Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Defendants.
INDEPENDENT ACTION
FOR RELIEF FROM GOVERNMENT CRIMES, CORRUPTION,
AND FACIALLY FRAUDULENT WRIT OF EXECUTION
____________________________________________________________________________/
1. The purported “execution” issued illegally. See § 56.15, Fla. Stat.; Case No. 2:2007-cv-
00228.
2. “No execution or other final process shall issue until the judgment on which it is based has
been recorded nor within the time for serving a motion for new trial or rehearing.…
Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.550. Here, no “judgment in the amount of $5,048.60” was ever “recorded”,
Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. Here, no evidence of any such judgment ever existed or could
3. On 07/16/2010, Defendant U.S. District Clerks Drew Heathcoat and Diane Nipper again
falsified and altered official documents and records for criminal and unlawful purposes of
4. In particular, the Clerk obstructed, and conspired with other Defendants to obstruct,
electronic court access, court access, and the filing of Plaintiffs’ pleadings, Case No. 2:2007-
deprived the Plaintiffs of their express fundamental rights to redress Government grievances,
and file their Motions for new trial and rehearing, and Notices of Appeal.
5. Here on the record, the Plaintiffs have been directly attacking the prima facie criminality,
illegality, and nullity of the fraudulently procured “execution”, which issued illegally. See §
6. On 07/16/2010, Defendant Corrupt U.S. District Clerk Drew Heathcoat obstructed to issue
“a written statement that a diligent search of the designated records in Case No. 2:2007-cv-
7. The fake “writ of execution”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, is another publicly recorded
element of organized Government and judicial corruption with corrupt intent to extort fess
stay the illegal execution. Grounds for the motion appeared on the face. Here, e.g., no
judgment had existed. See Docket Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. The purported basis for the
non-existent judgment had never existed, because Def. Forger Wilkinson had never filed any
9. Because, e.g., Def. Forger Wilkinson had criminally and illegally forged “land parcels”
had been highly meritorious, and no “frivolous appeal” could have possibly existed.
10. No “frivolity” was ever determined in the “judgment”, Doc. # 365, Case ## 2:2007-cv-00228;
11. For criminal and unlawful purposes of obstructing justice and court access and perpetrating
fraud on the Courts, Defendants John E. Steele, Sheri Polster Chappell, Charlene E.
Honeywell, Mark A. Pizzo, and Richard A. Lazzara falsified and altered, and conspired to
12. Said judicial Crooks knew and fraudulently concealed that no “regulation”, “resolution”,
“resolution 569/875”, “law”, “legislative act” had ever existed, and that as a matter of
supreme Florida and Federal law, no “law” could have possibly divested the Plaintiffs’ of
08/20/2008 under fraudulent pretenses. Here, the deadline for any hypothetical “Rule 38
motion” had terminated on or around 08/08/2008, and Def. Wilkinson had never filed
anything prior to said deadline to justify any judgment or monetary punishment. Therefore
here, no lawful basis could have possibly existed, and the illegal “execution” has been
14. Here, no lawful writ of execution had ever been issued. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs made an
Affidavit that the “execution” is illegal and stated as grounds, e.g., the lack of any
supporting judgment, the lack of any falsely alleged “Rule 38 motion” by Defendant K. M.
Wilkinson.
15. Plaintiffs again contacted Defendant Crooked Attorney Jack N. Peterson for Def. Forger
Kenneth M. Wilkinson and reported said publicly recorded public corruption, extortion,
16. On 07/19/2010, Plaintiff public corruption victim Jennifer Franklin Prescott updated the
Federal Bureau of Investigation about the public corruption, extortion, fraud, and fraudulent
“writ”.
17. Furthermore, the Plaintiff corruption victims move this Court to “set aside“ the non-existent
judgment and “writ” in accordance with, e.g., Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b), 1.500, and/or 1.540(a).
18. In the prima facie record absence of any recorded judgment, any writ of execution, and any
19. Furthermore here, there were other pending actions affecting the subject matter and
conclusively evidencing the prima facie illegality of the fake “writ”, direct attacks upon its
criminality, as well as fraud, extortion, and corruption. See also Daytona Enterprises, Inc. v.
Wagner, 91 So.2d 171 (Fla. 1956); Childs v. Boats, 112 Fla. 282, 152 So. 214 (1933);
McGee v. Ancrum, 33 Fla. 499, 15 So. 231 (1894); Fair v. Tampa Electric Company, 158
Fla. 15, 27 So.2d 514 (1946); Viggio v. Wood, 101 So.2d 922 (3 D.C.A. 1958).
