How U.S. Government Screws Its People ...

7/7/2010 Re: GREAT TO READ ABOUT YOU AGA…
From: OdessaDay@aol.com
To: jrbu@aol.com
Subject: Re: GREAT TO READ ABOUT YOU AGAIN !
Date: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 5:24 pm
Thank you. I thought I would let you know that my friend, Clara Halper, from New
Jersey, the family of which the government took their 75 acre farm, has still not been
paid for their farm. Only a partial payment. The farm was appraised at 24 million.
The city appraised it at 17 million and the Jury awarded them 17 million....8 years
ago. All they have seen so far is $400,000. After being thrown off of their farm they
moved to an apartment with their four children to wait for their money. No money. All
the money they had, the system....lawyers, courts etc etc....has soaked it all up like a
sponge. That is part of the racket. They give you money.....tie you up in court for
YEARS ...recoup their money. Angela
In a message dated 7/7/2010 1:30:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jrbu@aol.com writes:
GREAT TO READ ABOUT YOU AGAIN
webmail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 1/1
“DESCRIPTION”
OF HORSESHIT:
Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell
http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Public records confirm that Busse owns a lot in a platted subdivision located
in Lee County. This lot (50' x 130') abuts a platted 60 foot wide street. At some point
westward of the street is the Gulf of Mexico Since the subdivision was platted in
1912, considerable accretion has occurred on land bordering the Gulf of Mexico
westward of Busse’s lot. Appellant claims riparian rights. Lee County has claimed
said accreted lands for public park purposes.
4
CASE NO. 08-13170-B
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
JORG BUSSE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; BOARD OF LEE

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; LEE COUNTY
PROPERTY APPRAISER; STATE OF FLORIDA
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL
IMPROVEMENT FUND, STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION,
Defendants-Appellees.
__________________________________/
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT COURT OF FLORIDA, FORT MYERS DIVISION
_________________________________________________________________
ANSWER BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLEE,
LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA and BOARD of LEE
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DAVID M. OWEN
LEE COUNTY ATTORNEY
2115 Second Street
Post Office Box 398
Fort Myers, Florida 33902
(239) 533-2236
(239) 485-2118 FAX
JACK N. PETERSON
Assistant County Attorney
JUDICIAL TRASH
DOC. # 213
2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC
Prescott, et al., v. State of Florida, et al., 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2009):
“I. BACKGROUND
A. Current Action
The Appellants are owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision
in Lee County, Florida. On May 5, 2008, the Appellants filed the present
pro se complaint against numerous state and county officials n1 alleging
that they had violated the Appellants' constitutional rights with respect to
their Cayo Costa property. Most of the allegations in the complaint
concern the 1969 Lee County Resolution 569/875, which claimed the
undesignated areas on the east and west side of the Cayo Costa
subdivision plat and all accretions thereto as public land to be used for
public purposes. The Appellants' Lot 15A is on the west side of the
Cayo Costa subdivision on the Gulf of Mexico and is adjacent to
land that was claimed through Resolution 569/875 to create the
Cayo Costa State Park.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
The complaint named the following defendants (herein collectively "the Appellees"): (1) the State of
Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund; (2) the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks; (3) Lee County, Florida; (4) the Board of
Lee County Commissioners; (5) Jack N. Peterson, Lee County Attorneys [*3] Jack Peterson, Donna
Marie Collins, and David Owen; (6) Lee County property appraisers Kenneth M. Wilkinson and Sherri L.
Johnson; and (7) Cayo Costa State Park employees Reginald Norman, Harold Vielhauerin, Linda
Funchess, Reagan Russell, and Tom Beason.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. Nature of the Suit
Appellant Busse claims to own and public records confirm his ownership of a
50' x 130' lot bordering a platted 60' street on a barrier island in Lee County named
Cayo Costa. Busse claims riparian rights. The State, the County and the Property
Appraiser deny his claim of riparian rights.
2. Course of Proceedings
Busse’s various attempts to frame a complaint (Dkt. Nos. 1, 25, 102, 282,
288) were dismissed by the Court (Dkt. Nos. 87, 267, 338). Between these events,
Busse, in what can only be termed as vexatiously, filed a barrage of “motions” (e.g.
Dkt. No. 65: “emergency motion for criminal prosecution of defendants’ lawyers”;
Dkt. No. 68: “plaintiff’s motion for emergency hearing on the issue of defendants’
1969 bogus resolution”; Dkt. No. 70:, inter alia, “motion to restrain defendants...from
use of deadly weapons in the private Cayo Costa subdivision”) and other pleadings
variously termed “notices” (e.g. Dkt.Nos. 48, 62, 63, 92, 221), “responses”,
“exhibits”, “evidence”, “interrogatories”, “affidavits”, “memorandums”, etc. The
docket below stands res ipsa loquitur.
Busse, apparently as a litigation tactic, also filed formal complaints with the
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1. Nature of the Suit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Course of Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Disposition Below . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
STANDARD OF REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. The District Court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of
federal subject matter jurisdiction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
i
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August ____, 2008, I sent two true and correct
copies of the foregoing to: Jorg Busse, Post Office Box 1126, Naples, FL 34106-
1126; and one copy each to the following: Harold G. Vielhauer, Esq., L. Kathryn
Funchess, Esq. and Reagan K. Russell, Esq., Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., M.S. 35, Tallahassee, FL 32399 and Sherri
L. Johnson, Dent & Johnson, Chartered, 3415 Magic Oak Lane, Post Office Box
3259, Sarasota, FL 34230.
DAVID M. OWEN
LEE COUNT ATTORNEY
2115 SECOND STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 398
FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33902
(239) 533-2236
By:________________________
JACK N. PETERSON
Florida Bar No. 0832774
11
JUDICIAL TRASH
DOC. # 213, PAGE 5
CORRUPT BUNGLING JUDGE
CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL
“I. BACKGROUND 4
Plaintiffs allege that they are the owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa
Subdivision of Lee County, Florida (Dkt. 1, ¶1; Dkt. 5, ¶1). 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,
Florida, et al., 317 Fed. Appx. 968, 970 (11th Cir. Mar 5, 2009).”
PUBLIC PROPERTY TAX RECORDS:
PLAINTIFFS PAID PROPERTY TAXES:
LAND PARCEL “12-44-20-01-00015.015A”
“LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
CAYO COSTA PB 3 PG 25 LOT 15A”
“PAID”
By
Jennifer Franklin Prescott,
Dr. Jorg Busse,
Record Unimpeachable Landowners
CORRUPT HONEYWELL STRUCK AGAIN:

Fixed Latest Case & “Dismissed”
UN-FILED Allegations & Evidence
against Defendant(s), e.g.:
Johnson Engineering, Inc.
Lee County, Florida
Lee County Value Adjustment Board
State of Florida Attorney General
Janes
Bigelow
Pivacek
Mann
Siebens
Hayes
Rutland
Scott
Peterson Bernard
Judah
Quillen
Carta
Hall
Gilbertson
Martin
THE COURT ONLY FILED

COMPLAINT PAGES 1-100,
AND 179,180.
THE COURT NEVER FILED

PAGES 101-178 AND EXHIBITS:
See Doc. # 1.
Page Defendant(s)
9 State of Florida
26 Stevens
32 Lach
34 Russell
38 Alejo
49 Peterson
56 Wilkinson
73 Green
79 Hawes
81 Desjarlais
94-113 (U.S. Attorneys)
Face of Real Estate Fraud:
• Fake “lot” and “block” numbers such as,
e.g.:
o “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”;
o “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”;
Neither fake “lot” “00A0” nor “block”
“00001”ever existed.
• Fake “Government ownership” claims;
• Fake “transaction(s)” such as, e.g., “O.R.
569/875”;
• Fake “resolution” and “law” “claims”;
• Fake “land” “parcels”;
• Fake “frivolity” “defenses”;
• Fake “vexatiousness” contentions;
• Fake “legal descriptions”:
http://www.reportpubliccorruption.org/
http://www.reportpubliccorruption.org/
Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 213 Filed 06/23/10 Page 1 of 23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FT. MYERS DIVISION
JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT,

DR. JORG BUSSE,
Plaintiffs,
v. CASE NO. 2: 09-CV-791-FtM-36SPC
ROGER ALEJO; KENNETH M. WILKINSON;

