checks and balances. Here, U.S. Judges criminally retaliated and conspired to criminally “ deter ”, ”, “ sanction”, and “ punish”   pro se Plaintiff(s) with an illegal “ writ of execution” and criminal seizure of Plaintiff(s) riparian Gulf-front property, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A”, Accreted Gulffront Lot 15A, as legally described in reference to the 1912 “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat of Survey in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25. CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION OF MEANINGFUL “ JUDICIAL REVIEW ” 5. Just like Nazi Government Officials, the corrupt corrupt Judges in the Eleventh Circuit obstructed justice and court access by fabricating a “ resolution”:

2

“On 10 December 1969, the Board of Commissioners of Lee County, Florida (“the Board”) adopted a resolution claiming  certain lands in the Cayo Costa subdivision as public lands (“the  Resolution”). R10-288 at 9.” See corrupt March 5, 2009 Appellate “ Opinion”, No. 08-13170, District Court Docket No. 07-00228-CV-FTM-29-SPC, p. 2. RECORD JUDICIAL CRIMES & FRAUD ON THE COURT(S) 6. Here, U.S. Judges perpetrated fraud on the Court(s), procured another another unlawful “order ” through trickery & malice, and fabricated a “ resolution”. Here, no evidentiary support  of a “resolution” had ever  existed , and the Governmental concoctions of  condemnation by Governmental facial forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were record crimes. RECORD PSYCHOPATHOLOGICAL LIES OF “ RESOLUTION ” & “CLAIM  “CLAIM ” 7. Here, no “ resolution” had ever  legally existed , and Defendant “Board” never  “adopted ” Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”. Here, no name of any “ Board ” member appeared on Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”. Here, no “resolution” had ever been legally recorded . Here, no original of any “resolution” ever existed. Here, there was rampant judicial corruption and fraud on the Court. Therefore, any and all Federal “ opinions” and “orders” since 2006 were null and void from the outset. PERVERSIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS OF “CLAIM  “ CLAIM ” 8. Florida and Federal Constitutions expressly prohibited confiscating and/or  “claiming ” “land ” by “adoption” of a “resolution” and/or any “ law”. Here, the th   Nazi-style Judges in the 11 Court lied and criminally perverted said Constitutions’ checks and balances . Here, the law did not recognize criminal confiscation and seizure by any “ resolution”, “law”, and/or Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”. 9. Here, said outlaw Judges were out of control when they brazenly concocted a “resolution” and/or “ legislative act ” and then punished the   pro se Plaintiff(s) merely for “redressing their Governmental grievances” and opposing the  psychopathological  psychopathological judicial lies and Governmental crimes on the record. 10.Just like Nazi Judges fabricated that Nazi Government could “ claim” the property of Jews and Nazi opponents, here criminal Judges idiotically concocted that Defendant Governments could “ claim” Plaintiff(s) “raid lands” Nazi style and by criminal means of forged “O.R. 569/875”. THE JUDICIAL CROOKS COULD NOT ANSWER NOT ANSWER PLAIN QUESTIONS: 11. When asked plain and short: Who adopted what , where, when, and how , the criminal Judges in this corrupt Court imposed” “ sanctions” just like Nazi Judges did when asked why Jews and Nazi opponents were murdered in Nazi concentration camps. THE NAZI STYLE CRIMES OF “SICK” FEDERAL “SICK” FEDERAL JUDGES

3

12. When the pro se Plaintiffs demanded to see the original of the forged “ resolution” and/or authenticated copies, the crooked Judges “ deterred ”, ”, “ sanctioned ”, ”, and “ punished ” the Plaintiff(s) just like Nazi Judges “ deterred ” Nazi opponents in death camps and pedophile priests “ punished ” raped children when they reported the priests’ rape. PREMEDITATED JUDICIAL FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD 13.Here, U.S. Judges fraudulently concealed that Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were “ paste-ups”. Here, the illegible fake “ recording ” stamp(s) on said Governmental forgeries were pasted by Governmental con men. Here for years, U.S. Judges conspired with the Defendants to fraudulently conceal the criminality of Nazi style forged “ claims” of “raid lands”, Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”. FRAUDULENT JUDICIAL PRETENSES OF “ REVIEW ” & “FRIVOLITY  “FRIVOLITY ” 14.Here in the absence of a docket, criminal Judges “ faked ” “  judicial review” and “ frivolity”: “these appeals have been reviewed and determined to be  frivolous.” th See fraudulent “ 04/06/2010” 11 Circuit “order ”. ”. Here, the Case Docket(s) disappeared just like Nazi court records disappeared at the hands of Nazi judges. Here,  sick  Judges criminally concocted a “ resolution” and “ frivolity”. NAZI-STYLE “ RESTRICTIONS ” ON JUSTICE & FRAUD ON THE COURT 15. In their criminal “ order ”, ”, post stamped “ 04/06/2010”, the objectively corrupt and  partial Judge(s) in this Court again “ imposed ” Nazi-style “restrictions”: “As part of its Order, the Court imposed restrictions on Appellant’s ability…” POLICY & CUSTOM OF NAZI-STYLE “ RESTRICTIONS ” & TERROR  16. Just like Nazi Government Officials maliciously “ restricted ” the “abilities” of  Jews and Nazi opponents, the crooked Judge(s) in this Court premeditated obstruction of justice, “ deterrence”, “ punishment ”, ”, and “  judicial concentration camp” for the   pro se Plaintiff(s), because the   pro se Plaintiff(s) opposed, e.g., Governmental forgeries and scam “O.R. 569/875” and forged “Lee County” “land” “parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”, and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & FRAUD ON THE COURTS, DOC. # 338 17.Here for years, the vexatious U.S. judicial policy and custom on the record was obstruction of justice of the adjudication of the  pro se Plaintiff(s)’ “claims”: “The copy of the  Resolution [Governmental Forgeries “O.R. 569/875”] attached to the Third Amended Complaint establishes that it was  signed , executed , and duly recorded  in the public records, and plaintiff  otherwise.” will not be allowed to assert otherwise.” See vexatious and facially fraudulent “ Opinion and Order ”, ”, Doc. # 338, p. 12, Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-JES-SPC, by crooked District Judge John Edwin Steele. 4

NAZI-STYLE ANARCHY INSTEAD OF ADJUDICATION 18.Even though the Defendants had ADMITTED that Lee County, Florida, and/or its Commissioners had never “ signed ” and/or “executed ” Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” as conclusively evidenced by the true and correct copies of said fake “claims” on record, the Federal Judges conspired to uphold lawlessness and  judicial corruption. JUDICIAL FAILURE TO “ SHOW CAUSE ” – FRIVOLITY  – FRIVOLITY FRAUD FRAUD SCHEME 19.Here, the conspiring U.S. Judges in this Court never “ showed any cause” for the “ punishment ” and “ sanctions” of the  pro se Plaintiff(s) under fraudulent pretenses of “ frivolity” just like Nazi Official never “ showed any cause” why they murdered Jews and Nazi opponents. 20.Just like Nazi Officials made the crime records of Nazi killings disappear, here the criminal Judges in this Court made dockets and records of oppression disappear. See Case Dockets. Here, crooked U.S. Judges covered up for other outlaw Judges in said U.S. Judicial Gang just like Nazis covered up for Nazis, and Catholic  bishops for priests. NO AUTHENTICATION  NO AUTHENTICATION OF OF JUDICIALLY FABRICATED “ RESOLUTION ” 21.Even though the vexatious Judges in this Nazi-style Appellate Court had been “unable” to authenticate any “resolution”, “legislative act ”, ”, “land use regulation ”, and/or “law”, they criminally continued to fraudulently pretend a “ resolution” and torture, terrorize, punish, and oppress the  pro se Plaintiffs just like Nazi Officials terrorized and oppressed Jews and Nazi opponents. 22.Just like Nazi Officials used forged papers to confiscate property of Jews in concentration camps, here U.S. Judges used prima facie forgeries “O.R. 569/875” to criminally confiscate  pro se Plaintiff(s)’ riparian property. FACIALLY IDIOTIC JUDICIAL “ ARGUMENTS ” ON THE RECORD 23.Here, prima facie Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were not any “resolution”, because no “ lawmaker ” had ever “ signed ” and/or “ executed ” said scam. Just like Nazi Government Officials seized the property of Jews and Nazi opponents by criminal means of forged f orged Nazi “claims”, here U.S. Judges fabricated a “resolution” and/or “ legislative act ”. ”. Here, District and Circuit Judges agreed and conspired to “cover up” for crooked Judge Steele and conceal the idiotic criminal fabrication that Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were purportedly “law”. The law did not recognize said Nazi-style “ claim”. SCIENCE & FORENSICS CONTROVERTED OUTLAW JUDGES: FORENSICS vs. NAZI-STYLE “FRIVOLITY  “FRIVOLITY ” “CLAIM” 24.Here on the record, the Defendants themselves had CONTROVERTED the outlaw Judges’ fabrications of a “ legislative act ” and/or “ resolution”. Furthermore, forensic examinations had conclusively proven that Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were not any “ legislative act ” and/or “ resolution”. Here, U.S. Judges