1. An Order enjoining the publicly recorded illegal “execution”-scheme under Florida law;
2. An Order granting the Plaintiffs summary remedies against the record public corruption
3. An Order staying the illegal and null & void “writ of execution” and any “execution”;
4. An Order enjoining any further public corruption and the record falsification of “land
5. An Order enjoining Defendant Forger K. M. Wilkinson from forging and falsifying official
records and documents for criminal and unlawful purposes of, e.g., extorting unrecorded
fees and property under facially false pretenses of a non-existent “5,048.60 judgment” and
__________________________________
/S/JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT
Governmental Corruption & Fraud Victim, Plaintiff, pro se
P.O. BOX 845, Palm Beach, FL 33480; T: 561-400-3295
____________________________________
/S/JORG BUSSE, M.D., M.M., M.B.A., C.P.M.
Judicial Corruption & Crime Victim; Plaintiff, pro se
State Cert. Res. Appraiser, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Mortgage Broker, Appraisal Instructor
7/17/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
(1) It is unlawful for a public servant, with corrupt intent to obtain a benefit for any person or to cause harm
to another, to:
(a) Falsify, or cause another person to falsify, any official record or official document;
(b) Conceal, cover up, destroy, mutilate, or alter any official record or official document or cause another
person to perform such an act; or
(c) Obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to the commission of a felony that
directly involves or affects the public agency or public entity served by the public servant.
(a) The term "public servant" does not include a candidate who does not otherwise qualify as a public servant.
(3) Any person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm… 1/1
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 29 Filed 06/30/10 Page 4 of 8
nature. In that same Order, the Court has already analyzed and
U.S.C. § 1964(c).1
1
The case of Davis v. Kvalheim, 261 Fed. Appx. 231 (11th
Cir. 2008), a matter to which the Busse cases have frequently
been analogized [see, e.g., Busse V, DE-17], was a civil RICO
case filed against every judge and other governmental official
(totaling 129 defendants) that plaintiff “imagine[d to] have done
him wrong.” Id. at 235.
4
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 29 Filed 06/30/10 Page 7 of 8
TONY WEST
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
7
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 425 Filed 02/02/10 Page 1 of 1
7/14/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
55.10 Judgments, orders, and decrees; lien of all, generally; extension of liens; transfer of liens to
other security.--
(1) A judgment, order, or decree becomes a lien on real property in any county when a certified copy of it is
recorded in the official records or judgment lien record of the county, whichever is maintained at the time of
recordation, provided that the judgment, order, or decree contains the address of the person who has a lien
as a result of such judgment, order, or decree or a separate affidavit is recorded simultaneously with the
judgment, order, or decree stating the address of the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment,
order, or decree. A judgment, order, or decree does not become a lien on real property unless the address of
the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree is contained in the judgment, order,
or decree or an affidavit with such address is simultaneously recorded with the judgment, order, or decree. If
the certified copy was first recorded in a county in accordance with this subsection between July 1, 1987, and
June 30, 1994, then the judgment, order, or decree shall be a lien in that county for an initial period of 7
years from the date of the recording. If the certified copy is first recorded in accordance with this subsection
on or after July 1, 1994, then the judgment, order, or decree shall be a lien in that county for an initial period
of 10 years from the date of the recording.
(2) The lien provided for in subsection (1) or an extension of that lien as provided by this subsection may be
extended for an additional period of 10 years, subject to the limitation in subsection (3), by rerecording a
certified copy of the judgment, order, or decree prior to the expiration of the lien or the expiration of the
extended lien and by simultaneously recording an affidavit with the current address of the person who has a
lien as a result of the judgment, order, or decree. The extension shall be effective from the date the certified
copy of the judgment, order, or decree is rerecorded. The lien or extended lien will not be extended unless the
affidavit with the current address is simultaneously recorded.
(3) In no event shall the lien upon real property created by this section be extended beyond the period
provided for in s. 55.081 or beyond the point at which the lien is satisfied, whichever occurs first.
(4) This act shall apply to all judgments, orders, and decrees of record which constitute a lien on real
property; except that any judgment, order, or decree recorded prior to July 1, 1987, shall remain a lien on real
property until the period provided for in s. 55.081 expires or until the lien is satisfied, whichever occurs first.