JACK N. PETERSON; ROGER DESJARLAIS;
LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; LEE COUNTY
VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD; LORI L.
RUTLAND; STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT
TRUST FUND; STATE OF FLORIDA,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION; CHAD LACH; CHARLES "BARRY"
STEVENS; REAGAN KATHLEEN RUSSELL;
KAREN B. HAWES; CHARLIE GREEN; BOB JANES;
BRIAN BIGELOW; RAY JUDAH; TAMMY HALL;
FRANK MANN; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY(S);
SEAN P. FLYNN; E. KENNETH STEGEBY; DAVID
P. RHODES; A. BRIAN ALBRITTON; CYNTHIA A.
PIVACEK; JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.; STEVEN
CARTA; MIKE SCOTT; HUGH D. HAYES; GERALD
D. SIEBENS; STATE OF FLORIDA ATTORNEY
GENERAL; WILLIAM M. MARTIN; PETERSON
BERNARD; SKIP QUILLEN; TOM GILBERTSON,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on five motions to dismiss: 1) Defendants A. Brian
Albritton, Sean P. Flynn, E. Kenneth Stegeby, and David P. Rhodes filed their Motion to Dismiss
and Motion for Injunctive Relief on February 26, 2010 (Dkt. 69);1 2) Defendants Kenneth W.
Wilkinson, Roger Alejo, Roger Desjarlais, Jack N. Peterson, Lee County, Florida, Karen B. Hawes,
Charlie Green, Bob Janes, Brian Bigelow, Ray Judah, Tammy Hall, and Frank Mann filed their
Motion to Dismiss on March 30, 2010 (Dkt. 115);2 3) Defendants The Honorable Hugh D. Hayes
and The Honorable Cynthia A. Pivacek filed their Motion to Dismiss on April 12, 2010 (Dkt. 148);
4) Defendant Mike Scott filed his Motion to Dismiss on April 20, 2010 (Dkt. 158); and Defendant
Johnson Engineering, Inc. filed its Motion to Dismiss on May 24, 2010 (Dkt. 179).
In addition, Plaintiffs have filed several motions: 1) Emergency Motion to Enjoin Fraudulent
Judgments and Execution of Fraudulent Judgments in Case No. 2:07-CV-228 filed on December 4,
2009 (Dkt. 5); 2) Emergency Motion for Judicial Notice of Appeal and Payment of Appeal Fees in
U.S. District Court, Case # 2:07-CV-00228-Fort Myers-JES-SPC, Doc. # 428, Appeal From
Governmental Corruption, Fraud, and Fraud on the Court filed on March 29, 2010 (Dkt. 118); 3)
Motion for Summary Judgment Against U.S. Attorneys filed on March 29, 2010 (Dkt. 119); 4)
Motion for Sanctions After Expiration of 21 Days, and Memorandum, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 filed on
March 29, 2010 (Dkt. 121); 5) Motion for Change of Venue Because of Record Corruption,
Concealment, Fraud on the Court, and Obstruction of Justice filed on March 29, 2010 (Dkt. 123);
6) Motion for Relief from Defendants’ Fraud on the Court, and Memorandum in Support of
Defendants’ Fraud on the Court and Fraudulent Pleadings, Doc. # 69, and 70, and Plaintiffs’ Direct
1
These Defendants also filed a motion for injunctive relief (Dkt. 97) and a motion for
sanctions against Plaintiffs (Dkt. 149).
2
These Defendants also adopted co-Defendants Albritton, Flynn, Stegeby and Rhodes’
Motion (Dkt. 69) as to “Background,” Argument, and Injunctive Relief in their Motion to
Dismiss.
-2-
Attack Upon Any and All Previous Orders & Judgments, Which Were Procured Through Fraud &
Fraudulent Pretenses filed on March 29, 2010 (Dkt. 124); 7) Motions for Corrections of Docket and
Filing of Entire Complaint filed on April 7, 2010 (Dkt. 135);3 8) Emergency Motions to Enjoin
Fraudulent Concealment of Governmental Forgeries by Crooked Defendant Assistant Attorney Jack
N. Peterson, and Strike His Purported “Motion to Dismiss” for Idiotic Name Calling Such As, E.G.,
“Vexatious and/or Bothersome Litigant” to Criminally Coerce the Plaintiffs to Refrain from
Litigation filed on April 9, 2010 (Dkt. 143); 9) Emergency Motion for Recusal of “Judicial
Prostitute” Chappell Who Accepted Defendants’ Bribes in Exchange for Case Fixing, See “Order,”
Doc. # 127, 04/01/2010 and for Judicial Notice of Nazi-Style Judicial and Governmental Record
Bullying & Coercion to Cover Up Governmental Forgeries filed on April 12, 2010 (Dkt. 144); 10)
Emergency Motions for Judicial Notice of Governmental Terror by Vexatious Defendants and of
Appeal Number 10-10967-I as “Docketed on March 5, 2010" filed on April 9, 2010 (Dkt. 146);11)
Emergency Motion to ‘Enjoin’ Nazi-Style Governmental Tactics of Terror, Oppression, Retaliation,
Fraud on the Court, Doc. # 149, and Criminal Concealment of Forgeries “O.R. 569/875" filed on
April 16, 2010 (Dkt. 152); 12) Emergency Motions for Judgment(s) on the Merits Against
Defendants Lee County and Sanctions Against Said Defendants for Criminal Concealment of Fake
“Law,” “O.R. 569/875,” which Had No Legal Effect, Because Law Prohibited “Legislative
Adjudication” of Fundamental Property Rights & Plaintiffs’ Record Ownership filed on April 23,
2010 (Dkt. 160); 13) Emergency Motions for Judgment(s) on the Merits Against “Federal
3
Plaintiffs’ Complaint, that was transferred from the West Palm Beach Division of the
Southern District of Florida, contains 103 pages. However, the last two pages of the Complaint
are numbered 179 and 180. Pages 101-178 are not included in the instant Complaint. The Court
has confirmed, through inquiry of the Clerk of the Southern District of Florida, that Plaintiffs’
Complaint was filed without pages 101 - 178 and without any exhibits.
-3-
Defendants” and Sanctions Against Said Defendants, and “Legal Whore” Corinis, for Criminal
Concealment of Fake “Law,” E.G. Doc. #159, 04/21/2010, filed on April 23, 2010 (Dkt. 161); 14)
Emergency Motion to Cease and Desist Case Fixing & Adjudicate Pro Se Plaintiffs’ Claims in Their
Favor Under the Law filed on April 23, 2010 (Dkt. 162);15) Emergency Motion to Enjoin Reverse
Discrimination & Fraud by Afro American Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell Against the Pro Se
Caucasian Plaintiffs filed on April 23, 2010 (Dkt. 163); 16) Emergency Motion to Enjoin Hate Mail
& Threats by Defendant Psychopath Jack N. Peterson filed on April 23, 2010 (Dkt. 164); 17)
Emergency Motion to Comply with Fed. R. Evidence and to Enjoin “Final Solution” of “Frivolity”
and Hate Crimes against Pro Se Plaintiffs filed on April 23, 2010 (Dkt. 165); 18) Motion for
Sanctions Against Defendant Judges Who Concealed Criminal Invasion of Private Property Rights
Under Fraudulent Pretenses of “Frivolity” Doc. # 148 “04/12/2010" filed on April 23, 2010 (Dkt.
166); 19) Motion for Reconsideration filed on June 1, 2010 (Dkt. 182); 20) Motion for
Reconsideration of Order filed on June 1, 2010 (Dkt. 183); 21) Emergency Motion to Enjoin Record
Crimes & “Public Sale” Scam Perpetrated by Defendant Corrupt Official Kenneth M. Wilkinson,
Emergency Motion to Enjoin Record Crimes and “Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property,”
by Defendant Corrupt Official Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Doc. # 432-3, 5/21/10, Public Notice of Prima
Facie Criminality of “Wilkinson’s Motion for Entry of Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property
and Incorporated Memorandum of Law,” Doc. # 432, 05/21/2010, and Cover Up of Corruption under
Fraudulent Pretenses of “Frivolity” filed on June 4, 2010 (Dkt. 184); 22) Emergency Motion for
Relief from Fraud on the Court, Rule 60(b), Judicial Corruption, Bribery, and Criminal Concealment
of Record Absence of Any “Lee County” Title or Ownership of Facially Forged Parcels “12-44-20-
01-00000.00A0" & 07-44-21-01-00001.0000 filed on June 17, 2010 (Dkt. 191); 23) Emergency
-4-
Motions for Change of Venue Because of Proven Judicial Corruption, Bribery, and Criminal
Concealment of Record Absence of Any “Lee County” Title or Ownership of Facially Forged Parcels
“12-44-20-01-00000.00A0" & 07-44-21-01-00001.0000 filed on June 17, 2010 (Dkt. 192); 24)
Emergency Motion for Recusal of Defendant Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell, 28
U.S.C. § 455, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 filed on June 17, 2010 (Dkt. 193); and 25) Emergency Motion
for Order to Show Good Cause Why Crooked Judge C.E. Honeywell is Not Conspiring to Criminally
Conceal Governmental Forgery of Non-Existent Sham “Parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0" as
Evidenced by 1912 Plat in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25, and Transcript of 11/07/2007 Court
Hearing Before Crooked Chappell filed on June 17, 2010 (Dkt. 194).
I. BACKGROUND4
Plaintiffs allege that they are the owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa Subdivision of Lee
County, Florida (Dkt. 1, ¶1; Dkt. 5, ¶1). 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, Florida, et al., 317 Fed.
Appx. 968, 970 (11th Cir. Mar 5, 2009).
On November 17, 2009, Plaintiff Busse appeared for a “quasi-judicial proceeding[]” before
a Special Magistrate of the Value Adjustment Board of Lee County, Florida (Dkt. 1, p. 2; Dkt. 64,
Ex. 1). Busse appealed a denial of agricultural classification of Lot 15A (Dkt. 64, Ex. 1, p. 38).
Special Magistrate Lori Rutland noted that although he appealed a denial of the agricultural
4
Plaintiffs’ Complaint is over one hundred (100) pages and does not clearly explain or
designate the factual bases of the underlying causes of action. Based on multiple reviews of the
Complaint, in addition to the opinions written by the Eleventh Circuit, this Court attempts to
summarize the bases of Plaintiffs’ claims.
-5-
classification5 of Lot 15A, Busse “directed his testimony and argument to issues involving a
boundary dispute that he had with the Property Appraiser and Lee County” (Dkt. 64, Ex. 1, p. 38).
Special Magistrate Rutland further noted that she made “no findings concerning [Busse’s] argument
regarding a boundary dispute with the County and the Property Appraiser as that [was] not the issue
on appeal. The only issue [was] whether this property [was] entitled to an agricultural classification”
(Dkt. 64, Ex. 1, p. 38). Besides this hearing before the Special Magistrate, there is no indication or
record of a state court proceeding addressing the property dispute that Plaintiffs continue to pursue
in federal court.
A. Previous Cases
A total of nine cases have been filed in or transferred to the Middle District of Florida
relating to Plaintiffs’ property dispute.
1. Case Number 2:07-CV-228
The first case was filed by Plaintiff Busse against Defendants Lee County, et al. Busse
asserted that Defendants deprived him of ownership and riparian rights as to Lot 15A of the Cayo
Costa Subdivision. Busse further claimed that Resolution 569/875 violated his property rights in the
specified lot. Judge John Steele previously found that there was no jurisdiction over the Takings
Clause claim, no procedural due process claim stated, no equal protection claim stated, and no other
basis for exercising federal jurisdiction. On May 5, 2008, Judge Steele issued an Opinion and Order
dismissing Busse’s Third Amended Complaint without prejudice as to all of the defendants (2:07-
CV-228, Dkt. 338), and a judgment was entered the following day (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 339).
5
On August 30, 2006, Busse filed an application for agricultural classification of the
property based on the alleged use of bee boxes. The Property Appraiser denied the application
because the property was not being used for a bona fide agricultural purpose when the Appraiser
made a physical inspection of the property on September 15, 2006.
-6-
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit found that Busse did not state a valid claim for procedural
due process, equal protection, or substantive due process (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 365, p. 10-12); Busse,
et al. v. Lee County, Florida, et al., 317 Fed. Appx. 968, 974 (11th Cir. Mar. 5, 2009), reh’g denied,
347 Fed. Appx. 555 (11th Cir. May 27, 2009). As for the Takings Clause claim, the Eleventh Circuit
held that Busse “ha[d] not alleged that he sought and was denied compensation through available
state procedures,” and therefore, “his Takings Clause claim [was] not . . . ripe for review” (2:07-CV-
228, Dkt. 365, p. 9). Consequently, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal
(2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 365).6
In light of the Eleventh Circuit’s affirmation, Busse filed several notices of appeal in July
2009, seeking review of the same motions and demands that had previously been dismissed by the
Eleventh Circuit. All of these notices were dismissed for lack of prosecution because Busse did not
pay the filing fees.
Despite previous court orders, Busse continued to file repetitive motions for relief from the
judgment (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 381-83), which were denied as moot (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 384). On
November 30, 2009, Defendant Wilkinson filed a Motion for Writ of Execution (2:07-CV-228, Dkt.
386). Busse then filed several emergency motions for relief from the “fraudulent” judgment, in
addition to several notices of appeal (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 388-415). Again, the notices of appeal
were dismissed for lack of prosecution, and an order was issued on January 26, 2010 denying all of
Busse’s pending notices of appeal and emergency motions for relief and recusal (2:07-CV-228, Dkt.
422). Notably, the Order directed the Clerk to no longer accept any filing, related or unrelated to this
6
Busse also filed a notice of appeal claiming case-fixing, bribery, corruption,
conspiracy under false pretenses, etc. on May 4, 2009. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the
Notice of Appeal sua sponte because Busse did not file it within 30 days of the District Court’s
order, thus making his demands moot (Dkt. 366, p. 2).
-7-
specific case, by Plaintiff Prescott or Plaintiff Busse, for filing in the case was closed, except for a
single notice of appeal as to the Order.
On February 1, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued an order granting Defendant Wilkinson’s
Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 424). The Writ of Execution issued
on February 2, 2010 (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 425).
2. Case No. 2:08-CV-364
In the midst of the initial case, Plaintiffs filed a second complaint on May 5, 2008, which was
the same day that Judge Steele dismissed Plaintiff Busse’s complaint in Case No. 2:07-CV-228.
On July 15, 2008, the Court issued an order emphasizing that the allegations in the complaint were
nearly identical to those in 2:07-CV-228 (2:08-CV-364, Dkt. 56). Because the Court previously
found no basis for federal jurisdiction over Busse’s claims, it directed Plaintiffs to show cause as to
why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On July 24, 2008, the
Court issued an order dismissing the complaint without prejudice for the same reasons as previously
stated in the related case, 2:07-CV-228 (2:08-CV-364, Dkt. 70).7
3. Case No. 2:08-CV-899
On December 8, 2008, while 2:07-CV-228 was pending and after 2:08-CV-364 was
dismissed, Plaintiffs filed a third complaint. In this case, Plaintiffs alleged claims against various
state and federal judges, including Judge Steele, Magistrate Judge Sheri Chappell, and state entities,
alleging that Plaintiffs held “perfect exclusive unencumbered legal title” to Lot 15A, which was the
basis of the two previous cases (2:08-CV-899, Dkt. 2, ¶2). Because the previous complaints were
7
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. Prescott, et al. v. State
of Florida, et al., 343 Fed. Appx. 395 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2009).
-8-
dismissed, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants were corrupt and denied their rights. The judges in the
Fort Myers Division of the Middle District of Florida recused themselves from presiding over this
case (2:08-CV-899, Dkt. 7). Consequently, Judge Richard Lazzara and Magistrate Judge Mark Pizzo
of the Tampa Division presided over the case.
On December 30, 2008, Magistrate Judge Pizzo entered an order directing Plaintiffs to show
cause as to why the case should not be dismissed based on the Opinion and Order entered in 2:07-
CV-228 (2:08-CV-899, Dkt. 52). The Order also established certain restrictions on Plaintiffs’ filings
and contact with parties. Upon finding violations of the Order, Magistrate Judge Pizzo set a hearing
for which Plaintiffs failed to appear (2:08-CV-899, Dkt. 75). After their failure to appear, Magistrate
Judge Pizzo entered another order directing Plaintiffs to appear before Judge Lazzara to show cause
as to why they should not be adjudged in contempt (2:08-CV-899, Dkt. 76). Magistrate Judge Pizzo
also issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Complaint be dismissed with
prejudice (2:08-CV-899, Dkt. 121).
On the date of the second hearing, January 20, 2009, Plaintiffs once again failed to appear
in spite of notice that they would be subject to sanctions if they did not appear as directed (2:08-CV-
899, Dkt. 147-48). On February 4, 2009, the Report and Recommendation was adopted, the case
was dismissed with prejudice, and further filings in the case were restricted (2:08-CV-899, Dkt.
186). The numerous and non-consolidated appeals were dismissed by the Eleventh Circuit because
the orders appealed were not appealable, the notices of appeal were untimely, or the appeals were
not prosecuted.
4. Case No. 2:09-CV-41
On January 23, 2009, while 2:07-CV-228 was being appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, after
-9-
2:08-CV-364 was dismissed and before 2:08-CV-899 was dismissed, Plaintiffs filed a fourth
complaint again alleging conspiracy, “case-fixing,” corruption, and fraud by various federal and state
judges, including Judge Steele, Magistrate Judge Chappell, and other state entities with regard to the
same property. As done previously, the judges in the Fort Myers Division of the Middle District of
Florida recused themselves from presiding over this case (2:09-CV-41, Dkt. 7). On January 30,
2009, Judge Lazzara issued an order directing Plaintiffs to show cause as to why the case should not
be dismissed with prejudice and without notice (2:09-CV-41, Dkt. 8). On February 10, 2009, finding
only “a barrage of motions, objections, and miscellaneous pleadings which were prolix in nature and
incomprehensible and unintelligible in content,” Judge Lazzara dismissed the complaint with
prejudice and directed that no further filings in the case would be accepted except for a single notice
of appeal (2:09-CV-41, Dkt. 75).8 On September 10, 2009, the Eleventh Circuit summarily affirmed
the dismissal of the complaint and four days later dismissed the additional appeals for want of
prosecution (2:09-CV-41, Dkt. 133-34).
5. Case No. 2:09-CV-341
On May 26, 2009, after having two complaints dismissed without prejudice and two
complaints dismissed with prejudice, Plaintiffs filed a fifth complaint alleging, yet again, claims
against federal judges, the Clerk of Court, various state entities and counsel who appeared on behalf
of named Defendants. Plaintiffs alleged several nefarious acts relating to the same property. Judge
Lazzara issued an order directing Plaintiffs to show cause as to why the complaint should not be
dismissed as frivolous (2:09-CV-341, Dkt. 7). On June 4, 2009, Judge Lazzara dismissed the case
with prejudice after finding no intelligent response to the previous Order and determining that the
8
Judge Lazzara previously reminded Plaintiffs of the Court’s obligation to respond to
copious and almost daily emergency filings (See, e.g. 2:09-CV-41, Dkt. 31).
- 10 -
complaint was patently frivolous (2:09-CV-341, Dkt. 17). Plaintiffs’ filings were again restricted
based on their consistent pattern of frivolous filings of motions and notices. The numerous appeals
were dismissed as frivolous or for want of prosecution.
6. Case No. 2:09-CV-602
On September 11, 2009, after the previous five cases were dismissed, Plaintiffs filed a sixth
complaint relating to the same property. As before, Plaintiffs filed complaints alleging nefarious
acts against federal judges, state judges, state entities, counsel representing Defendants, and even the
United States of America. After several motions were filed by Plaintiffs for recusal, summary
judgment, and other judicial actions, Judge Lazzara issued an order on November 11, 2009
dismissing the case with prejudice (2:09-CV-602, Dkt. 148). Judge Lazzara further directed the
Clerk not to accept any filings from Plaintiffs in this case with the exception of a single notice of
appeal from the Order. Judge Lazzara also warned that if Plaintiffs instituted another baseless action
that the Court would look favorably on imposing an injunction and sanctions.
7. Case No. 2:10-CV-89
On February 9, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their eighth complaint about the same property. Again,
Plaintiffs filed claims against federal judges, state judges, state entities, and counsel representing
Defendants. This case has been reassigned to this Court.
8. Case No. 2:10-CV-390
On June 21, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their ninth complaint about the same property and court
proceedings that have occurred in prior lawsuits. Plaintiffs filed claims against federal judges and
attorneys. This case has been assigned to Judge John Steele.
- 11 -
B. Current Case
Despite having a total of six dismissed complaints and being warned of instituting another
action pertaining to Lot 15A against the same and similar Defendants, Plaintiffs filed their present
complaint on December 1, 2009 in the West Palm Beach Division of the Southern District of
Florida9 (Dkt. 1). Yet again, Plaintiffs assert virtually the same allegations of corruption, fraud, and
bribery against state judges, state entities, and counsel for Defendants among others. Despite titling
their Complaint as an “Independent Action for Relief from Fraud on the Courts,” it is apparent that
the present complaint relates to the same property, Lot 15A of the Cayo Costa Subdivision. In their
Complaint, which totals in excess of 230 numbered paragraphs, Plaintiffs continue to allege
Constitutional violations relating to this property and the litigation surrounding it. As outlined
previously, Plaintiffs have filed a litany of motions and notices, most of which are convoluted and
incomprehensible.
Plaintiffs allege claims in this case against several Defendants from previous litigation.
Plaintiffs claim violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments (Dkt. 1,
¶229). They also state that there is federal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 and 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983, 1985, 1988. Id. These claims are in addition to several alleged state law claims.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Failure to State a Claim
“While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed
factual allegations, [ ] a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’
9
The case was transferred to the Fort Myers Division of the Middle District of Florida on
December 4, 2009 (Dkt. 3).
- 12 -
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929
(2007)(citations omitted). A plaintiff must plead enough facts to state a plausible basis for the claim.
Id.(emphasis added). “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted
by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d
1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998)(citing Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d 1477, 1491 (11th Cir.
1991)).
Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988,10 in addition to
the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eleventh, and Fourteenth Amendments. Even assuming that a
federal question is present, this case must be dismissed for failure to adequately state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
1. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a plaintiff to state a cause of action in “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” There is a
higher pleading requirement for Section 1983 cases in the Eleventh Circuit to “weed out
10
42 U.S.C. § 1988(a) reads:
The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district