5

kept lying, concealing, and covering up for crooked Judge Steele, his oppressive  Nazi style, Doc. # 338, and judicial crimes. VEXATIOUS JUDICIAL FARCE & MOCKERY OF “ORDER “ORDER” ” (“04/06/2010 (“04/06/2010”) ”) 25. Here, said 04/06/2010 “ order to show cause ” was a facial farce and mockery. On their faces, Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” patently clearly portrayed the facts and evidence of Governmental fraud, extortion, and crimes. Here, the law expressly prohibited Governmental scam “ claim all of raid lands ”. 26.Here, only Nazi-style Judges needed “ cause shown”. Just like Nazi Judges did not comprehend the criminality of murdering Nazi opponents in concentration camps, here these Nazi-type Judges did not “get” the patently clear criminality of  Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”, but needed “ cause shown”. Just like the Pope needed “ cause shown” for the prosecution of rapist priests, the Nazi-type Judges in the Eleventh Circuit needed “ cause shown” why “disallowing ” the  pro  se Plaintiffs to “assert” Governmental fraud & corruption and concealing the criminality of said Governmental forgeries was not criminal. 27.Just like Nazi Judges staged fake “ proceedings” for Jews and Nazi opponents, and were utterly unable to “ show” any Nazi wrongdoing and/or “ cause” for    prosecution for murder of innocent Nazi opponents in concentration camps, this “order ” is a criminal charade. TIME FOR “ NUREMBERG TRIALS ” OF “ JUDICIAL TERRORISTS ” 28.Here, the time for “ Nuremberg Trials” has come. Here under public policy, said “  judicial terrorists ” in Atlanta are on trial for fraudulently concealing Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”, fraud, and eminent domain extortion…

6

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE CORRUPT ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ____________________________   No. 10-10963-I  ____________________________  D.C. Docket No. 2:07-00228-CV-FtM-JES-SPC

DR. JORG BUSSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, KENNETH M. ROESCH, J.R., et al ., ., Plaintiffs, versus LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, BOARD OF LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, KIENNETH M. WILKINSON, et al., Defendants-Appellees.  ___________________________________  Not Docketed in Violation of Law Nazi-style Mock U.S. Proceedings Without any Due any  Due Process  ___________________________________  ORDER” NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM VEXATIOUS NAZI STYLE 04/06/10 “ORDER” (April 14, 2009)

CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION OF MEANINGFUL “ JUDICIAL REVIEW ” 1. Just like Nazi Government Officials, the corrupt corrupt Judges in the Eleventh Circuit obstructed justice and court access by fabricating a “ resolution”: “On 10 December 1969, the Board of Commissioners of Lee County, Florida (“the Board”) adopted a resolution claiming  certain lands in the Cayo Costa subdivision as public lands (“the  Resolution”). R10-288 at 9.” See corrupt March 5, 2009 Appellate “ Opinion”, No. 08-13170, District Court Docket No. 07-00228-CV-FTM-29-SPC, p. 2. RECORD JUDICIAL CRIMES & FRAUD ON THE COURT(S) 2. Here, U.S. Judges perpetrated fraud on the Court(s), procured another another unlawful “order ” through trickery & malice, and fabricated a “ resolution”. Here, no evidentiary support  of a “resolution” had ever  existed , and the Governmental concoctions of  condemnation by Governmental facial forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were record crimes. RECORD PSYCHOPATHOLOGICAL LIES OF “ RESOLUTION ” & “CLAIM  “CLAIM ” 3. Here, no “ resolution” had ever  legally existed , and Defendant “Board” never  “adopted ” Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”. Here, no name of any “ Board ” member appeared on Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”. Here, no “resolution” had ever been legally recorded . Here, no original of any “resolution” ever existed. Here, there was rampant judicial corruption and fraud on the Court. Therefore, any and all Federal “ opinions” and “orders” since 2006 were null and void from the outset. PERVERSIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS OF “CLAIM  “ CLAIM ” 4. Florida and Federal Constitutions expressly prohibited confiscating and/or  “claiming ” “land ” by “adoption” of a “resolution” and/or any “ law”. Here, the th   Nazi-style Judges in the 11 Court lied and criminally perverted said Constitutions’ checks and balances . Here, the law did not recognize criminal confiscation and seizure by any “ resolution”, “law”, and/or Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”. 5. Here, said outlaw Judges were out of control when they brazenly concocted a “resolution” and/or “ legislative act ” and then punished the   pro se Plaintiff(s) merely for “redressing their Governmental grievances” and opposing the  psychopathological  psychopathological judicial lies and Governmental crimes on the record. 6. Just like Nazi Judges fabricated that that Nazi Government Government could “ claim” the property of Jews and Nazi opponents, here criminal Judges idiotically concocted that Defendant Governments could “ claim” Plaintiff(s) “raid lands” Nazi style and by criminal means of forged “O.R. 569/875”. THE JUDICIAL CROOKS COULD NOT ANSWER NOT ANSWER PLAIN QUESTIONS: 7. When asked plain and short: Who adopted what , where, when, and how , the criminal Judges in this corrupt Court imposed” “ sanctions” just like Nazi Judges

2

did when asked why Jews and Nazi opponents were murdered in Nazi concentration camps. THE NAZI STYLE CRIMES OF “SICK” FEDERAL “SICK” FEDERAL JUDGES 8. When the pro se Plaintiffs demanded to see the original of the forged “ resolution” and/or authenticated copies, the crooked Judges “ deterred ”, ”, “ sanctioned ”, ”, and “ punished ” the Plaintiff(s) just like Nazi Judges “ deterred ” Nazi opponents in death camps and pedophile priests “ punished ” raped children when they reported the priests’ rape. PREMEDITATED JUDICIAL FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD 9. Here, U.S. Judges fraudulently concealed that Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were “ paste-ups”. Here, the illegible fake “ recording ” stamp(s) on said Governmental forgeries were pasted by Governmental con men. Here for years, U.S. Judges conspired with the Defendants to fraudulently conceal the criminality of Nazi style forged “ claims” of “raid lands”, Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”. FRAUDULENT JUDICIAL PRETENSES OF “ REVIEW ” & “FRIVOLITY  “FRIVOLITY ” 10.Here in the absence of a docket, criminal Judges “ faked ” “  judicial review” and “ frivolity”: “these appeals have been reviewed and determined to be  frivolous.” th See fraudulent “ 04/06/2010” 11 Circuit “order ”. ”. Here, the Case Docket(s) disappeared just like Nazi court records disappeared at the hands of Nazi judges. Here,  sick  Judges criminally concocted a “ resolution” and “ frivolity”. NAZI-STYLE “ RESTRICTIONS ” ON JUSTICE & FRAUD ON THE COURT 11. In their criminal “ order ”, ”, post stamped “ 04/06/2010”, the objectively corrupt and  partial Judge(s) in this Court again “ imposed ” Nazi-style “restrictions”: “As part of its Order, the Court imposed restrictions on Appellant’s ability…” POLICY & CUSTOM OF NAZI-STYLE “ RESTRICTIONS ” & TERROR  12. Just like Nazi Government Officials maliciously “ restricted ” the “abilities” of  Jews and Nazi opponents, the crooked Judge(s) in this Court premeditated obstruction of justice, “ deterrence”, “ punishment ”, ”, and “  judicial concentration camp” for the   pro se Plaintiff(s), because the   pro se Plaintiff(s) opposed, e.g., Governmental forgeries and scam “O.R. 569/875” and forged “Lee County” “land” “parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”, and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & FRAUD ON THE COURTS, DOC. # 338 13.Here for years, the vexatious U.S. judicial policy and custom on the record was obstruction of justice of the adjudication of the  pro se Plaintiff(s)’ “claims”: “The copy of the  Resolution [Governmental Forgeries “O.R. 569/875”] attached to the Third Amended Complaint establishes that it was  signed , executed , and duly recorded  in the public records, and plaintiff  otherwise.” will not be allowed to assert otherwise.” 3