(5) Any lien claimed under this section may be transferred, by any person having an interest in the real
property upon which the lien is imposed or the contract under which the lien is claimed, from such real
property to other security by either depositing in the clerk's office a sum of money or filing in the clerk's office
a bond executed as surety by a surety insurer licensed to do business in this state. Such deposit or bond shall
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 1/2
7/14/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
be in an amount equal to the amount demanded in such claim of lien plus interest thereon at the legal rate for
3 years plus $500 to apply on any court costs which may be taxed in any proceeding to enforce said lien. Such
deposit or bond shall be conditioned to pay any judgment, order, or decree which may be rendered for the
satisfaction of the lien for which such claim of lien was recorded and costs plus $500 for court costs. Upon
such deposit being made or such bond being filed, the clerk shall make and record a certificate showing the
transfer of the lien from the real property to the security and mail a copy thereof by registered or certified
mail to the lienor named in the claim of lien so transferred, at the address stated therein. Upon the filing of
the certificate of transfer, the real property shall thereupon be released from the lien claimed, and such lien
shall be transferred to said security. The clerk shall be entitled to a service charge of up to $15 for making
and serving the certificate. If the transaction involves the transfer of multiple liens, an additional service
charge of up to $7.50 for each additional lien shall be charged. Any number of liens may be transferred to one
such security.
(6) Any excess of the security over the aggregate amount of any judgments, orders, or decrees rendered,
plus costs actually taxed, shall be repaid to the party filing the security or his or her successor in interest. Any
deposit of money shall be considered as paid into court and shall be subject to the provisions of law relative to
payments of money into court and the disposition of these payments.
(7) Any party having an interest in such security or the property from which the lien was transferred may at
any time, and any number of times, file a complaint in chancery in the circuit court of the county where such
security is deposited for an order:
History.--s. 1, ch. 10166, 1925; s. 1, ch. 14749, 1931; ss. 1-3, ch. 17998, 1937; s. 2, ch. 19270, 1939; C GL
1940 Supp. 4865(3); s. 9, ch. 67-254; s. 1, ch. 71-56; s. 1, ch. 77-462; s. 2, ch. 87-67; s. 7, ch. 87-145; s. 12,
ch. 91-45; s. 10, ch. 93-250; s. 15, ch. 94-348; s. 1357, ch. 95-147; s. 7, ch. 2000-258; s. 1, ch. 2001-130; s.
68, ch. 2003-402; s. 47, ch. 2004-265.
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 2/2
7/23/2010 Statewide Grand Jury on Public Corrup…
Home FAQs The Law Press Releases Additional Resources Annual Reports
The links below provide information On November 30, 2009, Governor Charlie Crist filed a petition
regarding the Grand Jury. requesting that a Statewide Grand Jury be convened in order to Please report information to help
Supreme Court Order “examine and evaluate public policy issues regarding public in the fight against public
Previous Grand Jury Reports coruption.
corruption and develop specific recommendations regarding
Grand Jury Handbook
improving current laws.” On December 2, 2009, the Florida File a Complaint On-line
Supreme Court issued an Order to convene the Nineteenth
Statewide Grand Jury for the purpose of investigating crimes,
Press Releases
returning indictments, and making presentments.
February 1, 2010
Attorney General: Statewide
In Florida, the responsibility to conduct statewide grand juries is given to the
Grand Jury will Help Restore
Statewide Prosecutor. The Statewide Prosecutor designates Assistant Statewide Trust in Government
address: Statewide Prosecution Office
Prosecutors to ensure a statewide grand jury is selected and that a grand jury is
The Capitol, PL-01 December 2, 2009
Tallahassee, FL 32399 presented with testimony and evidence. Starting in February of 2010, the Nineteenth Statement from Attorney General
Grand Jury will be convened in Ft. Lauderdale and shall initially run for twelve on Supreme Court's Order to
phone: 1-800-646-0444
months. The Grand Jury’s investigation of public corruption is not limited to any Convene a Statewide Grand Jury
website: www.myfloridalegal.com
particular region of the State, however, any criminal offenses investigated shall be October 14, 2009
news: Weekly Newsletter multi-circuit in nature. Attorney General’s Statement on
Call for Statewide Grand Jury
The Office of Statewide Prosecution has established a public corruption hotline for
anyone who believes they have information concerning a criminal offense involving
public corruption or wishes to suggest issues the Statewide Grand Jury should
investigate regarding public corruption. A link to the Petition for a Statewide Grand
Jury and the Florida Supreme Court Order Directing Impanelment of a Statewide
Grand Jury has also been provided under the section titled The Grand Jury.
myfloridalegal.com/19thstatewidegran… 1/1
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 422 Filed 01/26/10 Page 17 of 18
case only.
as Documents #418 and #419 which attaches a filing for case number
It is accordingly
FURTHER ORDERED:
Prescott or Mr. Busse, for filing in this closed case, except for
-17-
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 422 Filed 01/26/10 Page 18 of 18
January, 2010.