courts by the provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70 of the Revised
Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United States in their
civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced
in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws
are suitable to carry the same into effect . . . .
The Court is unclear what claim Plaintiffs attempt to allege under this particular statute.
Generally, this statute has been cited as it applies to attorney and expert fees. 42 U.S.C. §
1988(b), (c). Seeing that neither appears to be applicable to this case, the Court will not analyze
this alleged claim.
- 13 -
nonmeritorious claims.” GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1367 (11th Cir.
1998). “Thus a plaintiff must allege some factual detail as the basis for a § 1983 claim.” Keating
v. City of Miami, 598 F.3d 753, 763 (11th Cir. 2010)(citation omitted). “To survive a motion to
dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868
(2009)(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929
(2007)).
The Court will now address Plaintiffs’ Constitutional claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
a. First Amendment Claim
“The First Amendment itself expressly provides that ‘Congress shall make no law . . .
abridging the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.” Amnesty Int’l, USA v. Battle, 559 F.3d 1170, 1186
(11th Cir. 2009)(citing U.S. Const. Amend. I). “The First Amendment right to petition the
government for a redress of grievances includes a right of access to the courts.” Bank of Jackson
County v. Cherry, 980 F.2d 1362, 1370 (11th Cir. 1993)(citations omitted). However, “[t]he right
of access to the courts ‘is neither absolute nor unconditional.’” Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091,
1096 (11th Cir. 2008)(citing Cofield v. Ala. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 936 F.2d 512, 516 (11th Cir. 1991)).
“Conditions and restrictions on each person’s access are necessary to preserve the judicial resource
for all other persons. Frivolous and vexatious law suits threaten the availability of a well-functioning
judiciary to all litigants.” Id.
Plaintiffs claim that their First Amendment rights were violated because there was an
“obstruction of redress of Governmental grievances” (Dkt. 1, p. 7). Plaintiffs do not allege facts to
- 14 -
support this statement. The Complaint contains incoherent and rambling claims of alleged
wrongdoing. The Court could assume that Plaintiffs are referring to the restrictions placed on their
abilities to file pleadings. However, as shown in the Background section of this Order, Plaintiffs
have access to the courts and can file their complaints and motions. Indeed, they have filed
repetitious pleadings, motions, and notices. 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. Because insufficient facts are alleged to
support this claim, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted and dismisses their First Amendment claim.
b. Fourth Amendment Claim
“The Fourth Amendment applies to searches and seizures in the civil context and may serve
to resolve the legality of . . . governmental actions without reference to other constitutional
provisions.” U.S. v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 51, 114 S.Ct. 492, 126
L.Ed.2d.490 (1993). However, when the challenged governmental action goes beyond the traditional
meaning of search and seizure, which is in the criminal context, the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments are controlling. See id. at 52 (When “the Government seized property
not to preserve evidence of wrongdoing, but to assert ownership and control over the property itself
. . . . [o]ur cases establish that government action of this consequence must comply with the Due
Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”).
“[T]he seizure of real property . . . violates fifth amendment due process if the property owner
is not afforded notice and a hearing prior to the seizure.” United States v. 2751 Peyton Wood Trail,
- 15 -
S.W., 66 F.3d 1164, 1166 (11th Cir. 1995)(citing James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. at 53).
“Unless exigent circumstances are present, the Due Process Clause requires the Government to
afford notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before seizing real property . . . .” Id.11
Here, Plaintiffs claim that the seizure of Lot 15A violated the Fourth Amendment (Dkt. 1,
p. 7; ¶ 163). However, the Fifth Amendment controls, as opposed to the Fourth Amendment,
because the seizure was not within the traditional meaning of a “seizure” under the Fourth
Amendment. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. at 52. Therefore, the Court finds that
Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Fourth
Amendment claim.
c. Fifth Amendment Claim
“The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of private property ‘for public use, without just
compensation’ - a condition made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Busse,
317 Fed. Appx. at 971 (citing U.S. Const. Amend. V; Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617,
121 S.Ct. 2448, 2457, 150 L.Ed.2d 592 (2001)). A plaintiff may 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.” Id.
at 971-72 (citing Eide v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 720 (11th Cir. 1990)). A plaintiff must
demonstrate to the court that he has pursued the available state procedures to obtain just
compensation for the property he alleges was taken for public use before filing suit in federal court.
Id. at 972.
11
The Court notes that the cited case involves a seizure of real property in a civil
forfeiture action.
- 16 -
Plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe for review because they have not shown that they attempted
to obtain or secure relief under established Florida state procedures. The proceeding before the
Special Magistrate of the Value Adjustment Board is wholly unrelated to Plaintiffs’ dispute in this
case because it only addressed the denial of the agricultural classification of the property in 2006.
Because they have not alleged or demonstrated that they have sought compensation for Lot 15A and
were denied such compensation through available state procedures, the Court finds that Plaintiffs
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Fifth Amendment
Takings claim.
In conclusion, Plaintiffs failed to state any claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court will
now address the remaining federal claims in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
2. 42 U.S.C. § 1985 Claim
“42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) provides a cause of action where two or more people conspire ‘for the
purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal
protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws . . . .’” Montford v.
Moreno, No. 04-12909, 2005 WL 1369563, at *7 (11th Cir. June 9, 2005)(quoting 42 U.S.C. §
1985(3)). To state such a claim, the plaintiff must allege: “‘(1) a conspiracy, (2) for the purpose of
depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the
laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, (3) an act in furtherance of the
conspiracy, (4) whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right
or privilege of a citizen of the United States.’” Id. (quoting Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d
1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2002)). The plaintiff must also allege “invidious discriminatory intent” on the
part of each defendant. Id. (citation omitted). “‘[C]onclusory, vague, and general allegations of
- 17 -
conspiracy may justify dismissal of a complaint.’” Id. (quoting Kearson v. S. Bell. Tel. & Tel. Co.,
763 F.3d 405, 407 (11th Cir. 1985)).
In this case, Plaintiffs allege that all Defendants conspired to deprive them of their alleged
property rights in Lot 15A. Plaintiffs repeatedly state that various judicial officers accepted bribes
to deprive them of this alleged property interest. However, these statements are merely conclusory,
and Plaintiffs provide no factual basis to support a conspiracy among Defendants. Additionally,
Plaintiffs have not alleged the elements of a claim brought under § 1985(3). As such, the Court finds
that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their claim under
42 U.S.C. § 1985.
3. Seventh Amendment Right to a Jury Trial Claim
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(a) states that “[t]he right to a jury trial as declared by the
Seventh Amendment to the Constitution . . . shall be preserved to the parties inviolate.” Here,
Plaintiffs allege that they have been denied the right to a jury trial. Plaintiffs, again, have not alleged
facts to support this claim. The Background section of this Order demonstrates that Plaintiffs have
been repeatedly dismissed from federal court not on the merits of their claims but on repeated
procedural deficiencies. 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.
4. Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due Process Claim
“A plaintiff could make a procedural due process claim by challenging the procedures by
which a regulation was adopted, including the failure to provide pre-deprivation notice and hearing”
Busse, 317 Fed. Appx. at 972 (citing Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610,
- 18 -
6115 (11th Cir. 1997); Zipper v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995)). The
plaintiff must allege that state law failed to provide him with an adequate post-deprivation remedy.
Busse, 317 Fed. Appx. at 972 (citing Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378, 382 (11th Cir. 1996)).
Here, Plaintiffs make no argument that Florida failed to provide them with an adequate post-
deprivation remedy. “Since alleged problems with the adoption of [the Resolution] cannot serve as
the basis for a procedural due process claim,” Plaintiffs cannot rely on them to support such a claim.
Id. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted and dismisses their Procedural Due Process claim.
5. Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Claim
“The Fourteenth Amendment forbids states from ‘deny[ing] to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’” Busse, 317 Fed. Appx. at 973 (quoting 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.’” Id. (quoting Thigpen
v. Bibb County, 223 F.3d 1231, 1237 (11th Cir. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by Nat’l R.R.
Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 102 (2002)).
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
vis-a-vis state landowners as the basis for an equal protection claim.” Id. Consequently, the Court
- 19 -
finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Equal
Protection claim.
6. Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process Claim
“Substantive due process protects only those rights that are ‘fundamental,’ a description that
applies only to those rights created by the United States Constitution.” Id. (citing Greenbriar
Village, L.L.C. v. Mountain Brook, City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2003)). “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.
7. 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 - Conspiracy Against Rights Claim
“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any
State . . . in the free exercise of enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same . . . [t]hey
shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not more than ten years, or both . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 241.
Furthermore, “[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully
subjects any person in any State . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 242.
Plaintiffs cannot bring an action under these statutes because they are only brought in
criminal proceedings. U.S. v. City of Philadelphia, 644 F.2d 187, 192-93 (3d Cir. 1980)(noting that
the United States initiates criminal prosecutions under these statutes, and there are other adequate
- 20 -
remedies to seek alleged violations of Constitutional rights, such as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983,
1985). Because there are civil statutes to address Plaintiffs’ alleged Constitutional violations, the
Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their
claims under 42 U.S.C. §§241, 242.
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 claims.
III. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim in their Complaint
upon which relief can be granted in federal court. Accordingly, the federal claims in the Complaint
are dismissed.12 With its discretionary authority, the Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state claims.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Injunctive Relief of Defendants Albritton,
12
The Court notes that Defendants Albritton, Flynn, Stegeby, and Rhodes alleged that
they are entitled to immunity (Dkts. 69, 119). Additionally, Defendants Hayes and Pivacek also
argue that they are entitled to qualified and judicial immunity (Dkt. 148). Because the Court
finds that Plaintiffs failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted, it does not address the
arguments of immunity in this Order. The Complaint does not allege sufficient facts for the
Court to determine the issue of immunity.
- 21 -
Flynn, Stegeby, and Rhodes (Dkt. 69) is GRANTED in part. The Court dismisses
this action without prejudice. Additionally, the Court will reserve ruling on the
Motion for Injunctive Relief until after the Show Cause Hearing scheduled in this
case for June 22, 2010.
2. The Motion for Injunctive Relief of Defendants Albritton, U.S. Attorney for the
Middle District of Florida, Rhodes, Flynn, Stegeby, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys for
the Middle District of Florida (Dkt. 97) is DENIED as moot.
3. The Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Injunctive Relief of Defendants Wilkinson,
Alejo, Desjarlais, Peterson, Lee County, Florida, Hawes, Green, Janes, Bigelow,
Judah, Hall, and Mann (Dkt. 115) is GRANTED in part. The Court dismisses this
action without prejudice. Additionally, the Court will reserve ruling on the Motion
for Injunctive Relief until after the Show Cause Hearing scheduled in this case for
June 22, 2010.
4. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Hayes and Pivacek (Dkt. 148) is GRANTED
in part. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice.
5. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Scott (Dkt. 158) is GRANTED in part. The
Court dismisses this action without prejudice.
6. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Johnson Engineering (Dkt. 179) is GRANTED.
7. Of Plaintiffs’ pending motions, fifteen (15) are labeled “Emergency Motion” (Dkt.
5, 118, 143, 152, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 184, 191, 192, 194 and 209). None
of these motions present an emergency. They are repetitious, rambling,
incomprehensible and frivolous. In its March 31, 2010 (Dkt. 126) Order To Show
- 22 -
Cause, the Court cautioned Plaintiffs about the unwarranted designation of a motion
as an emergency motion. The Court retains jurisdiction to impose sanctions.
8. Plaintiffs’ pending Motions (Dkt. 5, 118, 119, 121, 123, 124, 134, 135,143, 146, 152,
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 182, 183, 184, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196, and 209)
are DENIED as moot.
9. Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
10. The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions, except the Motion for Pre-
filing Injunction and Sanctions (Dkt. 149), enter judgment accordingly and CLOSE
this case.
11. The Court retains jurisdiction to impose sanctions.
DONE AND ORDERED at Ft. Myers, Florida, on June 23, 2010.
COPIES TO:
COUNSEL OF RECORD AND UNREPRESENTED PARTIES
- 23 -
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 93-1 Filed 08/07/07 Page 1 of 14
7/7/2010 Tony West - WhoRunsGov.com/The W…
Profiles of Government Decision-Makers > Profiles > Tony West
Tony West
Table of contents
1. Why He Matters
2. At a Glance
3. Path to Power
3.1. Clinton Justice Department
3.2. California Attorney General and Political Campaigns
3.3. In Their Own Words
4. The Issues
4.1. John Walker Lindh
5. The Network
6. Campaign Contributions
Current Position: Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice
(since April 2009)
Boss: Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli
Why He Matters
Pundits speculated that Derek Anthony
“Tony” West’s political career ended when
he took on “American Taliban” John
Walker Lindh as a client. He was a
successful lawyer, working as a partner at
the San Francisco firm of Morrison &
Foerster, and he had lost two difficult
Credit: Morrison & Foerstercampaigns in the previous four years.
Table of Contents But West didn’t have to be elected to
1. Why He Matters become President Barack Obama’s assistant
2. At a Glance attorney general for the Justice
3. Path to Power
3.1. Clinton Justice Department’s Civil Division — just
Department confirmed by the Senate. He now heads
3.2. California Attorney
General and Political the DOJ office charged with defending the
Campaigns federal government in litigation. West has
3.3. In Their Own Words
4. The Issues made a career out of handling complex
4.1. John Walker Lindh legal issues in criminal and civil trials as
5. The Network
6. Campaign Contributions
well as during negotiations.
7. Footnotes
8. Tags West, who is a part of a power family in
9. Links
10. Key Associates California, has known Obama since 2004,
whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Tony_West 1/6
10. Key Associates
11. News and he was a top fundraiser for Obama
during the 2008 presidential campaign. He
was finance co-chair of Obama’s California
campaign, where the then-senator raised a
record total of $65 million.
Path to Power At a Glance