See vexatious and facially fraudulent “ Opinion and Order ”, ”, Doc. # 338, p. 12, Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-JES-SPC, by crooked District Judge John Edwin Steele. NAZI-STYLE ANARCHY INSTEAD OF ADJUDICATION 14.Even though the Defendants had ADMITTED that Lee County, Florida, and/or its Commissioners had never “ signed ” and/or “executed ” Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” as conclusively evidenced by the true and correct copies of said fake “claims” on record, the Federal Judges conspired to uphold lawlessness and  judicial corruption. JUDICIAL FAILURE TO “ SHOW CAUSE ” – FRIVOLITY  – FRIVOLITY FRAUD FRAUD SCHEME 15.Here, the conspiring U.S. Judges in this Court never “ showed any cause” for the “ punishment ” and “ sanctions” of the  pro se Plaintiff(s) under fraudulent pretenses of “ frivolity” just like Nazi Official never “ showed any cause” why they murdered Jews and Nazi opponents. 16.Just like Nazi Officials made the crime records of Nazi killings disappear, here the criminal Judges in this Court made dockets and records of oppression disappear. See Case Dockets. Here, crooked U.S. Judges covered up for other outlaw Judges in said U.S. Judicial Gang just like Nazis covered up for Nazis, and Catholic  bishops for priests. NO AUTHENTICATION  NO AUTHENTICATION OF OF JUDICIALLY FABRICATED “ RESOLUTION ” 17.Even though the vexatious Judges in this Nazi-style Appellate Court had been “unable” to authenticate any “resolution”, “legislative act ”, ”, “land use regulation ”, and/or “law”, they criminally continued to fraudulently pretend a “ resolution” and torture, terrorize, punish, and oppress the  pro se Plaintiffs just like Nazi Officials terrorized and oppressed Jews and Nazi opponents. 18.Just like Nazi Officials used forged papers to confiscate property of Jews in concentration camps, here U.S. Judges used prima facie forgeries “O.R. 569/875” to criminally confiscate  pro se Plaintiff(s)’ riparian property. FACIALLY IDIOTIC JUDICIAL “ ARGUMENTS ” ON THE RECORD 19.Here, prima facie Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were not any “resolution”, because no “ lawmaker ” had ever “ signed ” and/or “ executed ” said scam. Just like Nazi Government Officials seized the property of Jews and Nazi opponents by criminal means of forged f orged Nazi “claims”, here U.S. Judges fabricated a “resolution” and/or “ legislative act ”. ”. Here, District and Circuit Judges agreed and conspired to “cover up” for crooked Judge Steele and conceal the idiotic criminal fabrication that Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were purportedly “law”. The law did not recognize said Nazi-style “ claim”. SCIENCE & FORENSICS CONTROVERTED OUTLAW JUDGES: FORENSICS vs. NAZI-STYLE “FRIVOLITY  “FRIVOLITY ” “CLAIM” 20.Here on the record, the Defendants themselves had CONTROVERTED the outlaw Judges’ fabrications of a “ legislative act ” and/or “ resolution”. Furthermore, 4

forensic examinations had conclusively proven that Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were not any “ legislative act ” and/or “ resolution”. Here, U.S. Judges kept lying, concealing, and covering up for crooked Judge Steele, his oppressive  Nazi style, Doc. # 338, and judicial crimes. VEXATIOUS JUDICIAL FARCE & MOCKERY OF “ORDER “ORDER” ” (“04/06/2010 (“04/06/2010”) ”) 21. Here, said 04/06/2010 “ order to show cause ” was a facial farce and mockery. On their faces, Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” patently clearly portrayed the facts and evidence of Governmental fraud, extortion, and crimes. Here, the law expressly prohibited Governmental scam “ claim all of raid lands ”. 22.Here, only Nazi-style Judges needed “ cause shown”. Just like Nazi Judges did not comprehend the criminality of murdering Nazi opponents in concentration camps, here these Nazi-type Judges did not “get” the patently clear criminality of  Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”, but needed “ cause shown”. Just like the Pope needed “ cause shown” for the prosecution of rapist priests, the Nazi-type Judges in the Eleventh Circuit needed “ cause shown” why “disallowing ” the  pro  se Plaintiffs to “assert” Governmental fraud & corruption and concealing the criminality of said Governmental forgeries was not criminal. 23.Just like Nazi Judges staged fake “ proceedings” for Jews and Nazi opponents, and were utterly unable to “ show” any Nazi wrongdoing and/or “ cause” for    prosecution for murder of innocent Nazi opponents in concentration camps, this “order ” is a criminal charade. TIME FOR “ NUREMBERG TRIALS ” OF “ JUDICIAL TERRORISTS ” 24.Here, the time for “ Nuremberg Trials” has come. Here under public policy, said “  judicial terrorists ” in Atlanta are on trial for fraudulently concealing Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”, fraud, and eminent domain extortion…

5

CROOKED U.S. JUDGES CONTROVERTED BY SCIENCE WORLDWIDE PUBLICATIONS OF U.S. JUDICIAL CORRUPTION U.S. GOVERNMENTAL FORGERIES “O.R. 569/875”: IDIOTIC GOVERNMENTAL FABRICATIONS OF “ LAW ”

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud

531 Documents 11 Subscribers 43,962 Reads 183 Downloads [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected],, [email protected] [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] ,

•

Fraudulent alterations of words and letters in more than one forgery

•

Writing in more than one font type

•

Writing in more than one font size

•

Writing in more than one writing style

•

Misspelled words

•

Misaligned typing

•

Uneven spacing in the writing

•

Missing portions of writing and/or printing

•

Fraudulent alterations of words and letters in more than one forgery

•

Writing in more than one font type

•

Writing in more than one font size

•

Writing in more than one writing style

•

Misspelled words

•

Misaligned typing

•

Uneven spacing in the writing

•

Missing portions of writing and/or printing

•

Fraudulent paste-ups

•

Incorrect vertical, horizontal and/or margin spacing

•

Unclear and illegible fake stamp

•

Smudged and illegible time stamp

•

No signatures by any “lawmaker  “lawmaker ”

•

No name(s) of any “lawmaker  “lawmaker ”

•

Illegible and unclear fake handwriting 

•

Smeared and smudged imaging

•

Inconsistent “trash marks”

•

Different ink densities ….

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION JORG BUSSE Plaintiff, vs.

Case No.

2:07-cv-228-FtM-29SPC

LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; BOARD OF LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; KENNETH M. WILKINSON; LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER’S OFFICE; STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD OF [PAST & PRESENT] TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, AND DIVISION OF RECREATION AND PARKS; LEE COUNTY ATTORNEY; JACK N. PETERSON, Defendants. ___________________________________

OPINION AND ORDER 

This matter comes before the Court on the following motions: (1) defendant Property Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss and Close File (Doc. #285), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #302); (2) defendants State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement

Trust

Fund

(Trustees)

and

Florida

Department

of

Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Cause of Action (Doc. #291),

to

which

plaintiff

filed

a

Response

(Doc.

#316);

(3)

defendant The Lee County Appraiser’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of

Jurisdiction (Doc. #303), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #317); and (4) defendant Board of Lee County Co unty Commissioners’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #304), to which plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #318).

Because Plaintiff is proceeding  pro

se,

his pleadings are

held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by an attorney and will be liberally construed.

Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d

1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003). I.

On December 10, 1969, the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County, Florida adopted the “Resolution Pertaining to Public Lands in Cayo Costa Subdivision”, Book 569, page 875 (the Resolution). The Resolution stated that the Second Revised Plat of the Cayo Costa Subdivision contained certain designated d esignated lot and block areas and other undesignated areas.

The Resolution further noted that

the plat contained certain un-numbered and unlettered areas lying East of the Easterly tier of blocks in the subdivision and lying West of the Westerly tier of blocks in the subdivision.

The

Resolution stated that Lee County claimed the lands to the east and west of the tier of blocks as “public lands together with all accretions thereto” and “does by this Resolution claim all of said lands and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of the public for public purposes.”

(Doc. #288, p. 9.)

Plaintiff Jorg Busse (plaintiff or Dr. Busse) asserts he is the current owner of Lot 15A of the Cayo Costa Subdivision and

-2-

accretions thereto. (Doc. #288, ¶¶ 1, 2.)

Plaintiff describes Lot

15A as being more than approximately 2.5 acres fronting the Gulf of Mexico with an estimated fair market value of more than $2 million. (Id. at ¶6.)