Copies:
Parties of record
-18-
7/23/2010 Statewide Grand Jury on Public Corrup…
Home FAQs The Law Press Releases Additional Resources Annual Reports
The links below provide information On November 30, 2009, Governor Charlie Crist filed a petition
regarding the Grand Jury. requesting that a Statewide Grand Jury be convened in order to Please report information to help
Supreme Court Order “examine and evaluate public policy issues regarding public in the fight against public
Previous Grand Jury Reports coruption.
corruption and develop specific recommendations regarding
Grand Jury Handbook
improving current laws.” On December 2, 2009, the Florida File a Complaint On-line
Supreme Court issued an Order to convene the Nineteenth
Statewide Grand Jury for the purpose of investigating crimes,
Press Releases
returning indictments, and making presentments.
February 1, 2010
Attorney General: Statewide
In Florida, the responsibility to conduct statewide grand juries is given to the
Grand Jury will Help Restore
Statewide Prosecutor. The Statewide Prosecutor designates Assistant Statewide Trust in Government
address: Statewide Prosecution Office
Prosecutors to ensure a statewide grand jury is selected and that a grand jury is
The Capitol, PL-01 December 2, 2009
Tallahassee, FL 32399 presented with testimony and evidence. Starting in February of 2010, the Nineteenth Statement from Attorney General
Grand Jury will be convened in Ft. Lauderdale and shall initially run for twelve on Supreme Court's Order to
phone: 1-800-646-0444
months. The Grand Jury’s investigation of public corruption is not limited to any Convene a Statewide Grand Jury
website: www.myfloridalegal.com
particular region of the State, however, any criminal offenses investigated shall be October 14, 2009
news: Weekly Newsletter multi-circuit in nature. Attorney General’s Statement on
Call for Statewide Grand Jury
The Office of Statewide Prosecution has established a public corruption hotline for
anyone who believes they have information concerning a criminal offense involving
public corruption or wishes to suggest issues the Statewide Grand Jury should
investigate regarding public corruption. A link to the Petition for a Statewide Grand
Jury and the Florida Supreme Court Order Directing Impanelment of a Statewide
Grand Jury has also been provided under the section titled The Grand Jury.
myfloridalegal.com/19thstatewidegran… 1/1
LEE COUNTY COMMISSION – PUBLIC CORRUPTION
LEE MELSEK
Fort Myers Beach
LEE COUNTY PUBLIC CORRUPTION
LEE COUNTY PUBLIC CORRUPTION
LEE COUNTY COMMISSION – PUBLIC CORRUPTION
14
15
DEFENDANT CORRUPT LEE COUNTY COMMISSION
RON SMILEY
Fort Myers
LEE COUNTY COMMISSION – PUBLIC CORRUPTION
Sunshine Dimmed
“Re: “Manning comes with polished reputation,” July 9.
Only a single sentence in an otherwise fawning profile of
Manning hinted that something was not quite right during
his earlier time on the commission.
Alas, there was no attempt whatsoever to detail to readers
and voters the betrayal of the public trust Mr. Manning
committed while a commissioner in the late ‘90s. Only this
vague reference to the fact “he pleaded no contest for not
following the county’s lobbyist disclosure law and paid
$1,000 in fines and court costs.”
The law, which Manning voted to adopt in the early ‘90s, is
an important Lee County addendum to the state’s open
government requirements. The Lee County law requires
commissioners to keep logs of their private meetings with
lobbyists. They must disclose the names of the lobbyists,
the dates of the meetings, the issues they discussed and
the people and companies those lobbyists represent. It’s a
noble attempt to prevent government in the shadows
much like other counties have adopted.
It lets the public know who is influencing, or attempting to
influence, our elected commission behind closed doors.