West was born in San Francisco in 1965 and was raised in Current Position: Assistant
San Jose, Calif. Like Obama, West is a black politician Attorney General for the Civil
raised outside of the black churches and away from the Division of the Justice
civil rights movement. His father was from Georgia and Department (since April 2009)
his mother was from Alabama, but they moved to
California before he was born searching for new Career History: Partner at
opportunities.(1) Morrison & Foerster LLP (2001
to 2009); Special Assistant
In high school, he won a race for freshman class president Attorney General for the
by making posters of himself talking with then-California California Office of the Attorney
Gov. Jerry Brown (D).(2) After graduating from Harvard General (1999 to 2001);
University in 1987, he worked for Michael Dukakis’ (D) Assistant U.S. Attorney for the
presidential campaign as the chief of staff to the treasurer. Justice Department (1994 to
After Dukakis lost, West worked as finance director for the 1999); Special Assistant to the
Democratic Governors’ Association until moving back to Deputy Attorney General (1993
the West Coast to attend Stanford Law School, where he to 1994)
would become president of the Stanford Law Review.(3)
Birthday: August 12, 1965
During his summers in law school, West worked for the
Hometown: Born in San
law firms of Swidler & Berlin; Morrison & Foerster and
Francisco and raised in San
Tuttle & Taylor. But after graduation, he returned to
Jose, Calif.
politics, working as the chief of staff to the finance
chairman of the California Democratic Party for a year.
Alma Mater: Havard
And after a year as an associate at Bingham McCutchen in University, A.B., 1987; Stanford
California, he began a stint at the Justice Department.(3) Law School, J.D. 1992
Clinton Justice Department Spouse: Maya
West’s first job at Justice under then-Attorney General Religion: N/A

Janet Reno was as a special assistant to Deputy Attorney
DC Office: N/A
General Philip Heymann from 1993 to 1994. West worked
specifically on crime policy, in particular the Omnibus Email N/A
Crime Bill of 1994, which expanded police training and
spending, expanded the death penalty and cracked down Web site
on gun-transfer laws.
In 1994, he was tapped as assistant U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California, where
he prosecuted a variety of crimes, including sexual exploitation, bank robberies, tax violations
and government (3)
malfeasance. During that time, he also served as planning commissioner for
San Jose and served on the boards of a variety of agencies.(4)
California Attorney General and Political Campaigns

In 1999, West was appointed by the California attorney general as the state’s special assistant
attorney general. In that capacity, he acted as an adviser to the attorney general and specialized
in high-tech crime, identity theft, civil rights and police misconduct.
When Mike Honda (D) left the California Assembly to run for Congress in 2000, West ran for
Honda’s seat against Manny Diaz (D)and lost in a racially-charged contest. West, who had also
lost a race for San Jose City Council in 1998, was called “the best candidate to have never won
a race.”(5)
West left government in 2001 to take a job as a partner at the San Francisco law firm of
Morrison & Foerster, where his work ranged from representing individuals in civil rights cases
to representing large corporations in complex litigation to white-collar criminal defense.
Though he was working in private practice, West stayed tangentially involved in politics. In
2004, he was selected to be a delegate for Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) at the Democratic
National Convention.(6) West met Barack Obama at that convention (Obama delivered the
keynote address and launched himself on the national stage there), and told him that he would
volunteer whenever Obama decided to run for president. “I had no doubt that he’d run for
president,” West said. “I didn’t anticipate that it would be so soon.”(7)
In December 2006, Obama preparing a presidential run, and he asked West to join his team.
West began raising money in northern California, and eventually became one of Obama’s state
finance co-chairs. The campaign raised a record $65 million in California during the 2008
contest.(8)
After the election, Obama nominated West as assistant attorney general for the Justice
Department’s Civil Division, which defends the federal government in litigation. He was
confirmed in April 2009.
The Civil Division deals with non-criminal cases involving the government such as contract
disputes.(9) For example, when the government wanted to sue tobacco companies for the
money it had spent on treating tobacco-related illnesses, the Civil Division handled the case.(10)
In Their Own Words

The government's willingness to dismiss all of the terrorism charges —
including the most serious, conspiracy to kill Americans — was for us
an acknowledgement of what we have been saying all along: Whatever
John is, he is not a terrorist, and he did not go to Afghanistan to kill
Americans.
The Issues
At Morrison & Foerster (MoFo), West worked on a wide variety of high-profile cases. He
represented Oakland Raiders wide receiver Marcus Williams in a civil suit against a former
teammate, and has commented regularly for ESPN as a “legal analyst” when the arena of sports
collides with law.
For instance, West opined when NBA star Kobe Bryant was charged with rape, when college
football running back Maurice Clarett challenged the NFL’s rule that he couldn’t enter the league
until he had been out of high school for three years and when NBA player Jayson Williams was
accused of murder.(3) West has also served as a legal expert for CNN and CBS.(11)
At MoFo, West was a part of the firm’s white-collar criminal defense team and has also worked
on civil- rights cases, including a civil suit against the San Bernardino (Calif.) sheriff’s
department, which was found to have wrongly detained and interrogated a woman and her son
after the shooting of the woman’s other son.(3) He also represented AT&T technician Mark
Klein, who testified that his company allowed the administration to tap the phones of U.S.
citizens without a warrant.(8)
John Walker Lindh

In 2002, West joined the defense team of John Walker Lindh, a native of Marin County, Calif.,
who joined the Taliban after attending school in Pakistan. In 2001, he fought against the
Northern Alliance, which later became a U.S. ally against the Taliban, and pleaded guilty to
supplying services to the Taliban.(12)
But Lindh contends that he did not expect the U.S. to get involved in the war he was fighting,
and West said in an online discussion that the government’s decision to drop the charges of
conspiracy to kill Americans “was for us an acknowledgement of what we have been saying all
along: Whatever John is, he is not a terrorist, and he did not go to Afghanistan to kill
Americans.”(13)
Many thought West’s decision to get involved in Lindh’s case signaled the end of his public life.
But West said it was an important case for him. “I really believe that in working on that case, I
was recommitting myself to those principles of due process, fairness — things that separate us
from most nations in the world,” West said.(8)
In an editorial for the San Francisco Daily Journal, West stood by his decision to defend Lindh,
comparing it to President John Adams’ choice to defend British Red Coats charged with murder
during the Boston Massacre. “This commitment to ensure meaningful representation for the
despised is a defining element of our nation’s unique character,” West wrote.(14)
The Network
"Tony's ascension in the various worlds of politics is largely due to the fact that he has always
been very meticulous about maintaining his networks — and they are networks that are beyond
California," said Sam Rodriguez, a political consultant who worked with West early in his
career.(1)
West began working in politics in 1987, when he volunteered for Michael Dukakis. On that
campaign, West met then-Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), and he still keeps a signed
photograph of Kennedy in his office. He also has photos of Robert Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln,
Janet Reno and Barack Obama. “I was so fortunate to be at the department when Janet Reno
was attorney general and then to be a federal prosecutor when she was attorney general. It was
a really good time to learn the principles of prosecution and what a department of justice
should be,” West said.(6)
West worked on Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign from the beginning and played basketball
with him the morning of the Indiana primary. His wife, Maya, was the first African American
vice president at the Ford Foundation and handles the peace and social justice portfolio. West’s
sister-in-law, Kamala Harris, was the first female district attorney of San Francisco.
Campaign Contributions
In addition to donating $2,800 to Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign, he also
donated $2,300 to Hillary Rodham Clinton after the primary was over to help her repay her
campaign debt. And he has donated to California Democrats such as Rep. Barbara Lee (D-
Calif.), chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, and California Democratic Sens. Dianne
Feinstein and Barbara Boxer.(15)
Footnotes
1. Garofoli, Joe, “Obama point man connected, respected,” San Francisco Chronicle, March 1, 2008
2. Banducci, Slise, “Bay area community leader joins Taliban defense,” San Jose Mercury News, Jan 29, 2002
3. Biographical and career data from a questionnaire filled out by Tony West and accessed from the Senate Judiciary
Committee W eb site
4. Editorial, “For City Council District 3: Tony W est,” San Jose Mercury News (Calif.), May 14, 1998
5. Silicon Valley Newsroom, “Obama names Tony West to Justice post,” SanJoseInside.com, Jan. 25, 2009
6. “Tony West: Of Obama for America on Obama and the Future,” Video interview with Zennie Abraham on Nov. 12,
2008
7. Berkley, Gail, “Attorney Tony West a key player in Obama camp,” Sun Reporter, Oct. 23, 2008
8. Egelko, Bob, “Obama taps S.F. lawyer for Justice post,” San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 25, 2009
9. Egelko, Bob, “Obama taps S.F. lawyer for Justice post,” San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 25, 2009
10. Holland, Jess J., “Justice Department lawyer insists tobacco lawsuit moving forward despite doubts from
Democrats,” Associated Press, Sept. 5, 2001
11. Biographical and career data from biography of Tony West on Morrison & Foerster Web site
12. Margasak, Larry, “Lindh asks for forgiveness as U.S. official debrief him,” The Associate Press via the Tri-Valley Herald
(Pleasanton, Calif.), Sept. 1, 2002
13. “John Walker Lindh Plea: Discussion with Tony West,” WashingtonPost.com, July 18, 2002
14. West, Tony, “Defending the despised,” San Francisco Daily Journal, Jan. 17, 2007
15. Center for Responsive Politics
Retrieved from "http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Tony_West"
Tags: Department of Justice | former Clinton administration official | ID-West, Tony | Law |
Obama Administration official | POSITION-Assistant_Attorney_General_for_the_Civil_Division
7/7/2010 Abandoned oil wells make Gulf of Mexi…
Abandoned oil wells make Gulf of

Mexico 'environmental minefield'
AP investigation finds BP was responsible for 600 of more than
27,000 abandoned wells in the Gulf of Mexico
Richard Wray
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 7 July 2 01 0 1 6 .3 8 BST
Detail of a m ap showing geology , oil (in red) and gas (green) fields, in the Gulf of Mexico Region Illustration:
U.S. Geological Surv ey US Geological Surv ey
The Gulf of Mexico is packed with abandoned oil wells from a host of companies
including BP, according to an investigation by Associated Press, which describes the area
as "an environmental minefield that has been ignored for decades".
While the explosion and subsequent sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig has thrown the
spotlight sharply on BP's activities in the Gulf of Mexico, environmental safety in the
area has been neglected for decades.
There are more than 27,000 abandoned wells in the Gulf of Mexico, according to AP, of
which 600 belonged to BP.
The oldest of these abandoned wells dates back to the late 1940s and the investigation
highlights concerns about the way in which some of them have been plugged, especially
the 3,500 neglected wells that are catalogued by the government as "temporarily
abandoned". The rules for shutting off temporarily closed wells are not as strict as for
completely abandoned wells.
Regulations for temporarily abandoned wells require oil companies to present plans to
reuse or permanently plug such wells within a year, but AP found that the rule is
routinely circumvented, and that more than 1,000 wells have lingered in that unfinished
condition for more than a decade. About three-quarters of temporarily abandoned wells
have been left in that status for more than a year, and many since the 1950s and 1960s.
AP quotes state officials as estimating that tens of thousands are badly sealed, either
because they predate strict regulation or because the operating companies violated
rules. Texas alone has plugged more than 21,000 abandoned wells to control pollution,
according to the state comptroller's office. In state-controlled waters off the coast of
guardian.co.uk/…/abandoned-oil-wells… 1/15
California, many abandoned wells have had to be resealed. But in deeper federal waters,
AP points out, there is very little investigation into the state of abandoned wells.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (formerly the
US Minerals Management Service), which is charged with keeping an eye on offshore
drilling, has little power to deal with abandoned wells. It merely requests paperwork to
prove that a well has been capped and, unlike regulators in states such as California, it
does not typically inspect the job.
The Deepwater Horizon disaster has so far cost BP more than $3bn (£1.98bn) in actual
clean-up expenses, but many times more in terms of the company's financial value. Its
share price has more than halved since the explosion on 20 April and the clean-up is
likely to take months if not years. The AP investigation raises the question of whether
there are more such environmental disasters waiting to happen.
White knight wanted