Plaintiff asserts that the Resolution violates his

property rights in Lot 15A, which includes accretions, under both federal and state law. Count 1 sets forth a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff

alleges that the Resolution deprived him of his riparian rights, private easements, accreted property and privileges secured by the United States Constitution.

Specifically, plaintiff asserts that

Lee County had no home rule powers or jurisdiction over the undedicated Cayo Costa Subdivision, and therefore the Resolution was

unenforceable

and

in

violation

of

the

United

States

Constitution. (Doc. #288, ¶13.) Plaintiff asserts that defendants confiscated more than 2.5 acres of his accreted property without compensation in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Id. at ¶14.)

Plaintiff asserts that defendants also illegally took more

than 200 acres of private accretions onto Cayo Costa pursuant to the Resolution, all without compensation.

(Id. at ¶15.)

Further,

plaintiff asserts that “Defendant State Actors” claimed riparian rights to Lots 38A and 41A which they denied to plaintiff, thereby unlawfully discriminating against plaintiff because he is entitled to equal rights as the State property owner. -3-

(Id. at ¶¶ 16, 27.)

Count 2 alleges an unconstitutional temporary taking under color of the Resolution. Plaintiff asserts that the Resolution was never signed, executed or acknowledged and did not meet resolution and recording requirements, and was therefore not entitled to be recorded and must be stricken from the public record. ¶17.)

(Id. at

Plaintiff further furt her alleges that the Cayo Costa Subdivision

was outside of Lee County’s home rule powers, and therefore the State and County had no powers to adopt resolutions or ordinances, and therefore the Resolution is unenforceable and ineffectual and the

County

easements. his

capriciously (Id. at ¶18.)

accretions

authority,

onto

the

justification,

grabbed

private

accreted

land

and

Plaintiff asserts that defendants took riparian due

gulf

process

front of

Lot

law,

15A

without

public

notice,

hearing, vote count, or compensation, and that this unauthorized unconstitutional property value.

taking

injured

plaintiff

and

destroyed

his

(Id. at ¶19.)

Count 3 sets forth a state law claim for trespass.

Plaintiff

alleges that since the 1969 Resolution the defendants have asserted as serted that Lee County is the owner of the Cayo Costa accretions and have induced and caused the public to intrude onto the private beaches and other areas on Cayo Costa, injuring plaintiff’s property. at ¶¶ 20-21.)

(Id.

Plaintiff asserts that the State cannot exercise

power within the Subdivision east of the mean high water mark of the Gulf of Mexico and west of the mean high water mark of Charlotte Harbor.

(Id. at ¶22.) -4-

Count

4

malfeasance. Appraiser

alleges

a

conspiracy

Plaintiff asserts asse rts

claimed

that

the

to

that

fabricate,

fraud

and

the Lee County Property

Resolution

entitled

Lee County

to

ownership of the accreted property, but the County Appraiser has admitted that Lee County was not empowered to adopt the Resolution. (Id. at ¶23.)

Plaintiff Plain tiff asserts that the Resolution on its face

did not meet recording or resolution requirements, and that the County Appraiser had a professional duty to verify the validity of the sham Resolution under the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that without evidence of title, defendants conspired to concoct an un-plated lot, block and park for the benefit of the State and County. Plaintiff

also

asserts

that

defendant

classification to his accreted lot.

(Id.)

denied

(Id. at ¶24.) agricultural

Plaintiff asserts that

defendants destroyed most of his property value, deprived him of private easements without compensation, and denied equal protection in a land grab scheme. being

to

accretions. Appraiser

assist

the

(Id.)

unconstitutional

(Id. at ¶25.) made

Plaintiff describes the agreement as confiscation

of

the

Plaintiff also asserts that the County

incompetent

valuation

reports

which

were

controverted by other comparable sales data and done in violation of Federal Appraisal Standards, but defendant continued to slander plaintiff’s perfect title.

(Id. at ¶26.)

As a result, plaintiff

received purchase offers far below market value and the County Appraiser has committed malfeasance and abuse of position. -5-

(Id.)

Count 5 alleges a conspiracy to materially misrepresent and defraud.

Plaintiff asserts that Lee County does not hold title to

the accreted property pursuant to the Resolution, and there has been no proceedings such as eminent domain or adverse possession. (Id. at ¶29.)

Plaintiff asserts that Lee County’s claims of

ownership of the accretions therefore violated the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, and therefore defendants deprived the public of tax revenues which could have been be en received from the private accretions and easements. to

(Id.)

misrepresent

the

Plaintiff asserts that defendants conspired extent

authority over his lagoon.

of

the

Army

Corps

of

Engineers’

(Id. at ¶32.)

Count 6 alleges oppression and slander of title by defendant Peterson for failing to challenge the invalidity of the Resolution despite his questions about its validity.

(Id. at ¶¶ 33-35.)

The Third Amended Complaint asserts the Court has jurisdiction based on the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983), 28 U.S.C. § 1343, Articles 3 and 4 of the United States Constitution, and Amendments 4 and 5 of the United States Constitution (Doc. #288, ¶7), the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act (33 U.S.C. § 403)(id. at ¶8), the 1862 Homestead Act (id. at ¶9), the federal common law Doctrine of Accretion and Erosion (id. at ¶10), the Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (12 U.S.C. §§ 3331-3351), and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201)(id. at ¶12). -6-

III.

The Court will first address the federal claims, since these claims are necessary to provide prov ide subject matter jurisdiction. plaintiff’s   pro

se

Given

status, the Court reviews the Third Amended

Complaint liberally. A.

Takings Clause Claims:

A consistent theme which runs through several of plaintiff’s counts is that the Resolution constitutes an unconstitutional taking of his property rights in his subdivision Lot 15A on Cayo Costa island. island. 1 The legal legal principl principles es are are well-set well-settled, tled, and preclude preclude plaintiff’s takings claim. Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which states in pertinent part “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” CONST . amend. V.

The Fifth Amendment is applied to the States

through the Fourteenth Amendment. York

City,

438

U.S.

U.S.

104,

121-23

Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New (1978).

The

Third

Amended

Complaint may also be read to allege a conspiracy to violate the Takings Clause. State law defines the parameters of a plaintiff’s property interest, and whether state law has created a property interest is a legal question for the court to decide. Morley’s Auto Body, Inc.

1

See Lee County v. Morales, 557 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) for a description of Cayo Costa island and the Lee County zoning history of the island since 1978. -7-

v. Hunter, 70 F.3d 1209, 1212 (11th Cir. 1996).

Under Florida law

a riparian or littoral owner owns to the line of the ordinary high water mark on navigable waters, and the riparian or littoral property rights include the vested right to receive accretions to the property.

Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust

Fund v. Sand Key Assocs., Ltd., 512 So. 2d 934, 936-37 (Fla. 1987); Brannon v. Boldt, 958 So. 2d 367, 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

These Thes e

rights constitute property, and cannot be taken or destroyed by the government without just compensation

to the owners.

Sand Key

Assoc., 512 So. 2d at 936; Lee County v. Kiesel, 705 So. 2d 1013, 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

“By now it is beyond question that a

permanent physical occupation of private property by the state constitutes a taking for which a landowner must be compensated.” New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe County, 95 F.3d 1084, 1088 (11th Cir. 1996)(citing Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1015 (1992) and Loretto v. Teleprompter Teleprom pter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 434 (1982)). Thus while plaintiff has adequately alleged a taking of his property, “a property owner has not suffered a violation of the Just

Compensation

attempted

to

Clause

obtain

just

until

the

owner

compensation

has

through

unsuccessfully the

procedures

provided by the State for obtaining such compensation . . .” Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 195 (1972).

“Williamson County boils down to the rule

that state courts always have a first shot at adjudicating a -8-

takings dispute because a federal constitutional claim is not ripe until the state has denied the would-be plaintiff’s compensation for a putative taking, including by unfavorable judgment in a state court proceeding.” F.3d

Agripost, LLC v. Miami-Dade County, Fla.,

, 2008 WL 1790434 (11th Cir. 2008).

Without Wit hout having

pursued such available state court remedies, a plaintiff’s Takings Clause claim is not ripe and therefore a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to consider it.

Williamson County, 473 U.S. at

195; Watson Constr. Co. v. City of Gainsville, 244 Fed. Appx. 274, 277 (11th Cir. 2007); Garbo, Inc. v. City of Key West, Fla., 162 Fed. Appx. 905 (11th Cir. 2006).

It has been clear since at least

1990 that Florida law provides a remedy of an inverse or reverse condemnation suit.