While the other four commissioners were dutifully obeying
that law and filing their disclosure logs every three months
with the Clerk’s Office Minutes Department, John Manning
chose to ignore it for the entire four years of his last term
in office. He chose government in the shadows as he met
with companies and their high-priced lawyers and
lobbyists seeking votes and favors in the privacy of his
office or theirs.”
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 434 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 2
JORG BUSSE
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
___________________________________
ORDER
(Doc. #432) filed on May 21, 2010. No response has been filed and
36SPC, Doc. #245) was issued on July 20, 2010, prohibiting any
motion.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 434 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 2
received, the Court will rule on the motion without the benefit of
July, 2010.
Copies:
Plaintiff
Counsel of record
-2-
PUBLIC CORRUPTION COMPLAINT
AGAINST DEFENDANT BEVERLY B. MARTIN
CORRUPT U.S. CIRCUIT JUDGE
CERTIFIED DELIVERY
Federal Bureau of Investigation
5525 West Gray Street
Tampa, FL 33609
Phone: (813) 253-1000
2
14. Def. Martin made unlawful communications and threatened Plaintiff public corruption
whistleblowers with obstruction of court access and deliberate deprivations of Plaintiffs’
express fundamental rights to redress Government grievances, own property, and exclude
Governments.
MISCONDUCT AND EXTENSION OF RECORD CRIMES AND FALSIFIED “WRIT”
15. Under prima facie fraudulent pretenses of “frivolous appeal”, Def. Martin recklessly
extended the record Government crimes, and FIXED and “DISMISSED AS
FRIVOLOUS”. Def. Martin assisted and conspired the reckless perversion and
falsification of a recorded “Judgment” and “Bill of Costs” in the amount of $24.30 “issued as
mandate on 06/11/2009” for criminal and illegal purposes of extortion, coercion, and
retaliation against the Plaintiff corruption whistle blowers. In order for the record fraud
under said fake “land parcels” to continue and for illegal purposes of silencing the Plaintiff
landowners, Def. Martin “SUSPENDED” and perverted the Rules and caused the Clerk to
“discard” more documents.
FALSIFICATION OF APPEAL NUMBERS
16. The payment records regarding Plaintiffs’ multiple appeals conclusively proved the
falsifications and fabrications of “Appeal Number 10-10963 and/or 10-10967”. See U.S.
District Court payment records and receipts. The U.S. Clerk refused to certify and
authenticate the payment record. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 44.
17. Def. Martin pulled “frivolity” out of her ass without any explanation and/or justification
whatsoever. Review of the recorded judgment patently clearly evidenced that the District and
Circuit had fabricated “lack of jurisdiction” for illegal purposes of concealment and cover-
up. Plaintiffs were entitled to defend their unimpeachable, unencumbered, and marketable
record title against Government extortion and fraud, which of course had invoked Federal
jurisdiction directly under the express guarantees of the Federal and Florida Constitutions.
18. Here with wanton disregard for the law, and including Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540, 1.550, Ch. 55,
56, 71, 73, 74, 95, 712, Fla. Stat., Def. Martin conspired to oppress Plaintiffs with prima
facie non-existent and/or illegal orders, judgments, and/or mandates…
CC
Florida Department of Law Enforcement
U.S. Department of Justice
The Florida Bar
Real Property Probate and Trust Lawyer Section, The Florida Bar
Barack Hussein Obama
Eric Holder
3
17
Page 1 of 4
http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/srchPtyCase.fwx?ID=610101050 7/14/2010
Page 2 of 4
http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/srchPtyCase.fwx?ID=610101050 7/14/2010
Page 3 of 4
http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/srchPtyCase.fwx?ID=610101050 7/14/2010
Page 4 of 4
Transaction Receipt
07/14/2010 22:12:10
PACER
we0083 Client Code:
Login:
List cases for Search Party=Jorg Busse,
Description:
party Criteria: Dr.
Billable Pages: 3 Cost: 0.24
http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/srchPtyCase.fwx?ID=610101050 7/14/2010
Page 1 of 1
http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/srchPtyCase.fwx?ID=610101052 7/14/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
____________________________
No. 10-10963-I
____________________________
Plaintiff-Appellant,
Defendants-Appellees.
___________________________________
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 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”
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”
8. Florida and Federal Constitutions expressly prohibited confiscating and/or
“claiming” “land” by “adoption” of a “resolution” and/or any “law”. Here, the
Nazi-style Judges in the 11th 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 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 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 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”
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.”