BP boss Tony Hayward, meanwhile, continues to try to deal with the fallout from the
Deepwater Horizon disaster. The BP chief executive is understood to have met with the
Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA) as he continues his world tour in search of a
so-called "white knight" investor to ward off a takeover by a foreign rival.
Having already held talks with the Kuwait Investment Office, a current investor,
Hayward has switched his interest to other cash-rich oil states as he tries to bolster
support for BP, which has become increasingly vulnerable as a result of the share price
collapse caused by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. ADIA is one of the world's largest
sovereign wealth funds.
The news comes after it emerged on Tuesday that the US government has demanded
that the oil group give it advance notice of any potential disposals. Earlier this month BP
said it would raise $10bn by selling some of its non-core assets to help shore up its
balance sheet in the face of the mounting cost of dealing with the spill.
On 23 June, the US assistant attorney general Tony West wrote to BP to request that
the department of justice be alerted to any sales or even joint ventures entered into by
the company. BP has yet to respond.
Speculation has centred on the disposal of some of BP's assets in South America, while
"mature" assets in the North Sea have been seen by other oil watchers as obvious
candidates for sale. Hayward was in Azerbaijan on Tuesday to reassure local politicians
that it is not about to jettison its assets on the Caspian and met with Azerbaijan
president Ilham Aliyev.
BP has ruled out issuing any new shares, instead hoping that it will be able to persuade
investors to pick up their stakes in the market. But many in the City believe it will need
to raise more cash to bolster its balance sheet, with a bond issue seen as the most likely
route.
Ads by Google
Oil Spill Insurance
Workers Compensation and General liability packages for gulf cleanup
www.shopinsuranceonline.com
Wildlife Rescue Efforts
Learn How Wildlife Is Being Saved From The Recent Oil Spill.
www.Facebook.com/DawnSavesWildlife
The Reality Behind BP
The company, the spill, the stock.. We give it to you straight. New Rpt
EnergyAndCapital.com/BP_Report
Comments in chronological order (Total 41
comments)
Post a comment
Staff
Contributor
Waraqah
7 Jul 2010, 1:20PM
'mature' assets in the North Sea have been seen by other oil watchers as
obvious candidates for sale.
For 'mature', read almost depleted. I can't imagine anyone is going to pay top dollar for any
of these fields, especially as any asset disposal now is going to be seen as a fire sale (no pun
intended).
Recommend? (5)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
Geologybob
7 Jul 2010, 1:24PM
Lets just clarify this for non oil workers. Although it looks plenty controversial, the word
"abandoned" in this case does NOT mean that the oil company has just upped-sticks and
walked away from it, leaving it open to the sea.
Abandonment of a well is the term given to a fairly simple technical operation which is
performed at the end of life of all wells and involves them being physically stopped-
up...usually with a number of strong plugs of cement and/or packers so that they present
no path to surface. In most cases, the cement used is a stronger medium than the rock
through which the well was drilled in the first place.
The phrase used above "There are more than 27,000 abandoned wells in the Gulf of
Mexico" simply reflects the number of wells drilled and then no longer used, rather than
some dark secret the oil companies are keeping.
Its important that a well is abandoned correctly, but there are well established means of
testing the abandonment which are easily and regularly performed before a mobile rig
moves off and to imply that all abandoned wells pose a threat to the environment is being
"economical with the truth".
Recommend? (58)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
29FR
7 Jul 2010, 1:36PM
So that's oil companies, regulators and any other beneficiaries of the petro-chemical age
fully implicated in the enviro-crime of the century.
That dark, filthy, endlessly gushing stuff is collective guilt.
Recommend? (10)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
smartse
7 Jul 2010, 1:41PM
There are more than 27,000 abandoned wells in the Gulf of Mexico, according to AP, of
which 600 belonged to BP
If this is the case, shouldn't we be saying well done to BP? The other oil companies must be
far worse at it, oh yes, they're all 100% American companies though so that would be stupid
to report as the bashing of BP would stop...
Thanks for the insight GeologyBob - it would have been useful if the article had actually
described what an abandoned well is.
Recommend? (16)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
PeakOilPete
7 Jul 2010, 1:49PM
If I went out to the local boating lake... poured a drum of oil into it and killed a few ducks,
I’d get locked up.
So why does Tony Hayward and other BP bosses get away with murder...yes murder... 11
and counting so far, and terrorism... yes, environmental terrorism. If that was Al Qaeda and
a dirty bomb the FBI would have rounded them up by now.
Can you imagine their faces Hayward and the other BP CEO’s in orange overalls going for
the Guantanamo Bay gurney ride! And while they are at it they can round up all those
other terrorist CEO’s on Wall Street... Goldman Sachs & Lehman Bros. Etc. who stole all our
pensions.
Recommend? (20)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
Bauhaus
7 Jul 2010, 1:52PM
Its our planet these fuckers are destroying.
Recommend? (25)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
newdecade
7 Jul 2010, 1:55PM
Waraqah:
For 'mature', read almost depleted. I can't imagine anyone is going to pay top dollar for any
of these fields, especially as any asset disposal now is going to be seen as a fire sale (no pun
intended).
Yeah, thats what it basically means, but its hardly unusual. A host of companies have
sprung up in recent years who specialise in redeveloping mature assets, simply because for
a company the size of BP or any other major, investing in those dying years of a field simply
arent worth the time and effort. They trade in bulk. But for those companies prepared to
tackle the technical challenges, its possible to make a neat profit.
Recommend? (4)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
Catclaw
7 Jul 2010, 1:58PM
'Big Earl' does not like to deal with the many problems of properly plugging and abandoning
wells. They will often sell the wells after the best, easy oil is removed to another operator to
escape the plugging cost. Often the end result is an orphaned well that contaminates the
ground water, leaks gas and/or oil to the surface.
Many wells are closed with the much less restrictive procedure of 'temporarily abandoned'.
It is cheap. (Big Earl' is obsessed with cheap.) The cost is much less than a properly plugged
well. When a leak develops on these poorly handled wells, the operator will proclaim the
problem is not a result of shoddy work but is a natural seep to avoid punitive damages and
recognition of incompetence. 'Big Earl' has become obsessed with cost to the point of the
fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico.
Where the environment is concerned, 'Big Earl' can not deal with the multi-role of drilling,
protecting the environment and being the 'best cheap skate'. And don't ask them about how
the take care of environmental matters in Western Africa.
Recommend? (5)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
outoffr
7 Jul 2010, 2:05PM
PeakOilPete
"If I went out to the local boating lake... poured a drum of oil into it and killed a few
ducks, I’d get locked up.
So why does Tony Hayward and other BP bosses get away with murder...yes murder... 11
and counting so far, and terrorism... yes, environmental terrorism. If that was Al Qaeda and
a dirty bomb the FBI would have rounded them up by now.
"
If you went to the local boating lake legally, and your boat engine exploded and oil poured in
the water, you wouldn't be locked up.
Not that i want to defend them, but lets stop the crazy comaprison ...
If they are foudn to have taken reckless risks, they will be prosecuted ..
Recommend? (10)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
stodulky
7 Jul 2010, 2:08PM
I too, am intrigued by the emphasis given to BP in this article. So, of 27,000 abandoned
wells, only about 2.5% are/were owned by BP, but no mention of the other 26,400?
Is 600 a significant amount for one company to own? Are there other companies who own
700 or 7000 or 17000?
Recommend? (14)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
outoffr
7 Jul 2010, 2:11PM
Bauhaus
Its our planet US fuckers are destroying.
You may cycle and not drive (i do), try and recycle, etc ... your carbon footprint is likely to
be much, much higher than you think.
Just look into the environmental cost of the internet and you'll be VERY suprised (energy
sucked by servers hosting websites - including this one).
By reading this online, you are contributing to the cost.
Recommend? (8)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
delphinia
7 Jul 2010, 2:12PM
This should of course apply to all polluted areas of the world, not just those that affect rich
Americans.
Recommend? (5)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
eryngium
7 Jul 2010, 2:21PM
@GelogyBob
thank you for your further detail on the simple job of capping spent wells. i would like to
add, though, that individuals can be simply greedy as well as being simply inept. this means
that your seemingly straight -forward explanation can, in reality, become a disaster, ie, that
cement that they use, did someoene increase their profit by selling cement past its sell-by
date? those "well established tests". are they just carried out at the point of the rig moving
away from the site or are there regular follow-up tests to monitor the integrity opf the
plug? i can wrap some gaffer tape around a leaking pipe and the leak stops. i would not say
that i had solved my leaky pipe in the long term. not even the middle term.
Recommend? (3)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
Bauhaus
7 Jul 2010, 2:21PM
@outoffr - of course I realise my contribution to climate change etc.
I do what I can (increasingly) to mitigate this.
Does this mean I cannot voice an opinion on this subject?? If I can't, then noone can, and we
may as well let business do what it wants and forget our childrens future. Would you rather
7/7/2010
y Abandoned
g oil wells make Gulf of Mexi…
y
people who voice opinion on such subjects keep schtumm?
Either way, I`m not raping the oceans for profit am I, with scant regard for the fallout.
Recommend? (5)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
cause
7 Jul 2010, 2:23PM
delphinia
yeah but yeah but no
Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
andinoble
7 Jul 2010, 2:27PM
27,000 since the 1940s, that´s over 415 per year which is a lot more than one well a day
that has been created since then and it´s likely the rate has steadily been accelerating.
Shurely Shum mishtake? How come this one went wrong. Anyone have any idea how may
similar events to the current well "excitement" have happened there and elsewhere but
never been reported and or "disappeared"?
"Now we know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall"?
Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
sutski123
7 Jul 2010, 2:30PM
This should of course apply to all polluted areas of the world, not just those that affect
rich Americans.
If there had been a movement against "pollution" rather than "global warming", we would
have cleaned up this planet a lot more these last 10 years for sure!!!
Stop killing the air in my town and the water and life in my rivers and sea is a lot more
relateable to than trying to stop a 0.5 degree warming that may or may not be caused by
us. Pollution IS caused by us. Period.
STOP POLLUTION NOT GLOBAL WARMING!!!
Recommend? (5)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
sutski123
7 Jul 2010, 2:32PM
Shurely Shum mishtake?
hahahahaha but true!!!
Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
eryngium
7 Jul 2010, 2:38PM
@sutski123
it is so much easier for industry to wriggle out of reducing co2 emmissions due to the
division in the scienttific community. pollution can be measured every single day with great
accuracy so i would expect industry to be both supporting financially the global warmers
and the deniers. divide and conquer!
Recommend? (2)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
maggawags
7 Jul 2010, 2:53PM
I expect once the world has run out of fish stocks , and whaling continues, and the desire for
shark fins carries on, there will be nothing left in the oil saturated oggin , apart from
cruiseliners full of senile wealthy elderlies, playing bingo!
Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
PorkChopExpress
7 Jul 2010, 2:56PM
sutski123 - The Computer you're using, was it grown out of the ground like a potato? Or is
it made up of mined materials then constructed/distributed with a huge carbon footprint?
Answers on a postcard marked 'Hypocrite'
Recommend? (4)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
smuglyfrombrazil
7 Jul 2010, 2:57PM
How dare you bring this up?!!
We're watching footballl!!
Recommend? (2)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
mike944
7 Jul 2010, 3:00PM
So BP has closed down 600 well over decades. Big deal. Perhaps Richard Wray could
perhaps provide some evidence that any of these 600 BP wells are causing an
environmental problem.
This paper should stop bashing BP for what was an accident. Half of our pensions are
probably tied up in BP so it will do none of us any favours if BP went bankrupt.
Also all of us owe a huge debt to oil, like it or not. Our very existence, way of life, our food,
etc is all heavily dependant on oil. If we stopped using oil right now we would have a world
famine with far greater consequences than a possible few degrees of global warning some
time in the next hundred years or so.
Recommend? (3)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
Charity409
7 Jul 2010, 3:01PM
"This should of course apply to all polluted areas of the world, not just those that affect rich
Americans."
I completely agree with your opinion that reckless destruction of any place in the world
should be met with prosecution. I don't however, agree with the "rich Americans" portion of
you your statement. Clearly you haven't thought to take the time to learn about the area
affected by this spill. Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama and parts of Florida and Texas this is
affecting are not by any stretch wealthy. Their economies are driven by largely by fishing
and tourism.
You can argue that oil is also a big part of those state's economies but the affected areas are
directly on the coast. That may seem like a small area but consider this. Your country is
about the size of Texas. So now consider the amount of coast there is when you add four
more states to their coastline. Now imagine the equivalent of every hotel in London having
no business during the height of the tourist season. Which means the restaurants that feed
those visitors will likely fail. Which means the laundry services, taxis services, tour
operators and shops will see a dramatic decline in their business. Milliions are now
unemployed as a result of this because of the ripple affect.
And that's just the start. Fishermen who have passed on their fishing licenses from
generation to generation in their families can no longer fish. An oyster shucking company
that had been in business for over 125 years had to close. There are no edible oysters. And
the news is anything but good about the number of years it will take before seafood from
the gulf is safe to eat again.
None of the jobs I mention above are at the top of the pay scale. So before you assume this
is silly rich Americans getting their britches in a bunch over not being able to go to the
beach, maybe take a moment to put it in perspective.
Recommend? (2)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
feline1973
7 Jul 2010, 3:08PM
TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND?!?!
Good grief.
And don't get me started on SPACE JUNK!!!!!!!!
Devo to thread!
Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
Chriskiy
7 Jul 2010, 3:17PM
I'm no fan of BP or any other oil company, but the AP report seems to be a pure bit of BP-
bashing. They estimate that BP is responsible for 600 of these abandoned wells, in other
words just over 2 per cent of the wells. If they've been able to identify BP as the company
responsible for these wells, they have presumably been able to identify those responsible
for the remaining 26,400 of them, as they've been able to assume that it isn't BP. So who
are these companies? Who has the most abandoned wells in the Gulf of Mexico? What
percentage of these wells are owned by US companies? Which companies have been most
responsible for abandoning wells with mere temporary corks? Has the state of Texas
charged any company for topping off their abandoned wells, as BP is being charged, with
the PResident's foot on its neck? All of these, of course, are questions that AP is not
interested in answering, as it would spoil their BP-bashing brief.
Recommend? (4)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
stodulky
7 Jul 2010, 3:19PM
Dear internet ranting crew,
I would like to propose a moratorium on the concept that anyone who owns a computer
(and doesn't live in a cave eating moss) is a hypocrite if they appear to give a flying one
about the environment.
Regards
Recommend? (12)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
Burntfaceman
7 Jul 2010, 3:29PM
The quicker we use it all up the better, what's left, a hundred years of it? Good fukcin
riddance...a blink of an eye relative to mankind's time on earth...whatever economic pain
comes after who gives a 5hit.
We should be able to; feed, clothe, house.. the entire global population without it. Isn't 70%
of oil used to produce rubbish that we could do without and another 10% used to
ferry/transport that rubbish about? Bonkers...
Recommend? (3)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
IchbineinBerliner
7 Jul 2010, 3:32PM
@PeakOilPete
'So why does Tony Hayward and other BP bosses get away with murder.'
beacuse this was designed to happen. BP and other oil workers already say that part of the
seabed is collapsing. World governments wanted this to happen so that the sea-levels fall
just before man made sea-level rising occurs.
They want the seabed to collapse, it's cheaper and easier than trying to stop man-made
pollution.
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/06/worst-already-true-BP-well-now-
unstoppable
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593#comment-648967
Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
Burntfaceman
7 Jul 2010, 3:35PM
BTW I' love to see BP in the hands of a middle east swf, LOL, suck on that Obamarama,
Libya drilling off the coast of the US and re-naming all the petrol stations...Cracking *up
yours* if Tony Hayward bails out with that one on his c.v.
Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
LostintheUS
7 Jul 2010, 3:57PM
BP has the worst record of accidents and spills caused by cost cutting and poor
maintenance. Many of their employees have been killed, injured and maimed due solely to
these causes. In BP's annual reports, you can see the corporate policy layed out...cost
cutting ad nauseum. Yes, BP should be focussed on. It is no fluke that the Deepwater
Horizon was a BP run well...they were the ones who drove reckless decisions that
everybody else on the rig knew were going to lead to disaster. Every one of those decisions
was about cutting costs.
Delphinium: that was a very ignorant statement about only effecting "rich Americans". As
in all corporate and natural disasters. the primary victims are poor and working class
people. That is certainly true in this case. Educate yourself. Rig workers live in shacks and
work like dogs and get killed a lot. Fishermen and women work harder than most people
with little profit, but love the water and its creatures. And on and on and on....arrogance
makes you stupid.
It is about extracting the profits and outsourcing the costs. We, the citizens and the wild
creatures, pick up the costs in hideous ways.
Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
LostintheUS
7 Jul 2010, 3:58PM
BP has the worst record of accidents and spills caused by cost cutting and poor
maintenance. Many of their employees have been killed, injured and maimed due solely to
these causes. In BP's annual reports, you can see the corporate policy layed out...cost
cutting ad nauseum. Yes, BP should be focussed on. It is no fluke that the Deepwater
Horizon was a BP run well...they were the ones who drove reckless decisions that
everybody else on the rig knew were going to lead to disaster. Every one of those decisions
was about cutting costs.
Delphinium: that was a very ignorant statement about only effecting "rich Americans". As
in all corporate and natural disasters. the primary victims are poor and working class
people. That is certainly true in this case. Educate yourself. Rig workers live in shacks and
work like dogs and get killed a lot. Fishermen and women work harder than most people
with little profit, but love the water and its creatures. And on and on and on....arrogance
makes you stupid.
It is about extracting the profits and outsourcing the costs. We, the citizens and the wild
creatures, pick up the costs in hideous ways.
Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
EuropeanOnion
7 Jul 2010, 4:02PM
technology magazine reports:
Reports of seeps in the Gulf are numerous, and the Department's study has located several
general areas of seepage within and around the Gulf of Mexico."
A Department of Energy website details studies that estimate that there may be as many
as 5,000 active seeps in the northern Gulf of Mexico. In the Green Canyon area of the Gulf,
they estimated at least 900 individual seeps.
In a paper presented at the 2000 Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Antonio, Texas, and titled
Estimates of Total Hydrocarbon Seepage into the Gulf of Mexico Based on Satellite Remote
Sensing Images, one researcher estimated that 500,000 barrels of oil seep into the Gulf
each year, twice the result of the Exxon Valdez spill. That seepage is not addressed by any
government, and mitigation efforts are non-existent.
Science Daily reports:
To get an estimate of how much oil seeps into the Gulf each year, the researchers took into
account the thickness of the oil-only a hundredth of a millimeter, the area of ocean surface
covered by slicks, and how long the oil remains on the surface before it's consumed by
bacteria or churned up by waves. "The number is twice the Exxon Valdez's spill per year,
and that's a conservative estimate,"
said Mitchell.
Springer Link adds:
Recent global estimates of crude-oil seepage rates suggest that about 47% of crude oil
currently entering the marine environment is from natural seeps, whereas 53% results
from leaks and spills during the extraction, transportation, refining, storage, and utilization
of petroleum. The amount of natural crude-oil seepage is currently estimated to be
600,000 metric tons per year, with a range of uncertainty of 200,000 to 2,000,000 metric
tons per year. Thus, natural oil seeps may be the single most important source of oil that
enters the ocean, exceeding each of the various sources of crude oil that enters the ocean
through its exploitation by humankind.
Mother Nature seems to be a 'petrol head'.
Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
chrislochhead
7 Jul 2010, 4:02PM
Yet another scaremongering article, which has completely twisted an oil industry practise
into an armageddon inducing disaster. Geologybob's simple explanation of this procedure
raises more questions about the rest of the oil industry's contribution if BP only contributed
600 abandoned wells.
Further comments suggesting out of date cement(?) is merely paranoia. BP may be at fault
for the gulf disaster, as the US are blaming them for ruining millions of lives, 'murdering'
ocean life and generally ruining our planet. Complete hypocrisy as far as I am concerned.
The American world police have been ruining millions of lives and murdering for decades,
so they should look closely at themselves first before any ill advised finger pointing.
BP certainly didnt want this to happen but if found to be negligent, then they should be
punished severely. However, Barak Obamas current cowboy stance on this has not shown
him to be the president I expected of him.
Recommend? (1)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
Leluk
7 Jul 2010, 4:13PM
Well it looks like Obama has nearly succeeded in what he set out to do, destroy BP, and now
the cheeky so and so's in the American Government want prior warning as to who BP will
be selling their company to? What planet do these people live on? They have absouloutely
NO RIGHT to that information before the shareholders. Of course we all know why they
want to know, so they can offer £1.00p more than the highest bidder and get their greedy,
dirty fingers on the BP company. If BP had half an ounce of common sense, the minute it
caps that well it would tell America that the 20 billion is all it's going to get and it would pull
out and never go back. The one thing America doesn't seem to understand is that America
needs BP, but BP doesn't and never will, need America.
It's also time people stopped making excuses for the Americans on these blogs when they
act all offended by what someone says, they are doing it to make trouble where there is
none. Such as the remark by the Swedish Chairman about 'the little people', it wasn't an
offensive remark at all as everyone knows, it was an expression of concern for the small
bussinesses and indeed the very fishermen that the Americans can't stop bleating on about,
you know, the small people (bussinesses) that are the backbone of every community. And
to the person who has taken offence at the remark 'rich Americans', everyone on here
knows what is meant by that. America classes itself as a rich nation, so by your own
definition you are 'rich Americans', you can't have it all ways when it suits you, and what
the poster was saying is that if you Americans are so determined to prosecute something
that was an accident because it happened on your own doorstep for a change, then maybe
your own rules should apply to the rest of the world and those countries involved should
start with America. Contrary to what you are raised to believe, it is not one rule for
America and another one for the rest of the world, far from it.
Also, if this newspaper is going to print news in a way that is detrimental to the well being
and survival of BP, then in the interests of fairness can you please print a list of the owners
of the other 26,400 wells? Just to even the odds a bit so to speak.
Recommend? (2)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
icurahuman2
7 Jul 2010, 4:13PM
Not worth a penny by the time the Deepwater Horizontal spill is plugged, that's if it ever is.
There's still a strong likelihood that neither of the two relief wells will work and a good
chance the seafloor will crumble before the final solution is recahed - a nuke down its
horrible throat. No-one is going to be buying into BP until they know what liabilities they're
buying into.
Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
loftytom
7 Jul 2010, 4:25PM
Burntfaceman
7 Jul 2010, 3:29PM
The quicker we use it all up the better, what's left, a hundred years of it? Good fukcin
riddance...a blink of an eye relative to mankind's time on earth...whatever economic pain
comes after who gives a 5hit.
We should be able to; feed, clothe, house.. the entire global population without it.
Nope, the food supply depends on lots of fertilisers which are high energy mofos.
Without them lots of people will die.
Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
gomerpyl3
7 Jul 2010, 4:30PM
Seriously? 2% of abandoned wells belong to BP? It's a bit weak trying to imply that BP are
real offenders in this!
Recommend? (3)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
Lou64
7 Jul 2010, 4:31PM
geologybob says that the word abandoned does not mean the oil company just ups and
walks away. I beg to differ. You fail to mention the difference between abandoned and
temporarily abandoned wells and how the wells are capped or sealed according to which
type of abandonement they are undergoing.
The AP article goes on to tell us that....
'Regulations for temporarily abandoned wells require oil companies to present plans to
reuse or permanently plug such wells within a year, but the AP found that the rule is
routinely circumvented, and that more than 1,000 wells have lingered in that unfinished
condition for more than a decade. About three-quarters of temporarily abandoned wells
have been left in that status for more than a year, and many since the 1950s and 1960s —
even though sealing procedures for temporary abandonment are not as stringent as those
for permanent closures.
As a forceful reminder of the potential harm, the well beneath BP's Deepwater Horizon rig
was being sealed with cement for temporary abandonment when it blew April 20,.....'
For those interested here is the article in full
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100707/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_abandoned_wells
Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
reddan
7 Jul 2010, 4:39PM
That's Capitalism! F..k you, and F...k the evironment. It's all about the bottom line.
Recommend? (1)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
Concrete
7 Jul 2010, 5:00PM
'AP investigation finds BP was responsible for 600 of more than 27,000 abandoned wells in
the Gulf of Mexico.'
So BP is responsible for 0.02% of left wells in the gulf.
Who is responsible fro the other 99.98%?
Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip |
Link
Post a comment
In order to post a comment you need to be registered and signed in.
Register | Sign in
g u a r dia n .co.u k © Gu a r dia n New s a n d Media Lim it ed 2 0 1 0
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 29 Filed 06/30/10 Page 1 of 8