Joint Ventures, Inc. v. Department of Transp.,

563 So. 2d 622, 624 (Fla. 1990); Tari v. Collier County, 56 F.3d 1533, 1537 n.12 (11th Cir. 1995); Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412, 1417 (11th Cir. 1994).

Additionally, plaintiff could have

pursued an state action for declaratory judgment under F

LA .

STAT . §

86.011, a suit to quiet title, Trustees of Internal Imp. Fund of State of Florida v. Toffel, 145 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962), or a suit in ejectment if the matter is viewed as a boundary dispute. Petryni v. Denton, 807 So. 2d 697, 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The Third Amended Complaint does not allege that plaintiff pursued any state relief.

Indeed, Ind eed, plaintiff has never suggested

that he has taken any action in state court to quiet title or receive damages under an inverse or reverse condemnation claim. -9-

Since there is no showing of federal jurisdiction as to the Takings Clause claim, the Taking Clause claims and any conspiracy to violate the Takings Clause in any count will be dismissed without prejudice. B.

Substantive Due Process Claim:

A liberal reading of the Third Amended Amend ed Complaint might suggest that plaintiff also frames the alleged taking of his property rights as a substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Eleventh Circuit has held, however, that there is

no independent substantive due process taking cause of action. Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610, 612-14 (11th Cir. 1997).

Additionally, substantive due process protects

only fundamental rights, that is, those rights which are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.

Such rights are created by the

Constitution, and do not include property rights.

Greenbriar

Village, LLC v. Mountain Brook City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2003).

Merely

asserting

that

the

government’s

actions acti ons

were

arbitrary and irrational does not bring the matter within the protection pro tection of the substantive due process provision. Village, 345 F.3d at 1263-64. in

the

Third

substantive

due

Amended process

Greenbriar

Therefore, those portions of counts

Complaint takings

dismissed.

-10-

which claim

attempt or

to

conspiracy

assert will

a be

C.

Proc rocedural Du Due Pr Process ess Cl Claim:

Plaintiff’s counts may also attempt to state a procedural due process claim.

For example, plaintiff asserts that Lee County had

no home rule powers or jurisdiction over the undedicated Cayo Costa subdivision (Doc. #288, ¶¶ 13, 18, 23), that the Resolution was never signed, executed or acknowledged and did not meet resolution and recording requirements (id. at ¶¶ 17, 23), and that the taking was without authority, justification, due process, public notice, hearing, vote count, or compensation (id. at ¶19). “Procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before any government governme nt deprivation of a property interest.” Zipperer v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995). Not all government actions, however, are subject to a procedural due process claim.

The County’s action in passing the Resolution

constituted a legislative act, and therefore plaintiff cannot state a procedural due process claim.

75 Acres, LLC v. Miami-Dade

County, Fla., 338 F.3d 1288, 1294 (11th Cir. 2003).

Plaintiff

asserted that the Resolution effecting the taking of more than 200 acres other than his 2.5 acres. a legislative act. Equalization,

239

This is sufficient to constitute

See, e.g., Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of U.S.

441,

445

(1915)(noting

that

it

is

impractical to give every one a voice when a legislative act applies to more than a few people).

Additionally, Additi onally, even if not a

legislative act, a procedural due process claims does not exist

-11-

merely because state mandated procedures were not followed.

First

Assembly of God of Naples, Florida, Inc. v. Collier County, Fla., 20 F.3d 419, 422 (11th Cir. 1994).

In this regard, some of the

allegations in the Third Amended Complaint are contradicted by the Resolution which is attached to it.

The copy of the Resolution Resol ution

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.

The remaining

claimed defects are arguments concerning state law which do not arise to a constitutional level. Finally, plaintiff fails to state a procedural due process claim because he has failed to allege that Florida

law

provided

him

with

an

inadequate

post-deprivation

remedy, Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378, 382 (11th Cir. 1996), and an d as discussed above it is clear that Florida does provide adequate post-deprivation pos t-deprivation

remedies.

Therefore,

any

claim

founded

on

procedural due process will be dismissed. D.

Equal Protection Claim:

Plaintiff also alleges that the Resolution violated his equal protection rights.

“To properly plead an equal protection claim,

a plaintiff need only allege that through state action, similarly situated persons have been treated disparately.” Boyd v. Peet, 249 Fed. Appx. 155, 158 (11th Cir. 2007)(citation omitted).

See also

Executive 100, Inc. v. Martin County, 922 F.2d 1536, 1552 (11th Cir. 1991).

The Third Amended Complaint does not identify any

similarly situated person with whom plaintiff can be compared. -12-

The

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 owne r such as plaintiff can not be

compared to a public owner such as a government unit.

Therefore,

no equal protection claim is stated, and such claims will be dismissed without prejudice. E.

Othe Other r Bas Bases es of Fede Federa ral l Jur Juris isdi dict ctio ion: n:

Having found no federal claim set forth in the Third Amended Complaint, the Court now examines the other purported bases of federal jurisdiction. Article III of the Constitution sets the outer boundaries of the

federal

court

jurisdiction,

but

vests

Congress

with

the

discretion to determine whether and to what extent that power may be exercised by lower federal courts.

Therefore, lower federal

courts are empowered to hear only cases for which there has been a congressional

grant

of

jurisdiction.

Morrison

v.

Indemnity Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2000).

Allstate Therefore

Article III does not provide any additional basis of federal jurisdiction.

Additionally, plaintiff’s reliance on Article IV of

the Constitution is misplaced because Article IV does not address the jurisdiction of a federal court. Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. § 1343 as a basis for federal jurisdiction. Section 1343 sets forth the jurisdiction of district -13-

courts for certain civil rights actions, but does d oes not itself create a private right of action.

Albra v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 232

Fed. Appx. 885, 892 (11th (11 th Cir. 2007).

Since none of plaintiff’s

federal civil rights claims are properly before the court, § 1343 is not a basis for jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Plaintiff’s

reliance

on

the

1899

Rivers

and

Appropriation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 403 is misplaced. relates

to

the

creation

of

an

obstruction

not

Harbors

Section 403 authorized

by

Congress, and simply not relevant to any of the claims in this case. cas e.

The 1862 Homestead Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 161-64, cannot form

basis for jurisdiction because it was repealed in 1976.

Assuming

there is a federal common law Doctrine Doctr ine of Accretion and Erosion, it cannot provide a jurisdictional basis in

federal

court.

The

Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 12 U.S.C. § 3331-3351, also do not create federal

jurisdiction.

appraisals

utilized

transactions, involved

in

These standards in

12

U.S.C.

this

case.

connection §

1331,

and

relate to real estate esta te

with no

Additionally,

federally

such in

related

transaction

Florida

the

was

county

property appraiser is a constitutionally created office whose appraisals are carried out pursuant to state statute, F

LA .

STAT . §

193.011 as well as professional appraisal apprais al standards established by the

International

Association

of

-14-

Assessing

Officers

and

the

Appraisal Institute.

Parrish v. Nikolits, 86 F.3d 1088, 1091 n.2

(11th Cir. 1996). Therefore,

the

Court

finds

no

other

basis

of

federal

jurisdiction has been plead in the Third Amended Complaint. F.

Rema emaining State Law Claims:

The remaining possible claims in the Third Amended Complaint are all state law claims. Complaint

may

be

read

to

Read liberally, the Third Amended allege

a

claim

to

invalidate

the

Resolution for alleged state-law procedural defects, a state law claim of trespass, a state law claim of conspiracy to misrepresent, a state law claim of fraud, state law claims of malfeasance, a state law claim of oppression, and a state law l aw claim of slander of title.

Even assuming these are properly pled, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) the Court would exercise its discretion and decline

to

exercise

supplemental

jurisdiction

over

the

state

claims.

Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (11th

Cir. 2004)(encouraging district courts to dismiss state claims where all claims which provided original jurisdiction have been dismissed.) prejudice. Having

The dismissal of the state claims will be without Crosby v. Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339, 1352 (11th Cir. 1999). found

that

this

Court

lacks

subject matter

jurisdiction, and will not retain supplemental jurisdiction, the Court

need

not

address

the

issues

defendants’ motions to dismiss. Accordingly, it is now -15-

raised

in

the

remaining

ORDERED:

1.

Defe Defend ndan ant t

Prop Proper erty ty

App Appra rais iser er’s ’s

Mot Motio ion n

to

Dism Dismis iss s

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (Doc. #303) is GRANTED to the extent set forth in paragraph 5 below. 2.

Defe Defend ndan ant t Prop Proper erty ty Appr Apprai aise ser’ r’s s Moti Motion on to Dism Dismis iss s and and

Close File (Doc. #285) is DENIED as moot. 3.