See fraudulent “04/06/2010” 11th 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
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 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 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 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” “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” (“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
____________________________
No. 10-10963-I
____________________________
Plaintiff-Appellant,
Defendants-Appellees.
___________________________________
2
did when asked why Jews and Nazi opponents were murdered in Nazi
concentration camps.
THE NAZI STYLE CRIMES OF “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”
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.”
See fraudulent “04/06/2010” 11th 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
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 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 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 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” “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” (“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
http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud
531 Documents
11 Subscribers
43,962 Reads
183 Downloads
mail@handwritingexpert.org.uk,
pnina555@bezeqint.net,
kim@kimwasley.com,
forgeryhelp@sandrabasyefde.com,
nadepres@handwriting-examiner.com,
send2lorrie@yahoo.com,
teresa@teresadeberry.com,
forgeryhelp@sandrabasyefde.com,
sheila@sheilalowe.com,
• Fraudulent alterations of words and letters in more than one forgery
• Misspelled words
• Misaligned typing
• Fraudulent paste-ups
JORG BUSSE
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
___________________________________
I.
The Resolution stated that the Second Revised Plat of the Cayo
Resolution stated that Lee County claimed the lands to the east and
lands and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of the public
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
rights to Lots 38A and 41A which they denied to plaintiff, thereby
-3-
Count 2 alleges an unconstitutional temporary taking under
was outside of Lee County’s home rule powers, and therefore the
his accretions onto the riparian gulf front Lot 15A without
alleges that since the 1969 Resolution the defendants have asserted
that Lee County is the owner of the Cayo Costa accretions and have
induced and caused the public to intrude onto the private beaches
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
-4-
Count 4 alleges a conspiracy to fabricate, fraud and
admitted that Lee County was not empowered to adopt the Resolution.
and park for the benefit of the State and County. (Id. at ¶24.)
received purchase offers far below market value and the County
-5-
Count 5 alleges a conspiracy to materially misrepresent and
defraud. Plaintiff asserts that Lee County does not hold title to
revenues which could have been received from the private accretions
based on the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983), 28 U.S.C. § 1343,
4 and 5 of the United States Constitution (Doc. #288, ¶7), the 1899
the 1862 Homestead Act (id. at ¶9), the federal common law Doctrine
-6-
III.
The Court will first address the federal claims, since these
Complaint liberally.
York City, 438 U.S. 104, 121-23 (1978). The Third Amended
Takings Clause.
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
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
Assoc., 512 So. 2d at 936; Lee County v. Kiesel, 705 So. 2d 1013,
New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe County, 95 F.3d 1084, 1088 (11th
U.S. 172, 195 (1972). “Williamson County boils down to the rule
-8-
takings dispute because a federal constitutional claim is not ripe
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
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
-9-
Since there is no showing of federal jurisdiction as to the Takings
prejudice.
Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610, 612-14
only fundamental rights, that is, those rights which are implicit
Village, LLC v. Mountain Brook City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir.
arbitrary and irrational does not bring the matter within the
dismissed.
-10-
C. Procedural Due Process Claim:
process claim. For example, plaintiff asserts that Lee County had
subdivision (Doc. #288, ¶¶ 13, 18, 23), that the Resolution was
and recording requirements (id. at ¶¶ 17, 23), and that the taking
Zipperer v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995).
County, Fla., 338 F.3d 1288, 1294 (11th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff
asserted that the Resolution effecting the taking of more than 200
-11-
merely because state mandated procedures were not followed. First
20 F.3d 419, 422 (11th Cir. 1994). In this regard, some of the
remedy, Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378, 382 (11th Cir. 1996), and as
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
federal jurisdiction.
courts are empowered to hear only cases for which there has been a
Indemnity Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2000). Therefore
-13-
courts for certain civil rights actions, but does not itself create
Fed. Appx. 885, 892 (11th Cir. 2007). Since none of plaintiff’s
federal civil rights claims are properly before the court, § 1343
claims.
-14-
Appraisal Institute. Parrish v. Nikolits, 86 F.3d 1088, 1091 n.2
are all state law claims. Read liberally, the Third Amended
claims. Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (11th
prejudice. Crosby v. Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339, 1352 (11th Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, it is now
-15-
ORDERED:
paragraph 5 below.
5 below.
May, 2008.