FT. MYERS DIVISION
JORG BUSSE; JENNIFER FRANKLIN

PRESCOTT,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No. 2:10-CV-89-CEH-TGW
JOHN EDWIN STEELE; SHERI POLSTER

CHAPPELL; ROGER ALEJO; KENNETH M.
WILKINSON; JACK N. PETERSON;
GERALD BARD TJOFLAT; RICHARD
JESSUP; JUDGE BIRCH; JUDGE DUBINA;
RICHARD A. LAZZARA; CHARLIE CRIST;
LEE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT
BOARD; LORI RUTLAND; EXECUTIVE
TITLE CO.; JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.,
Defendants.
MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW
NOW COMES the United States of America, by and through its
undersigned attorneys, and hereby moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint as frivolous and barred by absolute immunity. A
memorandum in support is included herein.
BACKGROUND
This Court, unfortunately, is all too familiar with
Plaintiffs’ grievances and litigious history. A brief synopsis
is set forth herein, but a more thorough history of Plaintiffs’
filings can be found in the Government’s Motion to Dismiss in
Busse VII, No. 2:09-CV-791 [DE-69], and this Court’s Order
entered on June 23, 2010 [DE-213].

Starting in 2007, Plaintiff Jorg Busse and others began a
campaign against Lee County, Florida, and other persons and
entities, alleging that their property in the Cayo Costa
subdivision had been illegally taken. Plaintiffs filed a
complaint with this Court alleging Constitutional deprivations.
Busse I, No. 2:07-CV-228, aff’d 317 Fed. Appx. 395 (11th Cir.
Mar. 5, 2009). Plaintiff’s first case was not facially improper,
but after a full and fair opportunity to litigate their case,
Plaintiffs’ complaint was dismissed as unripe because Plaintiffs
had not availed themselves of state remedies. Plaintiffs then
persisted to file lawsuit after lawsuit — now totaling nine
separate complaints — attempting to re-litigate the same
constitutional claims and adding allegations of an ever-growing
conspiracy theory of fraud and corruption against anyone involved
in his previous lawsuits who opposed him.
All of Plaintiffs’ lawsuits except for this case and one
after-filed Complaint (No. 2:10-CV-390) have been dismissed,
often summarily, as wanting jurisdiction or meritless. Each of
Plaintiffs’ numerous appeals from this Court’s decisions have
resulted in affirmation or dismissal. The Complaint in this case
is based on the same core facts and allegations that this Court
has rejected in each of the past cases, including Busse V, No.
2:09-CV-341, which also named each of the federal defendants
named herein, asserted the same unsupported allegations of
2
conspiracy and corruption, and which was summarily dismissed with
prejudice by Judge Lazzara as “patently frivolous, vexatious, and
harassing with little or no chance of success” [Busse V, DE-17].
ARGUMENT
A. Plaintiffs’ complaint is patently frivolous and barred by

res judicata.
Insofar as this case involves the same parties and
indistinguishable claims as Plaintiffs’ prior lawsuits that have
been dismissed with prejudice, including, inter alia, Busse V,
No. 2:09-CV-341, the Court should likewise dismiss the instant
complaint on grounds of res judicata and frivolity. See Davila
v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 326 F.3d 1183, 1187 (11th Cir. 2003)
(res judicata absolutely bars re-litigation of claims after a
final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction
where there is an identity of parties and the actions are based
on the same factual predicate). The frivolity of this lawsuit is
further evidenced by the sheer volume of filings that this Court
and the named defendants have been compelled to expend valuable
time and resources responding to; the Plaintiffs’ utter contempt
of this Court’s authority, principles of res judicata, and the
rule of law; the scurrilous and delusory accusations lodged
against judicial officers and other irreproachable public
servants; and Plaintiffs’ inability to state a coherent claim
despite their painfully obvious familiarity with our Constitution
and judicial system.
3
B. Plaintiffs yet again fail to articulate a plausible claim

upon which relief can be granted.
As this Court noted in the sound and cogent analysis of the
Busse litigation contained in its June 23, 2010, Order [Busse
VII, DE-213, at pp. 20-21], Plaintiffs’ allegations, to the
extent any sense can be made of them, are essentially criminal in
nature. In that same Order, the Court has already analyzed and
explained why Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief under the
various constitutional provisions upon which they rely. The only
other vehicle for charging essentially criminal conduct in a
civil forum is a suit under the civil provisions of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“civil RICO”), 18
U.S.C. § 1964(c).1
Complaints asserting civil RICO claims “must comply not only
with the plausibility criteria articulated in Twombly and Iqbal
but also with Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)’s heightened pleading
standard.” American Dental Ass’n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283,
--- (11th Cir. 2010). As the Court previously noted, Plaintiffs’
repetitious and voluminous pleadings are “convoluted and
incomprehensible,” “contain[] incoherent and rambling claims of
alleged wrongdoing,” and consist of “conclusory” statements
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
wholly lacking a “factual basis” [Busse VII, DE-213, at pp. 12,
15, 18]. The Complaint in this case consists of more of the same
incoherent drivel, and fails to buttress any of the sensational
and outlandish accusations already presented to and decided by
the Court with the kind of additional factual support needed to
plead a plausible claim for relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Consequently, this case should be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
C. Even assuming the truth of the allegations, Plaintiffs’

civil claims are barred by the doctrine of absolute
immunity.2
“Few doctrines [are] more solidly established at common law
than the immunity of judges from liability for damages from acts
committed within their judicial jurisdiction.” Pierson v. Ray,
386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967). Judicial immunity applies “even
when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly,”
id. at 554, and prevails even over allegations of bribery and
conspiracy such as Plaintiffs assert here, see Sparks v. Duval
County Ranch Co., 604 F.2d 976, 978 (5th Cir. 1979). Judicial
immunity provides judges with a blanket immunity from civil
liability, to include civil liability under RICO, for any
2
Insofar as this is an official capacity suit properly
brought against the United States and not the individual federal
officers, the United States may assert any defense based upon
judicial immunity that would otherwise be available to the
individual officer. See 28 U.S.C. § 2674.
5
judicial act over which they may exercise jurisdiction. Wilson
v. Bush, 196 Fed. Appx. 796, 799 (11th Cir. 2006); see also Glick
v. Gutbrod, 782 F.2d 754 (7th Cir. 1986).
Likewise, “[o]fficials charged with the duty of executing a
facially valid court order enjoy absolute quasi-judicial immunity
from liability for damages in a suit challenging conduct
prescribed by that order.” King v. Thornburg, 762 F.Supp. 336,
341 (S.D. Ga. 1991). Because absolute quasi-judicial immunity
derives from judicial immunity, it applies whenever a Deputy U.S.
Marshal executes a judicial order for which the issuing judge
would be immune from liability. Id.
In the instant Complaint, Plaintiffs’ continue their
insidious attack on the judicial orders that were issued on the
merits of his initial case, the sanctions that were imposed by
the Eleventh Circuit for pursuing a frivolous appeal, and the
writ of execution that was issued to enforce the judgment. [See
Compl., DE-1, passim references to the fraudulent “orders and
writ of execution”]. The entry of orders, sanctions, and writs
of execution are quintessential judicial functions over which the
named judicial defendants would have absolute judicial immunity
from civil suit. Therefore, the claims arising out of the
judicial acts of Judges Dubina, Tjoflat, Birch, Steele, Lazarra,
and Chappell should be dismissed. Deputy Marshal Richard
Jessup’s primary involvement in this case appears to be related
6
to the performance of his duty to serve Busse with the writ of
execution. [Busse I, DE-429.] Accordingly, Deputy Jessup would
be entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, and the claim arising out
of his acts should likewise be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that the
Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint.
Date: June 30, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
TONY WEST
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
By: /s/ Matthew L. Fesak

MATTHEW L. FESAK
Special Attorney and
Assistant United States Attorney
Civil Division
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 800
Raleigh, NC 27601-1461
Telephone: (919) 856-4530
Facsimile: (919) 856-4821
E-Mail: matthew.fesak@usdoj.gov
N.C. Bar No. 35276
7
I do hereby certify that I have this 30th day of June, 2010,
served a copy of the foregoing upon the below-listed party
electronically or by placing a copy in the U.S. Mail, addressed
as follows:
Jorge Busse
c/o Legal and Consular Department
100 N. Biscayne Blvd.
Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33132
Jennifer Franklin Prescott