Stat State e of of Flo Flori rida da Depa Depart rtme ment nt of Envir Environ onme ment ntal al Prote Protect ctio ion n

and Division of Recreation and Parks, State of Florida, and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund’s Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Cause of Action (Doc. #291) is GRANTED to the extent set forth in paragraph 5 below. 4.

Defe Defend ndan ants ts Lee Lee Cou Count nty, y, Flo Flori rida da, , Boar Board d of Lee Lee Coun County ty

Commissioners, Lee County Attorney, Jack N. Peterson’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #304) is GRANTED to the extent set forth in paragraph 5 below. 5.

The

Th Third

Am Amended

Com Comp plaint

is is

dismissed  without

prejudice as to all defendants defe ndants and all claims.

The Clerk shall

enter judgment accordingly, terminate all pending motions as moot, and close the case. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this

May, 2008.

Copies: Parties of record

-16-

5th

day of

[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT  ________________________  U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 No. 08-13170  Non-Argument Calendar   ________________________ 

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MAR 5, 2009 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK 

D. C. Docket No. 07-00228-CV-FTM-29-SPC JORG BUSSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, KENNE TH M. ROESCH , JR., et al., Plaintiffs, versus LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, BOARD OF LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, KENNETH M. WILKINSON, et al., Defendants-Appellees.  ________________________  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida  _________________________  (March 5, 2009)

Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and DU BINA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jorg Busse, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his third amended complaint in his civil rights action against various state and local governmental entities and officials in Florida, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. The district court dismissed Busse’s federal claims because he had either  failed to adequately plead them or had not established federal subject matter   jurisdiction. In the absence of any viable federal claims, claims, the court declined declined to retain jurisdiction over Busse’s state law claims. Based on our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, briefs, we AF FIRM the dismissal. dismissal. I. BACKGROUND

On 10 December 1969, the Board of Commissioners of Lee County, Florida (“the Board”) adopted a resolution claiming certain lands in the Cayo Costa subdivision as public lands (“the Resolution ”). R10-288 R10-2 88 at 9. In the Resolution , the Board identified the relevant lands by reference to a map of the subdivision which showed that, along with a nu mber of designated land parcels in the subdivision, there were also a number of unidentified areas on the eastern and western edges of the subdivision. Id. The Board laid laid claim claim to all of these nondesignated parcels “and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of the public for    public purposes.” Id.

Busse asserts that he currently owns Lot 15A of the Cayo Costa subdivision along with all accretions thereto and that the Resolution violates his property rights under both federal and state law. Id. at 1. To vindicate his rights, he brough t suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against an array of state and local parties, including the Lee County Board of Commissioners, the county property appraiser, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Protection.1 Id. In his his third third amended complaint, complaint, Busse made made six six claims: claims: unconstitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; unconstitutional temporary takings; trespass; conspiracy, fraud, and malfeasance regarding the designation of  certain unplatted lots; conspiracy to materially misrepresent and defraud; and oppression oppress ion or slander of title. title. Id. at 3–8. He asserted that an array of statutory and constitutional provisions supported the exercise of jurisdiction: two civil rights acts  — 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 and 28 U .S.C. § 1343; Articles Three and Four and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of  the United States Constitution; Constitution; the 1899 Rivers and H arbors Appropriation Act (33 U.S.C. § 403); the 1 862 Homestead Act, the federal common law do ctrine ctrine of 

1

The full list of defendants includes: Lee County, Florida; the Board of Lee County Commissioners, in their official and private capacities; Kenneth M. Wilkinson, the Lee County  property appraiser, in his official and private capacity; the State of Florida Board of Trustees of  the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida, in their official and private capacities; the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida Division of  Recreation and Parks, and the Cayo Costa State Park staff, in their individual and private capacities; and Jack N. Peterson, Lee County Attorney, Attorney, in his official and private capacity. Id.

accretion accretion and erosion; the Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of  Professional Appraisal Appraisal Practice, Practice, and 12 U.S.C. §§ 3331–33 51; and the Federal Declaratory Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. U.S.C. § 2201). Id. at 2–3. The defendants subsequently filed separate motions to dismiss Busse’s third amended complaint, primarily based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. claim. R10-285, R10-28 5, 291, 303, 304. The district court granted these motions and and dismissed dismissed Busse’s third amended amended complaint. complaint. R11-338. In so doing, the court first found that Busse had made out a valid takings claim but that it had no jurisdiction over that claim since he had failed to show that he had pursued all available state state remedies before bringing suit. Id. at 7–10. The court then concluded that Busse had not made out a valid claim under any of his other alleged federal bases. Id. at 10–15. 10–15 . Given that the court did not have jurisdiction over any of Busse’s federal claims, claims, it chose to dismiss his state law claims. Id. at 15. Busse now appeals the dismissal of all of the claims in his third amended complaint. II. DISCUSSION

We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions regarding subject matter jurisdiction, including the determinations that a claim is not ripe or that the court lacks subject matter matter jurisdiction over it. it. See Lanfear v. Home Depot, Inc., 536 F.3d 1217, 1221 (11th Cir. 2008); Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1204 (11th Cir. 2006). We also “review a grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state

a claim de novo, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Gandara v. Bennett, 528 F.3d 823, 826 (quotation marks and citation citation omitted). The decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., Inc., 468 F.3d 733, 73 8 (11th Cir. 2006). Since Busse is proceeding pro se, we construe his pleadings liberally. See Miller  v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008). On appeal, Busse argues that the district court erred in dismissing his federal claims. He asserts that his Takings Clause claim was ripe for review and that he had properly stated claims involving violations of his procedural due process, equal protection, and substantive due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.2 Additionally, Additionally, we read Busse’s Busse’s brief liberally liberally to argue that the the district court abused its discretion in refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. We address these arguments in turn. A. Takings Clause Claims

2

Busse’s brief on appeal does not discuss the other jurisdictional bases cited in his third amended complaint — Articles Three and Four of the United States Constitution; the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act; the 1862 Homestead Act; the federal common law doctrine of accretion and erosion; the Federal Appraisal Standards, Un iform Standards of  Professional Appraisal Practice, and 12 U.S.C. §§ 3331–3351; and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act. Generally arguments not raised in a brief brief on appeal are are deemed abandoned. See Horsley v. Feldt, Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1131 n.1 (11th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, we agree agree with the district court’s analysis of these provisions and find that none of them could serve as a potential  jurisdictional basis for Busse’s claims. claims. See, e.g., Arthur v. Haley, Haley, 248 F.3d 1302, 1303 n.1 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting that appellate courts can and s hould sua sponte inquire into subject matter jurisdiction whenever it appears to be lacking).

Busse contends that the Resolution constituted an unconstitutional taking of  his property property rights in Lot 15A. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking taking of   private property “for public use, without just compensation” — a condition made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amen dment. U.S. Const. amend. V; Palazzolo Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617 , 121 S. Ct. 2448, 2457 (2001) (noting that the Fourteenth Amendment made the Takings Clause applicable to the States). A plaintiff can bring a federal takings claim only if he can show that he did not receive just compensation compensation in return for the taking taking of his property. See Eide v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 720 (11th Cir. 1990). As a result, for a takings claim to be ripe, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he unsuccessfully “pursued the available state procedures to obtain just compensation” before bringing his federal claim. Id. at 721. In this case, Busse’s claim would not be ripe because he has not shown that he attempted to obtain or secure relief relief under established Florida procedures. procedu res. Since at least 1990, Florida courts have recognized that an inverse-condemnation remedy is available for alleged takings takings violations. See Reahard v. Lee County, Coun ty, 30 F.3d 1412, 1417 (11th Cir. 1994). Busse contends that his his claim would still still be ripe ripe since that remedy was unavailable unavailable in 1969 wh en the Board of Commissioners enacted the Resolution . However, How ever, our past circuit precedent dictates “that “that a Florida property owner must pursue a reverse condemnation remedy in state state court

 before his federal takings claim will be ripe, even where that remedy was recognized after the alleged taking occurred.” Id. Accordin gly, regardless of  whether Busse has a valid property interest in Lot 15A, because he has not alleged that he sought and was denied compensation through available state procedures, his Takings Clause claim claim would not be ripe for review. review. We thus conclude that the the district court did not err in finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over  Busse’s Takings Clause claim. B. Procedural Due Process C laims Busse asserts that his procedural due process rights were violated since Lee County had no authority to take his land nor jurisdiction over it and because the Resolution was improperly improperly executed. executed. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of  law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. A plaintiff plaintiff could could make a procedural due  process claim by challenging the procedures by which a regulation was adopted, including the failure failure to provide pre-dep rivation notice and hearing. See Villas of  Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610, 615 (11th C ir. 1997); Zipperer  v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995). For such a claim claim to be valid, however, the plaintiff would have to allege that state law failed to provide him with an adequate adequate post-deprivation post-deprivation remedy. See Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378, 382 (11th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).