-16-
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
JORG BUSSE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
Plaintiffs,
versus
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
(March 5, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and DUBINA, 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
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, the court declined to
retain jurisdiction over Busse’s state law claims. Based on our review of the
I. BACKGROUND
(“the Board”) adopted a resolution claiming certain lands in the Cayo Costa
the Board identified the relevant lands by reference to a map of the subdivision
which showed that, along with a number 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 claim to all of these non-
designated parcels “and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of the public for
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 brought 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,
Protection.1 Id. In his third amended complaint, Busse made six claims:
oppression or slander of 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. § 1983 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; the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act (33
U.S.C. § 403); the 1862 Homestead Act, the federal common law doctrine 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, in his official and private capacity. Id.
accretion and erosion; the Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of
failure to state a claim. R10-285, 291, 303, 304. The district court granted these
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 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. Given that the court did not have jurisdiction over any
of Busse’s federal 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
matter jurisdiction, including the determinations that a claim is not ripe or that the
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over 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 light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Gandara v. Bennett, 528 F.3d
823, 826 (quotation marks and 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., 468 F.3d 733, 738 (11th Cir. 2006).
Since Busse is proceeding pro se, we construe his pleadings liberally. See Miller
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
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, Uniform 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 on appeal are deemed abandoned. See
Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1131 n.1 (11th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, we 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. See, e.g., Arthur v. Haley, 248 F.3d 1302, 1303 n.1 (11th
Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting that appellate courts can and should 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 rights in Lot 15A. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of
private property “for public use, without just compensation” — a condition made
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 in return for the taking of his property. See Eide
v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 720 (11th Cir. 1990). As a result, for a takings
available state procedures to obtain just compensation” before bringing his federal
In this case, Busse’s claim would not be ripe because he has not shown that
is available for alleged takings violations. See Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d
1412, 1417 (11th Cir. 1994). Busse contends that his claim would still be ripe
since that remedy was unavailable in 1969 when the Board of Commissioners
enacted the Resolution. However, our past circuit precedent dictates “that a
Florida property owner must pursue a reverse condemnation remedy in state court
before his federal takings claim will be ripe, even where that remedy was
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 would not be ripe for review. We thus conclude that the
district court did not err in finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over
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
state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. A plaintiff could make a procedural due
including the failure to provide pre-deprivation notice and hearing. See Villas of
Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610, 615 (11th Cir. 1997); Zipperer
v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995). For such a claim to be
valid, however, the plaintiff would have to allege that state law failed to provide
him with an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378,
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
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). 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 government action 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
Busse also argues that his equal protection rights were violated because the
3
In his brief on appeal, Busse argues that he experienced different treatment than other
landowners in Lee County. However, we need not address 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 jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const.
amend. XIV, § 1. “[T]o properly plead an equal protection claim, a plaintiff need
only allege that through state action, similarly situated persons have been treated
disparately.” Thigpen v. Bibb County, 223 F.3d 1231, 1237 (11th Cir. 2000)
abrogated on other grounds by National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S.
Under Florida law, counties can exercise eminent domain over any land that
is not owned by the state or federal government. See Fla. Stat. § 127.01(1)(a)
(2006). Since a state landowner would not be subject to the eminent 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
Busse also appears to allege that the Resolution denied him his substantive
due process property rights. Substantive due process protects only those 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 Constitution. See Greenbriar Village, L.L.C. v. Mountain Brook,
City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Property rights would
not be fundamental rights since they are based on state 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. Accordingly, we find that the district
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 rests within the discretion of the district court.” Raney v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (11th Cir. 2004) (per 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
district courts to take such action when all federal claims have been dismissed pre-
trial. See Raney, 370 F.3d at 1089. Accordingly, 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 of Busse’s complaint, 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 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
III. CONCLUSION
Busse contends that the district court incorrectly dismissed his federal claims
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
contrary, the district court also did not commit an abuse of discretion in not
exercising jurisdiction over his state law claims. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the
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.
Unintelligently, the 11th Circuit cannot tell the difference between a designated street and
“unidentified areas”. See Plat Book 3, p. 25 at www.leeclerk.org.
In West Peninsular Title Co.1, 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,
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.
1
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
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
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009
41 F.3d 1490 Page 2 of 4
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 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 Eide 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
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009
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
"[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 facts pointing to standing. In support of this
claim, the County cites the allegedly "remarkably similar" case 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
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
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 district court's conclusion that
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009
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
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009