P.O. Box 845
Palm Beach, FL 33480
/s/ Matthew L. Fesak

8
7/7/2010 Tony West, Assistant Attorney General…
Office of the Assistant Attorney General

Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division:
Tony West
OFFICE OF THE AAG
APPELLATE STAFF Tony West w as nominated by
COMMERCIAL LITIGATION President Barack Obama to be
BRANCH the Assistant Attorney General
for the Justice Department’s Civil
OFFICE OF CONSUMER
LITIGATION Division on January 22, 2009. He
w as confirmed by the U.S.
FEDERAL PROGRAMS Senate on April 20, 2009.
OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION
LITIGATION From 1993 through 1994, he
served as a Special Assistant in
TORTS BRANCH
the Department under the
OFFICE OF LITIGATION direction of U.S. Deputy
SUPPORT Attorneys General Philip
STOP MEDICARE FRAUD Heymann and Jamie Gorelick, as
w ell as Attorney General Janet
STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT
BROKERS Reno. Mr. West w orked on the
development of national crime
PRESS RELEASES policy, including the 1994
FORMS Omnibus Crime Bill. From 1994 to
1999, Mr. West served as an
EMPLOYMENT
Assistant U.S. Attorney for the
WEB SITE FEEDBACK Northern District of California.
CIVIL DIVISION FOIA
Mr. West later served as state
DOJ HOME Special Assistant Attorney
General, an appointee of
California Attorney General Bill
Lockyer. In that capacity, he
advised the California Attorney
General on various matters
including high-tech crime, identity
theft, the Microsoft antitrust
litigation, police officer training,
Employees rank the Civil Division civil rights, and police misconduct.
in the top 2% of government
offices Prior to his return to the Justice
Department, Mr. West was a
litigation partner at Morrison &
Foerster in San Francisco. His
trial practice there included
representing individuals and
companies in civil and criminal
matters.
Mr. West graduated w ith honors

from Harvard College, w here he
served as publisher of the
Harvard Political Review , and
received his law degree from
Stanford Law School, where he
justice.gov/civil/Tony West Bio.htm 1/2
7/7/2010 Tony West, Assistant Attorney General…
w as elected President of the
Stanford Law Review.
Contact Us | Accessibility | A-Z Index | Site Map | Archive | Privacy Policy | Legal
Policies and Disclaimers
FOIA | For DOJ Employees | Other Government Resources | Office of the Inspector General
| USA.gov | No FEAR Act
justice.gov/civil/Tony West Bio.htm 2/2

7/7/2010 BP gets U.S. demand for notice of ass…
BP gets U.S. demand for notice of asset sales

Order underlines the U.S. government's intense scrutiny of BP
updated 7/7/2010 8:33:48 AM ET
LONDON — BP PLC confirmed Wednesday that it received a demand from U.S. authorities for advance notice of any asset sales or significant cash
transfers.
The Financial Times reported that U.S. Assistant Attorney General Tony West, who heads the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice,
wrote to Rupert Bondy, BP's general counsel, on June 23. Normally the U.S. Justice Department does not require advance notice of such deals.
"We have received the letter, and have not yet responded," said BP press officer Sheila Williams. "We will be responding in due course."
She declined to say whether the Justice Department had set a deadline.
The letter underlines the U.S. government's intense scrutiny of BP as it struggles to cap the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, which began on April 20,
and to clean up the damage.
On April 30, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he had dispatched a team, which included West, to New Orleans to monitor the
spill. Ignacia S. Moreno, the assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, was also part of the team.
Under intense pressure from President Barack Obama's administration, BP agreed last month to suspend dividend payments for the rest year and
to set up a $20 billion escrow fund to insure that the company pays for the damage.
On June 1, Holder announced that the Department of Justice had launched criminal and civil investigations of the disaster, which began with an
explosion and fire aboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform. Eleven workers died.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
…msn.com/…/business-oil_and_energy/ 1/1

FT. MYERS DIVISION

PRESCOTT,
Plaintiffs,

Defendants.
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
NOW COMES the United States of America, on behalf of its
officers, Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judges Gerald
Tjoflat and Stanley Birch of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit; District Judges Richard Lazzara, John
Steele and Magistrate Judge Sheri Chappell of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida; and Deputy
United States Marshal Richard Jessup (collectively, “federal
defendants”); and moves for an extension of time in which to
answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ complaint. In support
of this motion, the United States shows unto the Court as
follows:
1. On February 9, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a complaint
naming the above-referenced federal defendants, and others, as
defendants in their “individual private and official” capacities.
2. The docket sheet indicates that service of process was
effected upon Judge Steele on May 1 [DE-12] and upon Judge
Chappell on May 4 [DE-13], with corresponding answer deadlines of
June 30 and July 3, 2010, respectively. Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(a)(2)&(3). There is no indication that any other federal
defendant has yet been served, and therefore the undersigned is
unable to ascertain their answer deadlines at this time.
3. A suit against a federal officer in his or her official
capacity is in effect a suit against the United States. See
Swank, Inc. v. Carnes, 856 F.2d 1481, 1483 (11th Cir. 1988). It
is the position of the United States that Plaintiffs’ complaint
should be construed as an official capacity suit against the
United States and not the individual federal defendants.
4. The undersigned Special Attorney is entering a general
notice of appearance on behalf of the United States and timely
filing a motion to dismiss the complaint contemporaneous with the
filing of this motion.
5. The United States respectfully suggests to the Court
that the same defenses it asserts in its motion to dismiss the
official capacity suit would apply with equal force if the
federal defendants were sued in their individual capacities;
2
however, if the Court were to construe this as an individual
capacity suit and were to require them to answer, then the
federal defendants require additional time to seek and obtain
authorization for the undersigned to represent them in their
individual capacities. See generally 28 C.F.R. § 50.15.
6. Accordingly, the undersigned makes a limited appearance
on behalf of the individually-named federal defendants solely for
purposes of seeking this extension of time so as to avoid the
possibility of entry of default against them should the Court
construe this as an individual capacity suit and not summarily
dismiss such individual capacity claims as frivolous.
7. Local Rule 3.01(g) requires “that the moving party
shall confer with counsel for the opposing party in a good faith
effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion.” Insomuch as
Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, Local Rule 3.01(g) is
inapplicable.
WHEREFORE, the individual federal defendants request an
extension of time, up to and including thirty (30) days from such
future date as the Court might require them to answer an
individual capacity suit, in which to answer or otherwise respond
to Plaintiffs’ complaint.
3
TONY WEST

MATTHEW L. FESAK
Civil Division
Telephone: (919) 856-4530
Facsimile: (919) 856-4821
N.C. Bar No. 35276
as follows:
Jorge Busse
Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33132

P.O. Box 845

4
FORT MYERS DIVISION
[“TRANSFERRED” FROM: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION]
JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE,

Plaintiffs,
versus Reassigned Case # 2:09-CV-00791-CEH-SPC

ROGER ALEJO; KENNETH M. WILKINSON; JACK N. PETERSON; ROGER
DESJARLAIS; LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; LEE COUNTY VALUE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD; LORI L. RUTLAND; STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD
OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND; STATE
OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; CHAD
LACH; CHARLES “BARRY” STEVENS; REAGAN KATHLEEN RUSSELL;
KAREN B. HAWES; ROGER DESJARLAIS; CHARLIE GREEN; BOB JANES;
BRIAN BIGELOW; RAY JUDAH; TAMMY HALL; FRANK MANN; UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY(S); SEAN P. FLYNN; E. KENNETH STEGEBY; DAVID P.
RHODES; A. BRIAN ALBRITTON; CYNTHIA A. PIVACEK; JOHNSON
ENGINEERING, INC.; STEVEN CARTA; MIKE SCOTT; HUGH D. HAYES;
GERALD D. SIEBENS; STATE OF FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL;
WILLIAM M. MARTIN; PETERSON BERNARD; SKIP QUILLEN; TOM
GILBERTSON, RYAN LENGERICH, NEWS PRESS,
Defendants.
PUBLISHED PUBLIC NOTICE OF
JUDICIAL CORRUPTION & FRAUD
____________________________________________________________________________/
PUBLISHED PUBLIC NOTICE OF CORRUPTION, CASE FIXING, AND CRIMES
BY DEF. CROOKED JUDGE CHARLENE E. HONEYWELL, AND IN PARTICULAR,
OF HER IDIOTIC INCOMPREHENSIBLE ‘PUBLIC LAND CLAIM’ [DOC. # 213, P. 5]
OF PLAINTIFFS’ LOT 15A, AS CONVEYED IN REFERENCE TO PB 3, PG 25 (1912)
Lot 15A, among other property, was claimed as public land (“Resolution 569/875")
(Dkt 5, Ex. 3, p. 9).”
PUBLISHED RECORD AS TO PUBLIC CORRUPTION: DOC. # 93-1; 2:2007-cv-00228
___________________________________
/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, JRBU@aol.com
State Cert. Res. Appraiser, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Mortgage Broker, Appraisal Instructor;
ATTACHED EXHIBITS & EVIDENCE OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION: DOC. # 93-1
;' J,:'
TROY PARNELL 'F'"
REGISTERED REAL ESTATE BROKER
lA~~~~ Street TELEPHONE

18131 275-858(
~~
x~~x~:x~x
FORT ~IYERS. I<'LORIDA ~ 33901
January 29, 1999
Mr. James G. Yaeger

County Attorney'
P. O. Box 398
Ft. Myers, Florida 33902
Re: Second Revised Plat of Cayo Costa Subdivision!

Accretion
Dear Mr. Yaeger:
In your letter of December 15, 1998 you informed me that

you were requesting input from department heads. I would
appreciate any information you have received. I also would
like your opinion of the validity of the enclosed instrument.
If this instrument is legal, then it would appear that the

County Commission could file such an instrument pertaining
to any waterfront subdivision in Lee County, thereby robbing
the waterfront owners of any waterfront properties.
~ would appreciate hearing from you at your earliest

convenience. For ready reference I have enclosed copies of
our previous correspondence.
.;?
Sinze-:r,':"y? / ,- .
..~//b ~
~. ~~ ""~
TP!k /T~ /
./
L'_~' ~ ( A \
-, ~-J..
\"
~ """"~"'"
/"- ...
" '-7 "
STE\NART & KEYES \:::::::",,/
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1534 HENDRY STREET

P.O. DRAWER 790
FORT MYERS. FL 33902-0790
WILLIAM L. STEWART (841) 334-7477
WILLIAM A. KEYES. JR. FAX (841) 334-7941
May 14, 1997
Mr. Troy Parnell

1429 Colonial Boulevard
Suite 203
Fort Myers, FL 33907 "
Dear Troy:
You have asked me about the ownership of the accretion to the

area between Lots 2 and 3, Block 14, Second Revised Plat of Cayo
Costa Subdivision and the Gulf of Mexico.
The Plat of this subdivision does not have any dedication of

easements for any purpose. It divides the property into numbered
blocks with spaces between, which are obviously intended" to be
roads. It does, however, have the following wording:
II NOTE
All streets 60' wide
All alleys 20' wide
All lots shown in uniformly square
Blocks 50' x 130' other lots scale measure.1I
The area between
the Blocks and the Gulf of Mexico has no
designation, but it is part of the street since all streets lead
to it and there is no line indicating the end of the streets.
Our Supreme Court has repeatedly held that when a lot on a

subdivision pl'at borders on a street each lot owner owns to the
center of the street, and, when the street is on the border of the
subdivider's property title of the,lot owner extends to the out~r
limits of the street. .
In the case of Caples v. Taliaferro, 197 So. 861 the Supreme

Court said:
IIThere are also authorities holding that

when a
street or highway is laid out wholly on the
margin
of a grantor' s land, a conveyance of the lands
abutting such street or highway carried the fee to
the entire u -widt h of
- - --- - ..:J" such street or highway unless
~
'(
r
, .Mr. Troy par'nell
I May 14, 1997
I Pa ge Two
"The more specific question here involved is this:

Where a street, way or walk way is laid out wholly
on the margin of the grantor's lands, said street,
way or walk way being bordered by navigable water,
does a conveyance of land abutting on such street,
way or walk way, as designated on the plat, carry
the fee to the"width of such street, way or
walkway, together with all riparian rights incident
thereto, unless expressly reserved?
While there is some conflict in the decisions on
this quest, we have reached the conclusion that the
answer should be in the affirmative."
There now appears to be considerable accretion to this street

bordering these lots. Since ti tIe to the land under the street
belongs to you the accretion belongs to you. In the case of
Mexi co Bea ch Cor pora tion v. st. Joe pa per Cor pora tion, 97 So .2d
708, the Court said:
"The common-law rule which vests title to soil
formed along navigable waters by accretion or
reliction in owners of abutting land is in force in
Florida."
I have assumed that you did not install groins or other

devices that caused this accretion. In the case of Board of
Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Sand Key
Associates, Ltd., 512 So.2d 934, our Supreme Court said:
"Waterfront owner who did not participate in

construction of improvement which, together wi th
natural causes, caused accretion, had vested right
to new lands formed as a result of accretion,
notwithstanding fact that accretions or relictiohs
occurred in part because of artificial
improvements.
Very truly yours,

STEWART & KEYES
~ 1~
Will i am L. Stewar';-\
. .\---tt---
'.Tr ro - , J......
'
TROY PARNELL '" '
..
/ ..'.1
REGISTERED REAL ESTATE BROKER 1£..
i.",_/
TELEPHO:
xx'Xx<;.C:£x]tx3{IX3(x
~ID'{~~~ 9 41 ~~275-85
MAIL'~X'MX3922 Rogers Street
~'ORT~rYERS.
FLORIDA3~3 3 9 01
December 11, 1998
Lee County Attorney's Office

P. O. Box 398
Ft. Myers, Florida 33902 ..
Attention: Judy
Pursuant to your request in our phone conversation of December la,

1998 I enclose the following:
(1) Copy of the Resolution recorded in OR 569 page 875.
(2) Copy of a letter from Attorney William L. Stewart.
(3 ) Copy of the plat with our property indicated - same

being Lots 2 & 3 of Block 14.
The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of

the State of Florida has made an offer to purchase the property
but has said because of the recorded Resolution we do not own Gulf
front property.
It would seem that this instrument does not appear to be a valid

instrument because it is not executed by any Authority, as a matter
of fact it is not signed by anyone. Neither was the instrument
notorized since there wasn't anything to acknowledge. A Title
Insurance Policy did not reveal the existence of the Resolution:
A title search would not know where to look for such an instrument.
There are no recordings related to the Resolution on the preceding

ten pages of OR 569 page 875. The enclosed one page instrument 'is
the Resolution in its entirety.
We are of the opinion that the Resolution does not affect our
ownership of Gulffront property since the public lands referred to
in the Resolution, specifically the Gulffront, are in fact not public
lands and are part of the plat.
The representative of the State (Buyer) advised me to present this

matter to the County Attorney's Office or to seek an opinion from
the County Attorney. Z;'~ '
TPIk /<-~ '-7