Based on these standards, we find that Busse has failed to state a valid  procedural due process claim. Florida provides him an adequate post-depriv ation remedy, inverse condemnation, and he makes no argument that this procedure is inadequate. Even if it was inadequate, though, Busse still would not have a valid  procedural due process claim. The Resolution constituted a legislative act since it it was a general provision that affected a large number of persons and area, 200 acres in all, rather than being specifically targeted at Busse or his immediate neighbors. See 75 Acres, LLC v. Miami-Dade County, Fla., 338 F.3d 1288, 1294 (11th Cir. 2003). 2003) . Since alleged problems with the adoption of such acts cannot serve as the  basis for a procedural due process claim, Busse could not cite them as the basis for  his claim. See id. (noting that “if “if governmen t action is is viewed as legislative in nature, property owners generally are not entitled to procedural due process”). Accordingly, we find that the district court did not err in dismissing Busse’s  procedural due process claims. C. Equal Protection Protection Claims Busse also argues that his equal protection rights were violated because the Board, in adopting the Resolution, treated differently privately-owned property and state-owned state-owned property. property.3 The Fourteenth Fourteenth Amendment forbids states states from “deny[ing]

3

In his brief on appeal, Busse argues that he experienced different treatment than other  landowners in Lee County. County. However, we need not address this this argument since he did not mention this in his third amended complaint and we find that none of the exceptions that would allow us to consider an issue not raised before the district court would apply here. See Narey v.

to any person within its its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV , § 1. “[T]o properly plead an equal protection claim, claim, a plaintiff plaintiff need only allege that through state action, similarly situated persons have been treated disparately.” disparately.” Thigpen v. Bibb County, 223 F.3d 1231, 1237 (11th Cir. Cir. 2000) abrogated on other grounds by National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122 S. Ct. 2061 (2002). Under Florida law, counties can exercise eminent domain over any land that is not owned by the state state or federal government. government. See Fla. Stat. Stat. § 127.01(1)(a) 127.01(1)(a) (2006). Since a state state landowner would not be subject subject to the eminent eminent domain domain power   but Busse, as a private landowner, would be, Busse could not be similarly situated to a state landowner. Busse therefore cannot rely on his disparate eminent domain treatment vis-a-vis state landowners as the basis for an equal protection claim. Since Busse made no other allegations of disparity in his third amended complaint, we find that he has failed to plead a valid equal protection claim and that the district court correctly dismissed this claim. D. Substantive Due Process Claim Busse also appears to allege that the Resolution denied him his substantive due process property rights. rights. Substantive Substantive due process protects only those rights rights that are “fundamental,” a description that applies only to those rights created by the

Dean, 32 F.3d 1521, 1526-27 (11th Cir. 1994) (discussing the exceptions to this general rule).

United States States Constitution. Constitution. See Greenbriar Village, Village, L.L.C. v. Mountain Brook, City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Property rights rights would not be fundamental fundam ental rights rights since they are based on state state law. law. See id. Busse thus could not bring a viable substantive due process claim based on the alleged denial of a state-defined property right. See id. Accordin gly, we find that the district court properly dismissed his substantive due process claims.4 E. Supplemental Jurisdiction Busse also contends that the court abused its discretion in not hearing his  pendent state law claims. “The decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over   pendent state claims claims rests within the discretion of the district court.” Raney v. Allstate Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). curiam). Since the district court “had dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it therefore had the discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Busse’s state law claims. claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 1367(c)(3). Furthermore, we expressly expressly encourage district courts to take such action when all federal claims have been dismissed pretrial. See Raney, 370 F.3d at 1089. According ly, the district court did not abuse

4

The district court, in addressing Busse’s substantive due process claim, mentions that assertions of irrational and arbitrary government action could not serve as the basis for such a claim. Even under a liberal reading reading of Busse’s complaint, though, though, we do not think he made such allegations. In the third amended complaint, he discusses takings violations and procedural  problems with the enactment of the Resolution Re solution but never questions the rationale for its passage. Accordingly, we need not address whether he has a valid substantive due process claim based on arbitrary and capricious government action.

its discretion when it chose not to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Busse’s state law claims. III. CONCLU SION

Busse contends that the district court incorrectly dismissed his federal claims regarding alleged takings and deprivations of property rights. Since Busse’s takings claim was not ripe because he had not pursued available state remedies and he failed to adequately plead his other federal claims, the district court correctly dismissed all of these claims. As a result, despite Busse’s objections to the contrary, the district court also did not commit an abuse of discretion in not exercising jurisdiction over his state law claims. Accordingly, Accord ingly, we AFFIR M the district court’s dismissal of Busse’s third amended complaint. AFFIRMED.

David Souter  U.S. Supreme Court Justice RE:

Lee County [FL] O.R.569/875 – An eminent domain scam of giant proportions Case-fixing in the U.S. Court of Appeals

We are writing to you in the matter of the corruption and case-fixing in the U.S. Court of  Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Common intelligence dictates that residents use designated streets to get to their lots. th Unintelligently, the 11 Circuit cannot tell the difference between a designated street and areas”. See Plat Book 3, p. 25 at www.leeclerk.org “unidentified areas”. www.leeclerk.org.. 1

In West Peninsular Title Co. , corrupt Chief Circuit Judge Edmondson co-wrote: “And, plaintiffs’ “arbitrary and capricious” due process claim is ripe. Plaintiffs accused the County of applying an arbitrary and capricious action .. Plaintiffs’ claim was ripe as soon as the County applied the ordinance … See Eide v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 724 n.13(11th Cir. 1990).”

“But the County insists that adjoining landowners own the strip parcels, citing Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959), as an alternative to 16.33  Acres.” For Appellees’ bribes, Edmondson now changed his mind and conspired to pervert a platted designated street into an “unidentified area” in order to fix Appellants’ Cases. Here for  bribes, “unidentified area” ripeness vanished, and justice is for sale in the 11th Circuit. The Appellant(s) also own property in N.H. and wish you the best for your retirement.

  /s/ Jennifer Franklin Prescott

1

/s/Dr. Jorg Busse

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/41/41.F3d.1490.93-4449.93-4104.html Volume 41, The Federal Reporter, 3d Ed. [Nov., 1994 – Jan., 1995]

41 F.3d 1490

Page 1 of 4

« up This is Google's cache of  http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/41/41.F3d.1490.934449.93-4104.html.. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Mar 24, 2009 4449.93-4104.html 15:42:24 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more These search terms are highlighted:

united states v 16.33 acres

Text-only version

41 F.3d 1490  WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO., Absolute, Inc., Marion H. Cooper, for Estate of Alfred R. Cooper, Plaintiffs-Appellees,  v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, Carol A. Roberts, Chair of Board of  County Commissioners of Palm Beach County, Defendants-Appellants.  Nos. 93-4104, 93-4449.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.  Jan. 10, 1995.

Patti A. Velasquez, Asst. County Atty., West Palm Beach, FL, Robert S. Hackleman, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for appellants in No. 93-4104. Sharon M. Pitts, Patti A. Velasquez, Asst. County Atty., West Palm Beach, FL, Robert S. Hackleman, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for appellants in No. 93-4449.  Jeffrey A. Aman, Smith, Williams & Bowles, P.A., Tampa, FL, Joan E. O'Dell, Gregory L. Williams, Smith, Williams & Bowles, P.A., Washington, DC, for appellees in both cases. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Before HATCHETT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, MELTON* , Senior District Judge. PER CURIAM:

1

 After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants raise several arguments, hoping mainly to void concessions made in district court in the joint pretrial stipulation. The district court is affirmed.

2

The controversy concerns the ownership of strip parcels (roads and ditches) offered by Palm Beach Farms for dedication to Palm Beach County in 1912. A 1976 instrument entitled "Notice of Withdrawal of Platted Roads, Streets, and Other Unexercised Rights" revoked the offer of dedication. In 1986, pursuant to local Ordinance No. 86-18 (the "Ordinance"), defendant Palm Beach County (the

41 F.3d 1490

Page 2 of 4

"County"), began a practice of selling easement and right of way interests in property originally acquired through dedication. In return for a "privilege fee," the County issued an abandonment resolution, which, when recorded, transferred ownership of the parcel to the payor of the fee. This dispute began when the County  attempted to collect fees in exchange for abandonment resolutions for parcels that, according to plaintiffs, had never been accepted by the County.