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Writer's Direct Dial Number: (941) 335-2236
John E. Manning
District One
Douglas R. SI. Cerny

District Two December 15, 1998
Ray Judah
District Three Mr. Troy Parnell
Andrew W. Coy 3922 Rogers Street
District Four
Fort Myers, Fl 33901
John E. Albion
District Five
Re: Second Revised Plat of Cayo Costa Subdivision/Accretion
Donald D. Stilwell
County Manager
Dear Mr. Parnell:
James G. Yaeger
County Attorney
Diana M. Parker
I am in receipt of your December 11, 1998 letter on the above. We will attempt
County Hearing to review the history of the County Resolution and let you know our position as soon
Examiner
as possible. In order to expedite review, I have taken the liberty of forwarding your
inquiry to the attention of the County lands Department.
Very truly yours,
2~~
County Attorney
JGY/jm
xc: J. W. French, Director, Public Works
Karen Forsyth, County lands
Timntn\l Innce .6.eeiet~nt ('nllnt\l .6.ttnrnc\l
,,'-'
\./ . -.,r...'
3922 Rogers Street

February 12,1999
Mr. James G. Yaeger

County Attorney
P.O. Box 398
Re: Second Revised Plat of Cayo Costa
Subdivision/Accretion
Dear Mr. Yaeger:
I enclose a copy of my letter of January 29, 1999 and

also a copy of your letter of December 15, 1998.
Since it has been two months I would think that your

County Lands Department has had time to respond.
At any rate I would appreciate your advising me as to
when I can expect an answer.
Sin;_.~;%lY /.
<::. /' / ~ ...
~
-
.../ . .
? ~ .-
Enc1s. (2)
/ / /~:o~*~~
/./
~~ t.
.~I
LEECO~TY
SOUTHWEST , .
.'.
. i
.'
r
FLORIDA
,./9:~~
.p...,'-
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Writer's Direct DialNumber: (941) 335-2236
John E. Manning
District One
Douglas R. SI. Cerny February 22, 1999

District Two
Ray Judah
District Three
Mr. Troy Parnell
Andrew W. Coy
District Four
3922 Roger Street ,
Fort Myers, FL 33901
John E. Albion
District Five
Re: Second Revised Plat of Cayo Costa Subdivision
Donald D. Stilwell
County Manager
Dear Mr. Parnell:
James G. Yaeger
County Attorney
In response to your correspondence to Mr. Yaeger, the Lee County Attorney's
Diana M. Parker
County Hearing
Office researched the history of the second revised plat of the Cayo Costa Subdivision
Examiner and governing case law on accretion and reliction. Based on this research, we conclude
that the public may have a valid claim to the accreted lands on the Gulf side of the Cayo
Costa Subdivision. Moreover, it is the Board's policy to retain public lands for public
purposes rather than relinquishthose intereststo private entities. It would be acceptable
for the County to relinquish its interests in this property if the intent is to transfer the
property in question to the State as part of the CARL Program. Your letter indicates that
the'Board of Trustees of the Internal ImprovementTrust Fund of the State of Florida has
offered to purchase the property, but claims that the resolution recorded in the public
records and reflected in the County Commission Minute Books calls into question your
client's ability to convey fee simple title to the accreted lands. This office would
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners release the public's interest in the
accreted land on the condition that the County deed is held in escrow until the closing
with the State. At that time, the deed would be released and available for recordation in
the public records.
If your client is interested in pursuing this course of action, please contact me at

your earliest convenience so that we may discuss the details of this transaction.
f2 i egards
1~;uJr~tif a{f~;v1.
Donna Mafie Collins
DMC/amp
cc: James G. Yaeger, County Attorney
Timot~y Jones, Assistant County Attorney
S:\LU\DMC\DMCL TR\PARNELL.WPD
P.O. Box 398, Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398 (941) 335-2111

Lee On Line Access (LOLA) Internet address http://lola.co.lee.fI.us
~"",~"~~,~""""""""",,,",.,r::..nlrw"c
Dep~rtment of
Environmental Protection
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building
Jeb Bush 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Colleen M. Cast
Governor Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Secretary
February 2, 2006
Troy Parnell
3922 Roters Street
Ft. Myers, FL 33901
RE: Cayo Costa Project, Lee County

0.30 Acres
Dear Property Owners:
As agent for the Department of Environmental Protection of the State of Florida, I ,«ould like to extend a
cash offer in the amount of $222,000.00, to purchase the above referenced property located in Lee
County, Florida. The State of Florida is offering to purchase this property due to its location within an
area that qualifies for State acquisition as part of the State's Florida Forever Program. The Division of
State lands will be the agent for this transaction.
Over the past several years, the State has diligently worked on acquiring property within the Cayo Costa
Project. The state has had the properties appraised numerous times and has made several offers to
property owners. Recent purchases within the last year have caused the Division of State Lands to
reevaluate its priorities. I was recently informed that the funds and time allocated for this project are
now limited.
Prior to extending an offer to purchase property, Florida law requires an appraisal to be completed by an
independent real estate appraiser. The appraiser is asked to give the market value of the property. The
appraisal is confidential, by law, until a contract is signed by the Seller and approved by the Division of
State lands. Your offer was formulated based on such an appraisal.
Please notify me within 60 days of receipt of this offer and I will prepare, for your review, an
Agreement to purchase your property. It is important for you to know that this is a voluntary
program, and you are under no obligation to sell your property or participate in this program.
Many times owners prefer to donate their property and, in some cases, tax benefits may be realized from
a donation. . An accountant, tax professional, or the Internal Revenue Service can provide you with
additional information. Please let us know if you are interested in donating the property for environmental
purposes.
If I may provide additional information or assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at the number
below. I hope to hear from you soon.
~
Si.~cereIY' .
-
.- ~"-.;
abrina Carter '-.,
-"
land Acquisition Agent

(.~ c c~~k
\ --. ~!
G "--
Bureau of Land Acquisition

(850) 245-2669 ext. 4702
JEFF PARNELL
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, INC.
LICENSED REAL ESTATE BROKER
0)5 KELLYROAD TEll
SUITE 112 (239) ~
cRS. FLORIDA 33908 FA.'{ (239
K.M. Roesch, Jr. & Anita Roesch May 15,2007

15411 NW 46th Ln.
Chi efland, FL 32626
Re: Gulf front lot on Cayo Casta ,
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Roesch:
My father, Troy Parnell and the estate of William Reynolds own the northern most gulf
front lots (lots 1A & 2A). On December 10, 1969 the Lee County Commission voted to
deed itself an area of accretion to the west of certain gulf front lots. The effect of this
makes what was once gulf front lots no longer gulf front. They had no right to do this.
We have done much research on this matter. There have been recent rulings by the courts
to support our position that the area of accretion belongs to the gulf front owners. I have
had discussions with attorneys in Miami and Sarasota that specialize in this matter and
they have suggested our case is so strong that we hire a local attorney here in town.
My father is prepared to move ahead with a law suit. Through our correspondence with
the county and discussions with attorneys we believe the county, state or DEP will not or
can not do anything until they are sued. However, we will not go ahead without the
support of all the effected lot owners who will benefit from this. I have identified seven
lot owners who will benefit from this and included the lots on the enclosed plat.
The estimated cost to file the suit is $15,000. Each owner will most likely have to survey
their lots including the accretion area at a cost of $7,500.each. Even though our case is
extremely strong and supported by recent precedence we should be prepared to go to trial
at an estimated cost of an additional $25,000. This would be a total of approximately
$13,215.00 for each lot owner.
The average depth ofthe accretion is about 1,400 feet. Most of the single lots are 50 feet
wide. That would be about 70,000 square feet more property for each 50 foot lot.
Considering the state has offered as much as $18.00 per square foot for gulf front lots, the
reward for filing the law suit is impressive and the risk appears to be very low.
I am asking that each owner please contact me by telephone and let me know how you
feel about this issue so I can see what kind of consensus we have.
JJ/Tr;ld
7?eff ~arnell
Gulf Front Lot Owners Effected:
Troy Parnell & Reynolds Real Estate, LLP - Lots 2 & 3
Busse, Jorg, PO Box 1126, Naples, Fl34106 - Lot 15A
Lewis, Allen E., Kensington Investments, 347 Congress St., #3A, Boston, MA, 0221
Lots 23A & 24A
,
Elrubaie, Salman B 11810 Isle of Palms Dr., Ft. Myers Beach, FL 33931 - Lot 27A
Baucomm, Ruth K, Tr., 28232 Tung Oil Rd., Kinston, AL 36453 - Lot 28A
Garvey, William R, 519 Clubside Dr., Naples, FL 34110 - Lot 67A

n. 1 V""'T <> A .~-"" 1t:"A11 "THTA,thT_- nL~_£'1 ! r'T ,.".,C,.,C T TI
Lee Coun
Lv f J 2{3
"
---
=-" ""
""".
()))) '--Z:'-
011 10A- ~ 'j

(
i Hj.-d
)f.. Lol
OJ Bei
0 -
Con
L GIf-I }4.j
"
Con
0-- 0
0 Con
!.. 0 Pa~
/'/ Pa~
,A/ Roa
i
"
T-
. /'/ To'.~
o.m. Tow
~ '@JJ
Sac
'..\.
"-.\ Loi 6'~A
" 0 ,i-, -)}~o
Cily
0
\
)";.: _: !,.' ..,-
... '.
-,",: ~ <'; Ben>
" -,
1JQI
I
I I"
,."
i
:j.'-1'"h...
~-"/ ()))) 0
DC=
-", " -0 0 Fen\
I84~'1
_0 '
~:'. 0 s.n"
/
[5] T".
(l) 0000
gmO):>::,)

FT. MYERS DIVISION

PRESCOTT,
Plaintiffs,

Defendants.
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned Special Attorney, on
behalf of the United States of America and the following officers
in their official capacities: John Edwin Steele, Sheri Polster
Chappell, Gerald Bard Tjoflat, Richard Jessup, Judge Birch, Judge
Dubina, and Richard A. Lazzara, hereby enters his Notice of
Appearance in this case, and requests that the Court mail all
notices and orders and the like to its undersigned counsel at the
address indicated below.

Respectfully submitted, this 30th day of June, 2010.
TONY WEST

MATTHEW L. FESAK
Civil Division
Telephone: (919) 856-4530
Facsimile: (919) 856-4821
N.C. Bar No. 35276
as follows:
Jorg Busse
Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33132

P.O. Box 845


FT. MYERS DIVISION

PRESCOTT,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No. 2:10-cv-89-CEH-TGW

Defendants.
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS

AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
I hereby disclose the following pursuant to this Court’s
interested persons order:
1. The name of each person, attorney, association of

persons, firm, law firm, partnership, and corporation that has or
may have an interest in the outcome of this action - including
subsidiaries, conglomerates, affiliates, parent corporations,
publicly-traded companies that own 10% or more of a party’s
stock, and all other identifiable legal entities related to any
party in the case:
a. District Judge John Edwin Steele

b. Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell
c. Circuit Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat
d. Deputy U.S. Marshal Richard Jessup
e. Circuit Judge Stanley Birch
f. Chief Circuit Judge Joel Dubina
g. District Judge Richard A. Lazzara
2. The name of every other entity whose publicly-traded

stock, equity, or debt may be substantially affected by the
outcome of the proceedings:
None.
3. The name of every other entity which is likely to be an

active participant in the proceedings, including the debtor and
members of the creditors’ committee (or twenty largest unsecured
creditors) in bankruptcy cases:
None.
4. The name of each victim (individual or corporate) of

civil and criminal conduct alleged to be wrongful, including
every person who may be entitled to restitution:
Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Jorge Busse
I hereby certify that, except as disclosed above, I am

unaware of any actual or potential conflict of interest involving
the district judge and magistrate judge assigned to this case,
and will immediately notify the Court in writing on learning of
any such conflict. I further certify that I have inserted “None”
if there is no actual or potential conflict of interest.
TONY WEST

MATTHEW L. FESAK
Civil Division
Telephone: (919) 856-4530
Facsimile: (919) 856-4821
N.C. Bar No. 35276
2
as follows:
Jorg Busse
Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33132

P.O. Box 845

3

How U.S. Government Screws Its People ...

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

How U.S. Government Screws Its People ...

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

7/7/2010 Re: GREAT TO READ ABOUT YOU AGA…

GREAT TO READ ABOUT YOU AGAIN

said accreted lands for public park purposes.

LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; BOARD OF LEE

1. Nature of the Suit

Appraiser deny his claim of riparian rights.

“exhibits”, “evidence”, “interrogatories”, “affidavits”, “memorandums”, etc. The

docket below stands res ipsa loquitur.

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Funchess, Esq. and Reagan K. Russell, Esq., Florida Department of Environmental

3259, Sarasota, FL 34230.

PUBLIC PROPERTY TAX RECORDS:

PLAINTIFFS PAID PROPERTY TAXES:

LAND PARCEL “12-44-20-01-00015.015A”

Dr. Jorg Busse,

Record Unimpeachable Landowners

CORRUPT HONEYWELL STRUCK AGAIN:

THE COURT ONLY FILED

THE COURT NEVER FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT,

v. CASE NO. 2: 09-CV-791-FtM-36SPC

ROGER ALEJO; KENNETH M. WILKINSON;

Fraudulent Concealment of Governmental Forgeries by Crooked Defendant Assistant Attorney Jack

Emergency Motion to ‘Enjoin’ Nazi-Style Governmental Tactics of Terror, Oppression, Retaliation,

Conceal Governmental Forgery of Non-Existent Sham “Parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0" as

Appx. 968, 970 (11th Cir. Mar 5, 2009).

relating to Plaintiffs’ property dispute.

1. Case Number 2:07-CV-228

(2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 365).6

pay the filing fees.

single notice of appeal as to the Order.

on February 2, 2010 (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 425).

2. Case No. 2:08-CV-364

stated in the related case, 2:07-CV-228 (2:08-CV-364, Dkt. 70).7

3. Case No. 2:08-CV-899

of the Tampa Division presided over the case.

prejudice (2:08-CV-899, Dkt. 121).

4. Case No. 2:09-CV-41

prosecution (2:09-CV-41, Dkt. 133-34).

5. Case No. 2:09-CV-341

were dismissed as frivolous or for want of prosecution.

6. Case No. 2:09-CV-602

7. Case No. 2:10-CV-89

Defendants. This case has been reassigned to this Court.

8. Case No. 2:10-CV-390

attorneys. This case has been assigned to Judge John Steele.

A. Failure to State a Claim

which relief can be granted.

1. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim

The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district

a. First Amendment Claim

judiciary to all litigants.” Id.

granted and dismisses their First Amendment claim.

b. Fourth Amendment Claim

to resolve the legality of . . . governmental actions without reference to other constitutional

Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”).

c. Fifth Amendment Claim

now address the remaining federal claims in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

2. 42 U.S.C. § 1985 Claim