3

Plaintiffs, claiming that they were successors in interest to Palm Beach Farms (and thus owners of the strip parcels), challenged the County's practice as an unconstitutional taking--under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments--of Amendments--of their property.1 The County conceded that it never expressly accepted the dedication;  but, at trial, the County attempted to show that it had impliedly accepted the dedication by using the strip parcels. The jury found for plaintiffs, deciding that the County had not accepted the 1912 offer of dedication within a reasonable time. The district court entered judgment for plaintiffs: plaintiffs were judged the fee simple owners of the pertinent strip parcels; defendants were enjoined from applying the Ordinance to plaintiffs' property; and plaintiffs were awarded attorney's fees. Defendants appeal.

4

The County now contests plaintiffs' standing, arguing that plaintiffs could not possibly own the strip parcels (and thus have no interest at stake). But given plaintiffs' allegations and the County's stipulations in the district court, the record supports both standing and jurisdiction. A "case or controversy" exists in this case  because the parties genuinely disputed ownership of the strip parcels in the district court. The County stipulated to plaintiffs' chain of title, agreeing that plaintiffs were successors in interest to Palm Beach Farms. The controversy was thus limited to a decision about whether the offer of dedication was accepted.2 Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the application of the Ordinance to what they assert is their property.

5

But the County insists that adjoining landowners own the strip parcels, citing Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959), as an alternative to 16.33  Acres. This decision is not about standing: what the County is really arguing is that plaintiffs failed to join indispensable parties. Amicus Boywic Farms agrees, arguing that it was harmed by the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Because the district court could only determine who, as between plaintiffs and the County, had the better claim to the strip parcels, amicus is not bound by the district court's order. It was no abuse of discretion for the district court to refuse to dismiss this case for failure to join indispensable parties. The County, as movant, had the  burden "to show the nature of the unprotected interests of the absent parties," 5A   Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 1359; yet, the County's citation to the record reveals only that it established the existence of adjoining landowners (not the nature of allegedly unprotected interests).

6

 And, plaintiffs' "arbitrary and capricious" due process claim is ripe.3 Plaintiffs accused the County of applying an arbitrary and capricious action (asserting ownership to the strip parcels and recording abandonment resolutions which transferred title) to their property. Plaintiffs' claim was ripe as soon as the County  applied the ordinance and the petition process (including a $400 nonrefundable application fee) to the undedicated strip parcels. See Ei de v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 724 n. 13 (11th Cir.1990).

7

The County argues that no subject matter jurisdiction exists because plaintiffs' claims are so frivolous. But the course of litigation and stance of the County in

41 F.3d 1490

Page 3 of 4

district court undercuts its claim of frivolousness. We also note that the pretrial stipulation plainly reads that "[n]either party contests subject matter ...  jurisdiction."4 If the County actually thought plaintiffs' claims were frivolous, it should not have so willingly conceded facts giving rise to jurisdiction in the stipulation. Because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' federal claims, the court did not err by including plaintiffs' state claims for declaratory relief--pendent jurisdiction was proper.

8

The County also argues that the district court erred by interpreting the stipulation as a "winner-take-all" proposition. That is, the County says it reserved a right to make several arguments, after the jury's fact finding, by referring to "undisposed of  motions" in the stipulation. We disagree. The parties agreed that the jury's conclusion would "be outcome determinative of all of the federal and state claims." The County does not argue that it was unfairly duped into signing the stipulation.  And, we owe great deference to the trial judge's interpretation and enforcement of  pretrial stipulations. See Morrison v. Genuine Parts Co., 828 F.2d 708 (11th Cir.1987); Hill v. Nelson, 676 F.2d 1371, 1373 n. 8 (11th Cir.1982). In the light of the stipulations, the district court did not err when it refused to entertain the County's post-verdict motions.

9

Defendants raise other arguments, none of which present grounds for reversal. The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED. *

Honorable Howell W. Melton, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of  Florida, sitting by designation 1

 Application of the Ordinance, according to plaintiffs, put a "cloud" on plaintiffs' title  because title to the strip parcels was transferred to the payor of the privilege fee. Plaintiffs' property was, in other words, not transferable so long as the County continued to demand fees for the "abandonment" of property it never owned 2

"[S]tanding cannot be waived and may be asserted at any stage of litigation." Harris v. Evans, 20 F.3d 1118, 1121 n. 4 (11th Cir.1994) (en banc). We disagree with the County's argument that plaintiffs' ownership claim is so obviously frivolous that standing could not possibly exist, regardless of stipulated f acts pointing to standing. In support of this claim, the County cites the allegedly "remarkably similar" case of United of United States v. 16.33 Acres of Land, 342 So.2d 476 (Fla.1977), as binding precedent denying plaintiffs' ownership claim. But 16.33 Acres is distinguishable because in that case the government expressly accepted the offer of dedication. Id. at 479 3

Because we conclude that plaintiffs' arbitrary and capricious due process claim was ripe,  we say nothing about whether plaintiffs' additional constitutional claims were ripe. We do note, however, that plaintiffs were not granted relief pursuant to a specific claim. Instead, the County stipulated that plaintiffs would be entitled to the remedies requested if plaintiffs prevailed on any of the disputed fact issues 4

Parties may not stipulate jurisdiction. Bush v. United States, 703 F.2d 491, 494 (11th Cir.1983). And we do not say that jurisdiction was proper because jurisdiction was stipulated. Instead, we look to the record; we affirm the di strict court's conclusion that

41 F.3d 1490

Page 4 of 4

the stipulated facts give rise to jurisdiction. For example, the County argues frivolousness by pointing to purported transfers--by plaintiffs' predecessors in interest-that the County says are null and void. But the County stipulated to plaintiffs' chain of  title; and, the County agreed that it was undisputed that "plaintiffs are the successors in interest to the Palm Beach Farms Company." The record was set in district court CC∅ | TRANSFORMED BY PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG

(3) premiums paid paid for a supersedeas supersedeas bond or other bond bond to preserve preserve rights pending appeal; and (4) the fee for filing the notice notice of appeal. appeal. (As amended Apr. 30, 1979, eff. Aug. 1, 1979; Mar. 10, 1986, eff. July 1, 1986; Apr. 24, 1998, eff. Dec. 1, 1998; Mar. 26, 2009, eff. Dec. 1, 2009.)

**** 11th Cir. R. 39-1 Costs. In taxing costs for printing or reproduction and binding pursuant to FRAP 39(c) the clerk shall tax such su ch costs at rates not higher than those determined by the clerk from time to time by reference to the rates generally charged for the most economical methods of printing or  reproduction and binding in the principal cities of the circuit, or at actual cost, whichever is les s. Unless advance approval for additional copies is secured from the clerk, costs will be taxed only for the number of copies of a brief and record excerpts or ap pendix required by the rules to be filed and served, plus two copies c opies for each party signing the brief. All costs shall be paid and mailed directly to the party to whom costs have been awarded. Costs should not be mailed to the clerk of the court. 11th Cir. R. 39-2 Attorney’s Fees. (a) Time for for Filing. Except as otherwise provided herein or by statute or court order, an application for attorney’s fees must be filed with the clerk within 14 days after the time to file a  petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc expires, or within 14 days after entry of an order disposing of a timely petition for rehearing or denying a timely petition for rehearing en banc, whichever is later. For purposes of this this rule, the term “attorney’s “attorney’s fees” includes fees and expenses authorized by statute, but excludes damages and costs sought pursuant to FRAP 38, costs taxed pursuant to FRAP 39, and sanctions sought pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 27-4. (b) Required Documentation. An application for attorney’s fees must be supported by a memorandum showing that the party seeking attorney’s fees is legally entitled to them. The application must also include a summary of work performed, on a form available from the clerk, supported by contemporaneous contemporaneous time records recording all work for which a fee is claimed. An affidavit attesting to the truthfulness of the information contained in the application and demonstrating the basis for the hourly rate requested must also accompany the application. Exceptions may be made only to avoid an unconscionable result. If contemporaneous time records are not available, the court may approve only the minimum amoun t of fees necessary, in the court’s  judgment, to adequately compensate the attorney.

Rev.: 12/09

155

FRAP 39

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

Rev.: 12/09

156

FRAP 39

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

Rev.: 12/09

157

FRAP 39